425
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BigBenis@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned? People and organizations can still own as many properties as they want, but at some point they're going to be taxed so much it'll be impossible to profit off of them.

[-] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Until we actually remove republicans and republican lites from the legislature I highly doubt we'll see any progressive tax reforms, like actually taxing the rich. You could probably find more support for expanding house buying programs. Stuff like lowering the down payment requirements, and or give a large grant for a portion of the house value if it is high and it could be clawed back at sale.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The problem right now is one of supply and demand, not because corporations are buying up too many properties. It's the other way around where corporations are buying up properties, because due to not increasing supply, and demand continue rising, it's a good investment.

We need more high density housing all over the place. I live in a nice little town right outside a large US city. We have a train right into the city, and a nice little downtown area that could certainly use more business. They have been trying to put up apartment buildings, but the NIMBY-ism is through the roof. It's like every little attempt to add more housing, people start whining to high heavens how it is killing our "small town" feel. I mean, I get it, I moved here for a reason, but something has got to give.

I can only imagine what's happening in more rural areas where everyone wants their big lots and single homes.

So I don't really oppose increasing taxes per home, but I don't think it's really going to solve the issue of increasing home prices as that's not the root of the issue.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Personally, I'd prefer a monthly fine for unfilled housing, that is based on the rate you are charging for it. Landlord wants to jack your rent up 20%? If you leave, they pay a fine, based on that amount until they fill the unit. The fines go to subsidizing housing costs, so there is a self-balancing system. Right now, with property values increasing at insane rates, owners don't really need to rent to break even, which leaves them free to price gouge their tenants. There is little pressure pushing rates back down, and there is all the freedom in the world to jack them up as high as you want.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

How would people here feel about a tax that increases in rate per-property owned?

That's functionally how the homestead exemption works already

they’re going to be taxed so much it’ll be impossible to profit off of them.

I would simply start a PAC with all my extra money and bribe/coerce politicians into reducing the tax rates.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bcgm3@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I'm not sure. Realizing I had no idea how much wealth the truly wealthy possess has been a reoccurring theme from the past few years. I think I'd rather see some hard limitations on who can own what.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] laceybell@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 3 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 88 points 4 days ago

What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it's not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 27 points 4 days ago

Why is the for profit house building industry involved in solving the problem they had a hand in making?

Reform the CPA and just build ourselves. Or use the army core of engineers. They are getting paid either way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Raise property taxes 500% for property that is not registered as the owners primary residence.

That should do it

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Don't be stupid. How else an I going to make money by doing nothing? Get a job? That's for people who don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 107 points 5 days ago

There's always talk about tax breaks for home owners...

Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.

That's what would fix it. Tax them out of the housing market slowly and.prices will go down as they get out of the business.

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 51 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Indeed. Nothing about this addresses rental markets and general extreme cost of living. Rather, it finds new ways to prop up severely overvalued housing markets.

Housing costs are so high because it’s become an investment over a necessary place for a human to live. A correction is severely needed and long overdue, but the government works hard to keep values artificially high from zoning laws at the bottom to preventing corrections at the top.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] KaiReeve@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago

At the very least, they should raise real estate taxes on empty units. This will penalize people for owning several vacation homes, as well as incentivize landlords to lower rates in order to fill the unit.

Difficult to enforce, but send a few people to jail for real estate tax fraud and the rest will fall in line.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Nurgle@lemmy.world 74 points 5 days ago

Build. Social. Housing.

Its not a difficult concept. The “market” is not going to build anything that lowers the price. The market is not going to build anything fast enough. The market is absolutely not going to give a flying fuck about building to create communities.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

Could that be because those homeowners are charging rents high enough to cover both mortgage and insurance and more on the rented property?

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Correct. In capitalism one must profit off the necessities of life.

Also, when you buy a house, the cost of the mortgage is locked in...assuming you don't do an adjustable rate mortgage which were never designed for long term homeownership.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

When they say "the housing crisis", is that what the poors call the record profit boon?

[-] BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 days ago

That's just the ruling class acting blind, disguising as a neutral news source

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

If I could, I would pass a law saying that no corporation could own more than two dwelling structures. That still allows them to own things up to apartment high-rises. But only two.

[-] Desistance@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

No. You make it so that they cannot hold single family dwellings period unless for the purpose of listing and selling them to non-corporate individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago

they'd just make nesting doll structured holding companies with all profits going to the top but any losses being contained within each branch

actually this sounds like a great idea BRB gotta register some LLCs in Delaware

load more comments (4 replies)

Decommodify housing along with every other human necessity, like water, food, utilities, and healthcare. There's no way that any of these problems will be fixed permenantly otherwise.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] 3volver@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated. Our system fucking sucks and is designed to protect land owners which is why we're in this situation. This is fucking up our entire society, slowly bringing us down, we're losing to China. This change needs to happen soon otherwise we're going to see the working class get milked hard enough that our real economy will collapse.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Ban corporations/private companies from holding empty residential housing. Problem solved. Not complicated

Who passes this law? Who signs it? My municipal and state governments are infested with real estate agents landlords, attorneys, and bankers, all of whom profit from artificially scarce housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] shiroininja@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

my rental office rose my rend $200 and I couldn't afford deposit on a new place. am fucked.

[-] Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world 45 points 5 days ago

We don't need tax credits.

We need Private equity out of the housing market.

We need better safeguards for tenants.

Financial moves like tax credits and incentives always end up benefitting the haves.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

What frustrates me is there doesn't seem to be anyone in a position to promote change to this problem that is really talking about it. They may pay it lip service but nothing beyond that.

[-] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

It's a national problem, but policies that affect housing are mostly local. So you need to override local control with state/federal policy, or convince a 50,000 municipalities to change their laws.

And the few states that have passed reforms for zoning, etc. are getting sued to shit in court by the city/towns.

This problem was 50 years in the making, it would take more than 50 years to fix.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 47 points 5 days ago

My piece of total shit landlord just took 4 months to fix my bathroom then raised rent an absurd amount. I’m enraged.

[-] TwistyLex@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 days ago

This is something I'm currently struggling with. I rent a house and the roof is leaking in two different rooms. Problem is that last time I had the landlord do any repairs he increased my rent by $300 a month. I know that having a leaky roof is damaging his property, but it's only a minor inconvenience for me at the moment.

I'm not about to spend an extra $6,000+ a year just to preserve his property when I can keep it from bothering me with a tack, some string, and a pitcher for the water to go into.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bblkargonaut@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

A partial solution is to remove nimby laws that prevent accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and medium and high density housing. Then you use the tax laws to heavily punish corporate ownership of low and medium density housing, and make it progressively more expensive for mom and pop landlords after a reasonable number of properties.

Hopefully this would lower the cost for single family housing, while increasing supply and variety of rentals. But somehow you'd have to prevent end stage capitalist collusion from fixing prices so competition could actually work to drive down prices.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago

It's so bad, I would happily accept the mega cities from judge dredd being built.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
425 points (98.2% liked)

News

21671 readers
4134 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS