ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    188·
    2 months ago

    so are you advocating for zero private ownership of houses?

    like what’s the policy proposal?

    I do kind of like that other comment, " nobody gets a second house until everybody gets their first".

    • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      100% tax on the value of land is the policy proposal. It makes economic sense, would let us abolish regressive taxes on labor and sales, would incentivize more abundant housing. Seriously. This is the solution.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        how?

        a one-time 100% tax on the value of the land?

        how does that change anything except make landowning less accessible to everyone except those born wealthy.

        or is that the point, that you want nobody to own land at all?

        I think I need some more context here

        • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          Sorry if I was unclear. It would happen continuously, over time. So like monthly or yearly, just like rent to a landlord.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            no worries, this is a paradigm shift, lots of details to get lost in.

            so you would pay 100% of the value of your property annually?

            how?

            how would those property values be estimated?

            I don’t see how anyone could have a home if they had to pay multiple times their yearly salary every year.

            • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              So the importantly, you would only pay tax on the value of the land your property is on, not the entirely of the property. Essentially, society owns the land and “rents” it to anybody who wants to use it for housing or a business, and that “rent” would belong to society, either as UBI or as funding for services.

              So if your house is in a really rural area, the land isn’t worth that much, your LVT would likely be quite low. If your house is in a high demand area, like manhattan, the LVT is high, and you should probably build and apartment or something so lots of people can live there. If the land you want to use has a lot of valuable resources under it, it would be expensive, and you have to pay a lot for the right to use it. This is essentially what Norway and Alaska to get as much money as possible out of oil companies and give it to citizens.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                21·
                2 months ago

                land not property.

                got it.

                that helps me wrap my mind around it.

                I want to look more into that, especially where it’s already in practice.

                thanks

    • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
      513·
      2 months ago

      I have a house. My parents have a house. At some point they die. I now have 2 houses…?

        • Asafum@feddit.nlEnglish
          134·
          2 months ago

          BUT PARASITE PASSIVE INCOME! HOW DARE YOU PASS UP PARASITE PASSIVE INCOME!!

          :P

        • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          And how do people pay for that? How would it be different from today? What stops people from buying one now that would not stop them in that case?

          • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            I merely explained you the view of those you are talking with, I’m not well versed on the topic.

            Luckily, the answer to your question is once again easy to derive from what the other people are saying: the price would drop to a reasonable price if houses got stripped of their role as a form of investment.

            Or rather, as it’s often the case in this day and age, if the selfish return of a profit was weighted against the damage to the community and found not to be desirable.

            • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              The solution is to just define that the price is low, okay. So are there still incentives to upgrade, maintain etc. a property when the value is low anyway? Is the money you spend on something thrown out of the window as soon as it is installed on the house? What about great locations, how to value those? So all the things that already apply to the housing market, how do you want to circumvent all of these factors that go into the value of a property/house?

              • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                You keep thinking I’m the herald of this position…

                I guess there’s two solution, the pragmatical approach is that people aware of the issue increase the offer on the market. The market is still a market so all you are saying still applies but it sees a rise in offer.

                The other, more idealistic but also, ideal, is government intervention so basically you get to set up the rules any way it make sense on the principle of putting a roof above everybody.

                All this aside, do you fix or upgrade the place you live in simply so that you can sell it at a higher price? I do this stuff because… That’s where I live?