I’d rather pay five percent of my income in taxes and not have to walk by homeless people because they have somewhere to live and not have to worry about being homeless if I lose my job or eventually retire and have to worry about constantly increasing rent or property taxes on a fixed income than pay around a third of my income in rent so Brad and Karen can go on another vacation to the Bahamas this year.
How does that add up? If you pay 33% to Brad and Karen, where does the civil servants get the building sites, construction workers and materials for 5%, ignoring the extra space needed for the formerly homeless?
I’m basing this off of real world data taken from socialist projects. Rent in the USSR was 5 percent of income for example.
They do not have 500 percent margins because capitalism is incredibly inefficient and they’re only one small actor making money from the situation in a broader ecosystem of developers, construction companies, etc.
If you go for standardized housing with an abundance of construction sites then you also get your 5% rent within capitalism.
The problem is not the landlords but the voters and buyers. The landlords will offer 5% housing if the demand is there, together with construction sites.
That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.
If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords. All it does is reducing the number of participants which worsens the situation.
Renters can decide elections. Unionize and negotiate with the parties how many construction sites they will create. Then vote accordingly. Then rent will go down.
Landlords are not parasites. If you have enough competition then profits will go down until it’s barely rewarding to manage property, which somebody has to do.
Housing just costs so much becsuse of zoning laws and lack of public transport.
Unless you pull of a revolution, competing landlords are key if you want rentable housing.
But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen? People have to own their housing units. This requires credit. People who don’t get credit now, where will they live?
Of course you can establish Socialism. But you don’t believe that voters can change politics.
What’s the most possible change?
I think making the housing market competitive is possible. But it’s still difficult because there needs to be a decision about how to handle collapsing housing prices and the defaulting on most mortgages.
Where is the advantage if you have to pay more taxes for it? If you look at public projects, do you think housing will stay within budget?
I’d rather pay five percent of my income in taxes and not have to walk by homeless people because they have somewhere to live and not have to worry about being homeless if I lose my job or eventually retire and have to worry about constantly increasing rent or property taxes on a fixed income than pay around a third of my income in rent so Brad and Karen can go on another vacation to the Bahamas this year.
How does that add up? If you pay 33% to Brad and Karen, where does the civil servants get the building sites, construction workers and materials for 5%, ignoring the extra space needed for the formerly homeless?
Do landlords have more than 500% profit margins?
I’m basing this off of real world data taken from socialist projects. Rent in the USSR was 5 percent of income for example.
They do not have 500 percent margins because capitalism is incredibly inefficient and they’re only one small actor making money from the situation in a broader ecosystem of developers, construction companies, etc.
If you go for standardized housing with an abundance of construction sites then you also get your 5% rent within capitalism.
The problem is not the landlords but the voters and buyers. The landlords will offer 5% housing if the demand is there, together with construction sites.
The US is objectively an oligarchy based on many longitudinal studies. The problem is the oligarchy, which contains property owners.
That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.
If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords. All it does is reducing the number of participants which worsens the situation.
Renters can decide elections. Unionize and negotiate with the parties how many construction sites they will create. Then vote accordingly. Then rent will go down.
No, it has nothing to do with how landlords are parasites, it is just explaining that it isnt the voters fault that parasitism is allowed.
It helps to oppose the landlord class and abolish the idea of rent.
The US is empirically not a democracy. Is this going in one ear and out the other?
Landlords are not parasites. If you have enough competition then profits will go down until it’s barely rewarding to manage property, which somebody has to do.
Housing just costs so much becsuse of zoning laws and lack of public transport.
Unless you pull of a revolution, competing landlords are key if you want rentable housing.
But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen? People have to own their housing units. This requires credit. People who don’t get credit now, where will they live?
Of course you can establish Socialism. But you don’t believe that voters can change politics.
What’s the most possible change?
I think making the housing market competitive is possible. But it’s still difficult because there needs to be a decision about how to handle collapsing housing prices and the defaulting on most mortgages.
It is the voters fault.
Voters are responsible for politics.
Even if they are manipulated, it’s still their fault. Like drunk driving.