this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
48 points (86.4% liked)
Australia
3507 readers
90 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There should be a law against owning properties you don't live in.
That said fucking with real estate agents I can get behind so do whatever on that front. Maybe consider not being a landlord though.
I can think of a few exceptions. But I think owning multiple properties in the same location for more than a specified amount of time should be illegal or heavily taxed.
For example, you buy a home and are still trying to sell an old one. You might own two houses for some time. You might inherit a house and need to sell it.
You might have family in multiple parts of the country or work in multiple parts of the country/world and need a place to live.
A friend’s mom had severe asthma and was told to leave her home state during the winter and live in Florida.
But I have a friend who owns like 3 hours in the same neighborhood just as rental properties. That should be illegal/heavily taxed.
Laughing at the person calling Mao a dictator, guess their comment was blocked in here. Popular support and being elected mean nothing because he wasn’t white. “Authoritarian” is even better. And then they yap some nonsense about living in someone’s head when they were the ones crying because you posted a Mao emote.
Why’s there a murderous authoritarian dictator here? That’s some real tankie chud shit.
The user you're responding to is a long time anarchist who's been active in various indigenous anarchist orgs for at least the last several years and has hosted multiple fund raiders for them through the site. He's not exactly a tankie unless you consider him being rude and praising the number one landlord basher a single time to instantly outweigh all the anarchist praxis he's been doing for years.
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
Sure, and it also led to mass deaths, brutal authoritarianism, and destruction of thousands of years of history.
And it ended with state capitalism and a ruling billionaire class.
Fuck authority.
Nice anti-communist think tank talking points you got there. Do you have any reliable evidence that shows it? All the evidence I can find kinda of points to the opposite?
Ruling billionaire class? If you’re a capitalist in China and you even slightly fuck over the environment or your workers you get executed.
Mass deaths..? You likely mean the deaths through starvation in one of the worst events of drought in history, which then never happened again? Or the deaths of the fascist reactionaries that fought against the revolution?
State capitalism? Just go read a bit on socialist oriented markets and the theory behind the Chinese socialist model. You might not agree with it, but if that’s state capitalism, you can give me some and I’ll smile.
And brutal authoritarianism? You literally never read a single source on Chinese democracy. I bet you live in a place that is infinitely less democratic.
I'm trying to picture what this looks like. Who do we rent from if we can't afford to buy a house in this alternate vision of the future? There is no way that 20-year-old me working at servos had the capital to buy a house. I had zero savings and a low income.
I see you invoking the Maoist uprising in another comment, but I'll be honest - the years following that uprising were hard for a huge swathe of the population (not to mention fatal for Millions more). I would not want to live through a Chairman Mao. Modern China happened despite Mao. Not because of him.
You literally cannot conceive of a reality wherein a home does not have to be rented from a parasitic landlord?
You cannot conceive a future wherein you don't have to afford a home?
Also Mao is a beloved figure for many because he lifted millions out of poverty and ended the brutal feudal system that preceeded him. He also famously said "no investigation no right to speak" and you clearly need to do some investigating.
This is akin to a freed slave asking "who do I serve then?"
If you think it was hard to live under Mao, you should see what it was like before him.
What was it like to live in China before 1949 compared to after 1949? Please support your assertions with relevant statistics.
I don't know what your point is. China was a shitshow. Both before and during Mao's time. I don't live in such a place though. And I absolutely would not want to go from where I am now to being under Mao. He'd kill me for being an "intellectual" for a start.
Don't worry mate. There is 0% chance of anyone anywhere mistaking you for an intellectual.
Mao: peasants dont have to pay rent anymore
me, an intellectual: nooo, i cant foresee a world where my wages arent siphoned by a passive landowner!
Considering you are confidently politically and historically illiterate I don't think you need to worry about being executed for being an "intellectual".
The practice of "renting" needs to die in a goddamn fire. Single family homes should never be "rented". Temporary (6-month to 5-year) occupancy of a single family home should be done under a "land contract".
Basically, the occupant starts making mortgage payments (principal, interest, taxes, insurance) but title stays with the landlord. The landlord receives only the "interest" part of the payment. The "principal" part of the payment is held in escrow, in an interest-bearing account. This is the occupant's equity in the home.
If the occupant stays through the term of the contract, title transfers to the occupant, the escrowed principal payments transfer to the landlord, and the contract converts to a private mortgage. If the occupant leaves before the term of the contract, the principal payments are returned to them.
Land contracts build tenant wealth and drive people toward home ownership. 20-year-old you, with no capital and working a minimum wage job, should be able to enter into a land contract and start building wealth.
To drive us toward such a system, we can provide significant property tax advantages to owner-occupants. Investors can only get those advantages by getting the occupant of a property to qualify as an "owner". A renter would not qualify, but a tenant under a land contract would.
Basically, we phase in an increase in property taxes, and a commensurate (or greater) owner occupant credit. Current owner-occupants will pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who adapt, and convert their "tenants" to "buyers", will also pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who refuse to convert will pay higher property taxes, while also serving a smaller pool of tenants with better options.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/vienna-s-social-housing-and-low-rent-strategy/102639674
Good quality, cheap housing.
Meanwhile the roof in my kitchen has almost fallen out (huge hole in it) and when I reported it to my landlord they instead arranged for a “routine” house inspection next week.
get the CAV to have a peep and watch the hilarity unfold
Ironic that Mao is discussed and the biggest culprits in the housing market are (allegedly) Chinese nationals.
Reportedly, in certain Chinese cultures, men (and young men) do not have access to women and you women unless they are a land owner. It doesn’t matter if the land they own is a single-room apartment that has room for half a single bed and never has any tenants, they own land so they get a root. This also explains all those huge ghost cities in China which are all unoccupied high-rises.
You and everyone else talking shit about China are not doing so in a principled manner and are displaying incredible amounts of racism and chauvinism.
Wow! this is some of the stupidest shit I have heard in days. There are more citizens of the USA and UK that own property in Australia than Chinese citizens.
Your "reportedly" statement is made up bullshit and the "ghost cities" were a lie. they are now full of people. Our backwards ass government can't conceive of infrastructure until a decade after its needed and then they get bent over the barrel with budget blowouts that cost the taxpayers double the original stated costs. Meanwhile China spent a bunch of money during the financial crisis when materials and labor were cheap to build infrastructure and you act like it is a bad thing.
https://www.thebureau.news/p/fake-chinese-income-mortgages-fuel
It is continuing to happen overseas.
I am not an economist, so I do t know how valid this is, but it certainly is plausible.
not sure we go that far (in a sane system rentals have their place) but absolutely start taxing the ever loving shit out of anything over the PPR. The more houses the more tax. More. More. MOOOOOOOOOORE. They speak the language of money, make it snarl at them.
And ban corporations / companies / business entities from owning standalone housing and land.
Literally the only way to achieve this is through some sort of revolution. Reformism is impossible under the dictatorship of capital.
Mmm, you talking like the sexual revolution or like the Russian revolution? 'Cos you can miss me with that latter shit, change wrought of violence leaves people confused, unthinking and ends up with a new pack of cunts in charge doing the same shit in a different hat.
People who call for violent revolution in the western world tend to pull their playbook out of goddamn religious idealism. Specifically that whole weird apocalypse obsession. One big final war and then all things will be well!!!
Nope.
There is no final goal to be kicked here. There is no final deciding victory. There's just the unromantic never ending work of improvement. Deal with it.
Yeah, it's a pity there isn't a law against it I guess. If I sold that one extra house I'm hoarding the housing crisis would be pretty much over tbh.
I get what you are saying about this not being a matter of personal individual responsibility, but coming on here and complaining about a telemarketer that you could just ignore is pretty fucking insensitive to all the unhoused folks that you could be helping by just not being a rent-seeking parasite.
The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in human history and resulted in nearly totally equal distribution of land among the peasantry.
yeah yeah, no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
Of course not, snowflakes are inanimate objects and the cause of an avalanche are external forces not the combined desire of the snowflakes to go tumble down a mountain for personal snowflake advantage.