4 ms·

Political spin isn’t needed here. The debt and wealth gap are both increasing exponentially regardless of who is in office. When Trump was in office you could h

Political spin isn’t needed here. The debt and wealth gap are both increasing exponentially regardless of who is in office. When Trump was in office you could have flipped the parties and made the same statement.

nojvek 3y ago
I guess my deeper point is, someone could make a law - you can only max own 2 homes, after 3rd home and thereafter, taxes go through the roof for capital gain. Having homes as a speculative investment is a great way to have an entire generation having low home ownership. And I agree, both sides are equally worse. With colleges, homes, healthcare, daycares, food becoming so expensive, the effects will be huge but we’ll feel it decades later
- candiodari 3y ago
  ... and then the rental market collapsed. I mean what do you want to do with companies that work by owning (or ...) 200 homes and renting them out? There's a LOT of these, responsible for a big part of the rental market. Economic systems are systems of dividing up stuff. Capitalism and communism, and everything in between change who gets which housing. They cannot solve housing shortages. They (obviously) do not change the quantity of housing without the government at least allowing large housing developments.
  - nojvek 3y ago
    There are rental multi family units and single family homes. Dense multi family units - companies can go crazy building and renting them out. Single family homes is a special American dream. Having them subject to rent seeking greed is not great. It’s along the same lines of cities saying - in this zones you can’t have Airbnb short term rentals, in this zone primary home owners or second home rentals only, in this zone go crazy capitalistic do whatever you want. I honestly don’t care about billionaires. But if they are taking a huge pie away from finite resources like livable land/housing, then that is a problem. Focusing on income inequality or giving free money as universal income is wrong way to look at it. We just need a healthy distribution of finite resources that yield supply of basic needs. Needs being Food, water, electricity, internet, housing, clothing, transport, electricity, healthcare etc. Price gouging of utilities is restricted, no reason why we can’t encourage building more homes and ensuring a healthy gradient of distribution.

nojvek 3y ago

I guess my deeper point is, someone could make a law - you can only max own 2 homes, after 3rd home and thereafter, taxes go through the roof for capital gain. Having homes as a speculative investment is a great way to have an entire generation having low home ownership. And I agree, both sides are equally worse. With colleges, homes, healthcare, daycares, food becoming so expensive, the effects will be huge but we’ll feel it decades later

candiodari 3y ago
... and then the rental market collapsed. I mean what do you want to do with companies that work by owning (or ...) 200 homes and renting them out? There's a LOT of these, responsible for a big part of the rental market. Economic systems are systems of dividing up stuff. Capitalism and communism, and everything in between change who gets which housing. They cannot solve housing shortages. They (obviously) do not change the quantity of housing without the government at least allowing large housing developments.
- nojvek 3y ago
  There are rental multi family units and single family homes. Dense multi family units - companies can go crazy building and renting them out. Single family homes is a special American dream. Having them subject to rent seeking greed is not great. It’s along the same lines of cities saying - in this zones you can’t have Airbnb short term rentals, in this zone primary home owners or second home rentals only, in this zone go crazy capitalistic do whatever you want. I honestly don’t care about billionaires. But if they are taking a huge pie away from finite resources like livable land/housing, then that is a problem. Focusing on income inequality or giving free money as universal income is wrong way to look at it. We just need a healthy distribution of finite resources that yield supply of basic needs. Needs being Food, water, electricity, internet, housing, clothing, transport, electricity, healthcare etc. Price gouging of utilities is restricted, no reason why we can’t encourage building more homes and ensuring a healthy gradient of distribution.