241–250 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s cute, but not a very practical philosophy though. Most valued resources are physically finite. Who decides how beachfront properties are allocated? Who decides who should clean the toilets?
Maybe we should all take turns cleaning the toilets. Like jury duty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the United States, we call that “property tax”.
Not really, property tax is based on the current value, which in theory includes all development. "In theory" because in California there are strategies for doing renovations without triggering a reassessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s cute, but not a very practical philosophy though. Most valued resources are physically finite. Who decides how beachfront properties are allocated? Who decides who should clean the toilets?
Maybe we should all take turns cleaning the toilets. Like jury duty.
So stupid and why thing never change because no on can think their way to a point of action.
"I'm not doing any harm," you say. "I just want to keep what I own, that's all." You own! You are like someone who sits down in a theater and keeps everyone else away, saying that what is there for everyone's use is your own...If everyone took only what they needed and gave the rest to those in need, there would be no such thing as rich and poor. After all, didn't you come into life naked, and won't you return naked…
This theory is called communism and it is one of the deadliest ideas known to man.
That said, there's an element of truth to the statement. There would be no such thing as rich and poor, there would only be poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How do you propose we would — systematically — provide housing to people who, for whatever reason, are not in a position to buy? Should housing be bifurcated into government-provided housing for renters and privately-owned housing for those fortunate enough to have the money and stability to buy? So...council estates? Subsidized housing is a thing we have. >realize that property rentals are a necessary service that…
A house costs more than some people have. Without a rental market, those people become homeless or completely dependant on government. Neither is desirable. Without the profit incentive, what developer would build a multi unit apartment building to achieve higher density living in cities?
A developer still has a profit incentive; mostly the same one they have now, actually. They sell the apartments.
Like another comment here mentioned, housing is complicated. People don't want to live in a random house in the middle of nowhere ('roof over your head'). Some people prefer to be homeless on the street versus getting to a roof over their head that they don't like. People want to live where they want to live (near family, jobs, culture etc) Take NYC for instance. Politicians try to address the NYC housing crisis from…
A huge amount of housing issues across North America are due to zoning issues, with areas that don’t allow high density housing to be built (or where the residents fight fiercely against it). You don’t need to deal with most of the other problems you mentioned if you fix this first. The other issue is vacancy. 10% of homes are unoccupied. Coming up with ways to fill even some of those properties would be hugely impac…
Like another comment here mentioned, housing is complicated. People don't want to live in a random house in the middle of nowhere ('roof over your head'). Some people prefer to be homeless on the street versus getting to a roof over their head that they don't like. People want to live where they want to live (near family, jobs, culture etc) Take NYC for instance. Politicians try to address the NYC housing crisis from…
> Deregulate construction, get rid of unions, prioritize developer rights over tenant or homeowner rights. These all assume that the cost of new development is the building/development itself. It isn't. It's the land. The correct solution to this is a land tax based on the assessed value of the land.
There is NO one single point of influence that works the way we want it to, and that starts right at the 2nd-order effects, not even tertiary effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how many people in government globally refuse to understand this. The UK government has just been talking about inheritable 50 year mortgages. No one wants to build more housing. I think it might help people understand to put it in terms like this: there are 100 housing units out there and 150 people. How do we solve the problem?
Land is an asset. It needs to be a liability. Virtually every other problem is either a distraction or an indirect consequence (e.g. NIMBYs, too much luxury housing) of this core issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not really socialist at all. It’s in the governments best interest to have owners of properties. This leads to improvements making the capitalization of the country larger. It also develops more property tax capability. A governments 2 main assets are its people and its land. Ensuring that people have ownership of the land ensures the people will continue to support the government as there’s mutual interest. So…
The response, above, lists pros but no rebuttal to why government-guaranteed mortgages are not socialist. In a free, capitalist market, private providers would price and provide mortgages. This is not happening here.. For some Americans this may be difficult to digest since there may be cognitive dissonance…how can an American ideal be characterised as socialist.
A socialist government would either ensure everyone qualifies or it wound instead build large dehumanizing concrete towers to stuff thousands of people in, block after block.