• untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get ‘paid’ by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.

    • slaveOne@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      How does that lower the cost of homes though?

      Edit: to be clear, I mean the cost to the buyer, not the builder.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        I think the poster is going by the mistaken assumption that there isn’t enough housing so they’re looking for incentives to increase supply. which is not the issue.

        • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          If you wanted bread to be cheaper, you would increase the supply of bread. If you want homes to be cheaper, increase the amount of homes. It might not be the issue at hand, but it definitely is a valid solution.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            corporations are not hoarding bread so they can rent them at obscene rates.

            • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Ideally, if one company charged too much for rent, the person living there could move to another place owned by a different company that would charge cheaper rent, in an effort to take business from the first company.

              The issue arrives when monopolies control the majority of homes, but those monopolies can be broken much more easily if the cost of buying homes went down (from an increased supply of them) and the barrier to entry of new homeowners who want to rent went down. That would increase competition and would eliminate these monopolies.

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                unfortunately in reality that doesn’t happen in the market. you can force it though. the government can she should build as many houses as necessary, relatively high quality and super affordable if not free, especially since there’s no profit motive. make the houses owned by corporations pointless to the point that they’re forced to compete with a non-profit housing entity funded by the public.

                and if they don’t do a good job just forcibly take them. housing must be a right and we should treat it as such.