No one should get a second home until everyone’s had their first.
Except for the first one, each next home should be taxed exponentially higher.
All homes should be taxed based on land value rather than property value.
Based on your negative votes I don’t think Lemmy is a huge fan of Georgism. Which sucks because Mr.Beat had a great video on it.
Progress and Poverty.
i’d probably go second… it’s useful to have a housing surplus that’s financed by private entities so that you can have a house while working for your first house
but anything more than providing shelter with some small reward to encourage civic responsibility (ie building houses rather than owning stock) is complete idiocy
I hope thats “10” in binary
I’m not against people having a second or third home, as I don’t see the class above mine (a farmer getting a side hustle from his family house now that his kids have moved away) as particularly threatening or exploitative.
It’s the faceless class above that I hold issue with, coordinated rent seeking behaviour to the degree of being able to fix prices in an area. These do tend to be in the “10+ homes” category
It depends. If you own a second home just as an AirBnB, you’re part of the problem and should be eaten after the millionaires…
If you own 9 homes you’re as much of a piece of shit as someone who owns a hundred
Not everyone wants to own a home. There are lots of people perfectly happy renting as long as they aren’t being dicked over on the lease. For example, I don’t want a yard and property I need to manage. I don’t particularly want to mow a lawn or tend a garden and I certainly don’t want to deal with an HOA that might force me to do so. All of that can be avoided by living in an apartment. I am totally in agreement that owning for profit property is pretty shitty, but I don’t think it makes you equal to the likes of Blackstone and Vanguard
Should be illegal to own more than two homes honestly. Especially if you’re using them as rental properties. You should get one rental property and that’s it. The rest must be residence
Just make it illegal for businesses to own real estate, or participate in real estate markets of any kind outside of strictly regulated commercial areas.
Also make laws that protect home owners not banks… The list goes on… Nationalized food production, making it illegal for incorporated cities to have more than a very small number of homeless.
This would be a much better policy than OP’s “over 10”, since 82% of investment home purchases in Q2 2023 were to those with 9 or fewer houses. Investment purchases made up about 24% of all home purchases.
Why should they get a rental property? Why should basic fundamental human necessities of which we have plenty be treated as commodities? You get the house you live in, and I get the house I live in, and if you want to try to extort me for payment for that house no one should support you.
Some people have seasonal homes, and spend half the year in each. I’m not opposed to renting out the vacant one (which was part of the original purpose of air bnb). It’s a little lavish, sure, but definitely not the same as hoarding property to rent out.
Some people do prefer to rent than deal with the hassle of homeownership, so there is a place for people renting out a second property. No one needs to rent out more than one property through, corporate ownership should be abolished for anything that is not a single building (i.e. 50 units in a condo building) as well.
Shouldn’t even be allowed one property intended for rental honestly.
- single family dwellings – maximum of two
- multi-family dwellings – landlord is required to live in the same building as tenants
I’m fine with renting as it spares me all the hassle that comes with owning. I live in Germany where renting is heavily regulated and it works so good that nearly 60% of the people over here never own any of the flats or houses they happily live in.
Ten should be the max number as that represents an average apartment house over here.
Yeah, but you could rent from the government instead of private owners. You have completely no leverage over them, and government could use the rent money to build more housing for renting or sale and drive prices of housing down instead.
I’m all in with your suggestion and want to point to housing cooperatives which are nonprofit by default and make the members co-owners of the complete stock of housing the cooperative is owning and managing.
Over here in Hamburg cooperatives handle about 20% of all housing dampening prices in general as they rent noticeably cheaper than owners who want to turn a profit (in Germany rents are bound to certain maximum levels defined by the market in the city).
Vienna has even more housing in the hands of cooperatives which definitely helps with housing and prices.
I have more leverage over civilians than I’ll have over any government agency, ever.
What leverage do you have over them? Government agencies?
I have fists
And the legal system, which is far more efficient when it comes to fuck over people than the government.
It’d be tough finding rental properties in cities with apartment buildings. Or you’d have mishmash of owners which could make it harder to deal with them and possibly get them built.
Definitely would be interesting seeing how the market would deal with it.
the market is dealing with it by enriching a few landlords at the expense of a small army of homeless people in a given metropolis
I’m talking about the proposed limit
I love the binary in the newscast. Anything more than 10 homes should be illegal.
Found out this weekend that my uncle owns 40 houses in Indianapolis and complains about how aggressive homeless people are and how we need armed cops to deal with them.
We need armed cops to deal with landlords.
we’d need a people’s army
Condolences.
Does he rent them out? Or does he just…have them?
He rents them
10 homes? How about like 3 max. And that’s being generous.
Ten max. Super low tax on the first one, slightly higher on the next 2, then insane tax on anything over 3
2 or no deal and the hangings continue.
But unironically
Lots of terrible ideas haven’t been tried.
Defeat the fuckingcapitalists
abolishedeaten102In private ownership? Good. In hosing cooperatives/low profits? Bad. They are useful.
We’ve never tried pure capitalism so we shouldn’t knock it until we’ve given it a fair shake.
I mean, with legal political corruption, and everything being private down to healthcare and prisons, I guess US is pretty much on it.
We totally did try pure capitalism. It mostly led to naked children in coal mines (because their clothes would get stuck on the sides of the super narrow mining shafts, you see) and pepper with iron fillings (because scrap iron was cheaper than actual pepper). Also a lot of other horrifying stuff, but those two have always stuck out to me.
Blood iron levels plummeted after that pepper stopped being fortified and if the children don’t like their jobs or how they are treated they can find new ones.
There’s good money to be had shucking oysters.
truth is they yearn for the mines
It reminds them of the uterus.
Funny because it you talk to libertarians, we’ve never had a pure capitalist society. You probably just don’t realize how similar they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.
they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.
When you dont know the difference between socialism and communism
You’ll have to explain what you think I don’t understand and how you came to that conclusion.
Because for the idea of communism to exists it would have to be globally, otherwise youd need a state and a definition of communism is a stateless and classless society.
A common misconception is to think that what the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, etc. were/are doing is communism, when in fact it’s communists exercising state power to organize the economy in a state socialist, market socialist (or SWCC) etc. way. You can’t just claim power and say it’s communism now, in a context where globally capitalism and imperial forces exist. (See if you find and notable examples of anarchist/stateless societies that survived)
The cold war lasted a long time. Sure, pure communism is probably going to take a lot more time, but what these countries did (well ig I don’t know about Cuba) is move away from it. Every political system needs some idea of implementation and transition, and of course defense. To say that it’s impossible for a system to do that is conceding its outright utopicness.
I really don’t know what you mean by “it would have to be globally”. In anarchism, you solve communication with others by temporarily agreeing to have someone speak with other communities and rotating that person.
what these countries did (well ig I don’t know about Cuba) is move away from it.
Move away how and were? The Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, definitely were/are socialist.
Every political system needs some idea of implementation and transition, and of course defense.
Yes and AES states managed to do so.
To say that it’s impossible for a system to do that is conceding its outright utopicness.
Frederick Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
I really don’t know what you mean by “it would have to be globally”
A new system will always exist within an old one. You cant proclaim communism/anarchism and think that other countries will just stand by idle. (See Rojava, etc.) In a world where most other countries are capitalist and go on imperialist emdevours, you’re basically inviting them to colonize you, because you don’t have a state apparatus to organize defense. Communism/anarchism can only be proclaimed at once and globally where adveserial forces to the working class had been overcome.
Communists in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. are aware of it and are exercising state power to navigate these conditions. What they are doing is socialism, which ofc still has classes and it’s own contradictions which are being resolved.
I hear Walter White brews some pretty pure capitalism. Maybe we should try his stuff.
Check Argentina if you want to see what happens when you want to try “pure” capitalism lol Also not like there’s been a shitton of books written describing in detail it’s contradictions, which apparently you choose to ignore and espouse liberal ideology instead
Argentina hasn’t had anything resembling a free market economy in the past hundred years, but the 8 months of austerity to fix that shit sandwich is the best example of ‘pure capitalism’ you can come up with?
I specifically used that example because Javier Milei espouses the same nonsense as OP I replied to did. The ideology is very similar, and you can see how it materializes lol
Why so hostile? Name a different example and fuck off?
I just spat out my drink.
Lmaoooooo
Man, that was an easy bait wasn’t it.
A seventeen minute video is too long.
Can you summarize it into a snappy and humoros sentence or two?
Anarcho-Capitalism?
More like Anarcho-CRAPitalism!
I am become communist.
I saw this video like 3 years ago and somehow I’ve instinctively knew I was about to see it again before I clicked the link.
I don’t automatically recognize posters on Lemmy but when I do, its SatansMaggotyCumFart.
Which makes me ask, how do you identify politically?
I’m pretty open about my politics so if you’ve seen my postings you should have a pretty good idea.
Fair enough, I figured I’d ask, in case you wanted to declare a specific position. I know most people don’t like being put in boxes.
I guess I’ll look through some posts and speculate from there.
Sorry in advance.
Capitalism has a strong state because with it is more competitive than capitalism without state intervention, and it also needs more protection from revolution than it used to.
Literally just have an understanding of history and your meme ideology will be a thing of your past that is a little embarrassing
Oh I don’t get embarrassed easily.
