cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162
Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.
Removed by mod
But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I’m not seeing your point there. Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?
Removed by mod
Commodifying things makes them cheap? As opposed to decommodifying? That makes no sense
Removed by mod
Nationalized healthcare
Making something unsuitable for investment so we preserve its primary function (houses being a home to a family and not an airbnb or an empty rental).
People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.
Removed by mod
Literally any other type of business.
People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.
Removed by mod
If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.
And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.
To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.
Removed by mod
Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.
Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.
That’s bullshit too.
Removed by mod
And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?
Removed by mod
It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren’t paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s instead ultimately the tenants.
They hire people to do that, they don’t do it themselves.
Removed by mod
What do you think “passive” means in the term “passive income”? I don’t care if it becomes harder to earn “passive income”, especially if it’s coming from people just doing what is necessary to survive.
Why should it be an investment at all?
Removed by mod
Why should a human necesssity be an investment?
Removed by mod
There’s more than enough housing that everyone can afford to own? Why are there homeless people then?
Removed by mod
Its interesting that you say drugs and mental illness are the problems. Isn’t the fact that housing is commodified and costs money the HUGE problem? They can’t afford it, is the reason they’re homeless. The way you’re making it look is that the problem is just them, which is an extremely dehumanizing starement, especially when you are ignoring the obvious answer that’s its because some people are allowed to profit off of others need for shelter.
Are you a libertarian? The way you bring up printing money, cronyism, ill-conceived laws etc. sounds like you might be
Removed by mod
Really butchering the language here to not say “passive income” or “making other people work for me”
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.
Removed by mod
…to live in…
Removed by mod
Because you want a nice house to live in?
Building should be profitable, owning should be of limited profitability.
Removed by mod
Building is separate from owning.