You must log in or register to comment.
We’re well past things leading to economic crisis, and it sure wasn’t caused by affordable housing.
HeLpiNg pEoPLe iS tOo ExpeNsiVe
Fuck. You.
We need non-profit public housing that is suitable for middle-class families.
Non-profit doesn’t mean “free” or that money is being lost, just that the goal is to provide housing at cost rather than profit-seeking. Subsidies and such would still be available for low-income households as needed.
On one hand, yes this would hurt a lot of people and corporations. On the other hand, we’re already hurting, so fuck it.
Just ban being a landlord guys. Tax owning land that you’re not using out of existence. Rent/leases are simple vectors of wealth transferal - they move money from the poor to the rich. Everyone should own their own flat/house. Every business should own the space they work out of.
There is no good reason housing should be an investment vehicle akin to a stock or a bond.
We should live in Tardises
If I were President, I wouldn’t try to rule my country like a (particularly stupid) King. I would ask Congress to convene a task force comprised of economic experts, and then to propose, debate, amend, and hopefully pass a piece of legislation that addresses housing costs while having the consent of a majority of elected representatives. And if Congress said no, I would suggest that the citizens vote in new Congresspeople who will actually take the actions they desire.
Also I would ban any stupid kids from voicing any “if I were in charge” opinions, on penalty of time-out and having their phones taken away.
It should be locked at 50 cents per square foot. So a studio apt would be like $500 a month. Its close enough to what prices were in recent memory before the insane jumps in rent cost the last decade.
Why couldn’t the US have guaranteed government housing available to any citizen that needs it? A $100 a month apartment to cure homelessness shouldn’t be a funny joke … it should be questioned with “why should it even cost money”?
Government housing tied to the cost of 1 weeks minimum wage. So simple, so elegant.
The government actually helping people without lining the pockets of the capital class? That’s commie talk
NOT IN MY AMERICA HIPPY!!! -Richard Nixon
Because then Trump gets elected, state housing gets neglected and people start dying.
They need the extra asbestos for fireproofing. It’s going to be hard work bringing back all the harmful chemicals of yesteryear.
Democrats never directly helping people (without lining the pockets of billionaires) is exactly why Trump was elected. FDR was the last President that actually fought for the working class and he was so popular he was elected 3 times.
I’m gonna say it: Billion Clinton is a bad person, but he was a good president.
For me personally I’d like a 50-60 square meter apartment for no more than 2x my annual income. And I’d like to be able to get a loan with a monthly down payment equal to whatever I’ve been paying in rent for the last couple of years.
I can pay 12500 NOK a month in rent, but for some reason the bank can’t trust me to pay the same amount if I were to buy an apartment? Fuck that.
That was a scam they put in place after 2008 when they were being punished for scamming us. (while scamming us for bailouts for the previous scam) It takes a lot of government regulation to keep the banks from stealing, good thing thats gone now!
Turn every company into a worker owned co-op and then it becomes 100x harder for companies to do shady immoral stuff
I mean thats fine as long as the Millions of chinese and vietnamese workers making Iphones get to keep their cut of the company. I just hate nationalistic protectionism. These are all global companys. I’d be down to share.
Banks used to trust people and that has led to GFC. So most governments now have legal frameworks to ensure that banks don’t trust you anymore. I don’t think you want another GFC.
Surely there can be a middle ground.
I hate that I’ve been paying close to 150k NOK a year in rent for the last ten years but for some reason I can’t be trusted with a loan unless I make a lot more and save up something like 300k.
Except for the fact that I have a place to live it feels like I’m throwing money out the window.
I don’t know what the situation is in your country, but here’s an example from the UK.
Imagine you bought a £500k house in London just after the pandemic. The mortgage rates were around 1.2-1.3%. You could afford monthly payments at the time, everything looked cool. Now a couple years later the war in Ukraine starts, economy tanks and interest rates go over 7%. Now your monthly payments become 3-4x higher and you’re fucked. You lose your house, become homeless and you still owe half a mil. The end.
Interesting to see the difference. In the US it’s most common for mortgages to be “fixed rate” and remain the same for the entire loan period. Downside is a higher base percentage, we got down to about 2.6-2.7% in the same time period. Upside is that your payment will never go up.
Yeah, that’s the difference. But in general British mortgages are much cheaper. That also leads to a situation, that people invest free money instead of over paying their mortgages. I’m still on 1.32% for example, while even my basic savings account pays me 4.5%.
The situation in Norway is luckily a bit better than that, but I’ve heard from friends that their mortgages became a bit more expensive the last couple of years. Shit, is it really that bad in the UK? People’s payments tripled or even quadrupled? Sounds like capitalist dystopia.
From what I can gather the payments didn’t increase near that much in Norway, and we have solutions like exemption from down payments among other things for situations like the one we’re in now. I know some people with really expensive homes sold them and bought smaller cheaper ones to lighten the economic load, and a lot of people defaulted on expensive car loans. I think the situation hit people with expensive homes and cars the hardest because a lot of those people weren’t willing to adjust to the reality.
If I was allowed to get a loan I wouldn’t have gone over 1/3 of my income, just like with the rent I pay today. I’d manage, but they’re incredibly strict with who gets one.
It was that bad for a short while, but plenty of people had to re-mortgage during that short while and they got burned real hard. But due to borrowing limitations no one became homeless. That’s the point of them. I know it doesn’t feel fair, but I saw myself all that happening and I’m happy that banks don’t trust people anymore - it’s better that way for everyone involved.
Then this is my take:
- no taxes on first home
- some tax on second home
- taxes on any home past the second grow exponentially, doubling for each additional home
- order of the homes is always from less expensive to most expensive
- same is valid for companies
- for companies owned by other companies, all the houses owned are considered as belonging to the mother (root) company, so there’s no “creating matrioskas to that each own a single house”
Obviously offices and factories are not habitable space and therefore not counted in this system.
Housing shouldn’t be an investment asset, especially in a for profit system, or you’ll just make BlackRock again.
It shouldn’t be an investment asset.
Homebuilding is still a business though. You still need someone to risk their money, assemble the materials and crew, complete the project and find a buyer for it.
If there’s no demand for a product no one will build it. There’s always going to be demand for a mythical product that can’t be built. Like cheap housing.
I just spent $2,000 on a handful of wood, shingles, and siding to patch my house up. like 1/10th of a single wide trailer. That’s just the materials i’ll be providing the labor which would normally cost $30-$60 hour.
So it shouldn’t be an investment asset, someone still has to invest in it being built, so that a homeowner may live there.
I think that’s what s/he was trying to resolve with the doubling of tax on each additional property. It would become cost prohibitive very quickly to have multiple properties.
You would have to close the endless amounts of tax deductions on real estate to make it matter. If they can write off the loss as a business cost than the portfolio will just eat the tax and pass it on to the renters.
Yes. No single change will solve the problem. It would have to be comprehensive.
Property taxes can also be used in this manner, you don’t need national legislation to use your city/town council. You have a lot of power at a local level to solve your local problems, its hard to get peopel organized for it. You tax undesirable housing to subsidize housing your desire. I know my problems here in Maine are different than those in California as far as real estate.
A national plan and blueprint would be nice, but i still think this is a problem with local governments that can’t be solved as each location has its own needs and problems.
There’s no market incentive for building small homes or efficent towns. Think about how much money we spent to get people to use EV’s same needs to happen for housing, you need incentives for buyers and producers to take the great leap.
They need to offer low interest rates for construction loans, for first time home buyers only. That would solve the housing crisis. Anything else would make inflation worse, or wouldn’t address the housing supply issues.
Problem: universities and other entities which require many buildings. How does this play into it? Do you count the entire campus as a single property?
My take?
-
corporations aren’t allowed to own land or houses other than the office space and production facilities.
-
people can only own the buildings they live in (with proof of living there at least X% of the year)
-
The state takes over all houses and land that become unused by these laws
-
The state rents out their property as ‘rent to own’, or as housing for the homeless
Ah the ‘state’ So donald trump should take over all housing…
No wait, the nation of people who elected donald trump, who’s imaginary new government(which will be so much more awesome) that state should do it!
You need your revolution first friends, im waiting. It’s your time to shine and you’re still lurking in the dark quoting theory.
I don’t live in the USA, so my trust in my government is at least a little bit higher.
I agree that the government under trump is… not suitable for such a socialist concept. One can only hope that a better one will rise from the ashes.
That being said, in general, control by the state is better for the people, even though it’s less effective. Taking ‘greed’ out of the equation for the housing market would do wonders.
That’s basically China with extra steps. How are you going to deal with your companies siphoning money out of your economy by buying foreign real estate?
Of course, it’s basically a communist idea from even before the Russian revolution.
To answer your question: since corporations aren’t allowed to own more than the buildings they work with, they could not buy foreign real estate - except for facilities or offices they really use.
I don’t think I know all the answers, it was just a interesting idea I read a while ago.
As far as I know it was never implemented, so weather it would work out or not is just speculation.
Corporations should be owned jointly in equal parts by the people who work there. Most live local and won’t want to do that.
Ah there’s that glorious protectionism that just shot the global economy in the foot! Constitutional law is gone and you’re day dreaming about reforming business law lmaooooo CLASSIC.
COMMUNIST REVOLUTION WEN?
This whole thread is about day dreaming about business law reform.
The whole world doesn’t stop to deal with each problem individually.
This doesn’t solve the problem, which is the lack of new supply. The real solution is to deregulate zoning
I think zoning laws are necessary, but they’re way too strict in some/a lot of places. Like, I don’t want a loud, polluting factory next to my home, but why are there places where all you can build are single-family homes?
One thing to is it comes down to incentivizing housing. someone needs to take the capital loss on creating a cheap house for a family in need. It’s the city and the tax payers. If you can’t figure out who is eligible for a cheap home, and who will pay for that person cheap home, and find a builder to build said cheap home, then it’s all just a waste of breath anyway.
The problem is if you have a housing crisis, and developable land, but the only housing projects you approve are $750k houses in giant suburb… There’s a huge difference between deregulation and planned incentivized development.
Communities have so much power as far as local approval for building developments and city design. You guy should be coming together and saying what you just said. How can we get more affordable housing without all the bad effects, what regulations do we need to protect your peace and health? What regulations are blocking a mixed use development in favor of a suburb no one can afford?
I disagree
Ok
Bububutttbut who gets the Waterfront property?!?!?
I saw a new development going up on the river and thought that. Next thought was how delightful it will be to watch the river consume it in my life time. Nature hates vanity.
I say that because some people can’t imagine a system other than the current one and they said that as a kind of a gotcha.
-
Nothing actually. That would work fine. If it was handled in good faith.
THATS UNIRONICALLY BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT
While I like the thought, still terribly bad in my opinion. Presidents should never have a say in any of that. That’s where we have fooled most of America. Legislation can make such a law and then the president can execute it by arresting those who do not follow the law that was made.
The president is a local cop and international diplomat. Locally they should do nothing that is not previously written by Congress and Passed the Senate and then signed (or not signed) by them or previous office holders.
International diplomat means they also cannot declare war and cannot make trade rules. They are a spokesperson.
If I were President I would follow the constitution and the amendments made thereafter. I would never want to be president, but if I ran I would focus my campaign on educating the populous on what the job is supposed to be, and who the members in their communities/cities/county/state are that they should be pushing for to do great things for them.
I would cheer for them to elect legislatives who will write thorough adaptable bills that can help their constituents and keep a platform along the lines of “Presidents don’t make laws, Vote for good people who will write good legislation for your community, and please don’t make me have to perform a job that hurts our people. America’s governing is decided by your representatives”
I think you underestimated how much power “executing the law” gives you. And no matter what you believe, it can be immoral to not exercise this power sometimes.
Sure you can educate the populous and hope good people are elected, but you can’t guarantee things always go how you hoped. What if the Congress passes some truly reprehensible law? One you deeply disagree with? e.g. genocide, apartheid, weapons for the oppressor, tax break for the rich, what have you. Would you still hold on to your beliefs and execute the law faithfully? Should you?
if i were president i would do a billion executive orders and try to resign from the UN security council because we clearly don’t deserve that veto power
Just do me the favor of starting with the first, or maybe just dissolving the security councils veto power, and keeping the UN together. I think many of us overlook what knowledge diplomats do learn of struggles in countries most citizens could never name, and some they can because our information is often localized. Maybe make a U.S. funded broadcasting nationally of their meetings with a council local and abroad mixed that give their briefings and present the views.
I don’t think you could ever get the Security Council to dissolve itself. The only reason the UN was able to get off the ground is the veto, the great powers wouldn’t have joined otherwise.
But our permanent seat. That veto. That’s ostensibly under our control. And it shouldn.t. We suck. We use it so much crap like. Gone. I want it gone. Give it up.
I fear you forget who the rest are and what they use it for. Are we terrible, yes. Would the world be better off if we didn’t have it… Maybe. The vacuum it would create without disolving it completely would be treacherous. It gives us no right to use it. But it doesn’t mean there won’t be bad actors other than us that do. We have examples currently ongoing
there’s like 10 non-permanent seats on the council, flipping one of the forever-seats to temporary isn’t gonna create a vaccuuummeee
A vacuum forms when you, say, disolve the whol dam thing
When China Russia Iran and India are motivated in the same path, which of those seats do you think can disincentivize them. I’m not saying the U.S. should have veto power, I agree… But logistically, when China does well by manipulating Russia into smattering their children over eastern Europe and depleting economic wealth as well as all of their offspring suffering for both Europe and Russia, what do you see as a viable way to make them feel checked in a way that stunts such.
I should say, no I don’t think China is behind all of this in some conspiracy or some shit. But the powers of large economies and populations will always be pushing at each other demanding more so long as Capitalism is the center of our world. The U.S., China, India, E.U. (hate to lump them) all have agreed that capitalism is the choice for them.
This is why we battle for what seems like nothingness so often. Power. The reason so many nations didnt shift to renewable resources earlier was because of pressures from “super powers”.
Solar power won’t run out before humanity does. Nuclear energy won’t run out before humanity does. Geothermal energy won’t run out before humanity does. Wind might, but that’s because we keep fighting over land to assert dominance.
We are hitting a revolution where energy dependence should never be an issue again. Transportation, heating, cooling, cooking whatever it may be. And global powers have fought it tooth and nail because when someone has a home with heat, cooling, food, transportation for cheap… They don’t have to answer to power unless it can break everyone else who has it around them as well. The rich right now compared to the middle class SHOULD be, the cost of their fancy coat, but both coats can insulate the same. Power fears happiness within “scarcity” and our scarcity should be enough to make people happy, so they create artificial scarcity and have to drive people to homelessness and other issues to make sure we are still scared.
Fear drives capitalism (edit: which by the way, should define it as terrorism last I checked).
Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to understand the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. They are all coming from terrorism trying to gain freedoms manipulated by the fear intentionally driven into them)
The floor moves to vote in the “Send gansey boy (a.k.a @dickthree) to hell” bill.
Respond with a yay or a nay.
FUCK IT WE BALL(yay)
my second order would be sending you to hell
Well, buddy…
