3 ms·
So you want the government to be the only landlord or does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)?
by newsclues 1y ago
So you want the government to be the only landlord or does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)?
- rpgbr 1y ago>[…] does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)? Uh… yes? I mean, housing is a basic right in most countries. Also, a humanitarian, right thing to do. That housing became big business (or business at all) is the real tragedy here.
- newsclues 1y agoCool, give me a free house. And when I burn it down smoking drugs, give me another one!
- ta1243 1y agoPrice is kept low so everyone can afford one, so the limited supply is rationed in other ways. I remember the local MP where I used to live boasting about how when she was a child her father managed to get a nice council house with the help of then then Local MP. I.e. rationed based on party loyalty. Or nepotism. We currently mostly ration on money, which is the least worse option if we refuse to increase prices. There is also rationing based on sexual favours, which I'd assume everyone would agree is terrible. Many would prefer to ration on place of birth -- if you are not born in the city then you don't get to live in the city and don't get the job opportunities of the city. If supply in say London suddenly doubled overnight though (magically make every borough the same density as Westminster - with all those big open parks), that would put downwards pressure on prices. It would release the currently suppressed demand as those currently living in overcrowded situations could afford to live on their own, those currently living outside the city who don't want to could move in. I'm not sure what the supply would have to be to raise main-home occupancy in London to 90% with prices down at the same level as it is in Stoke, but it's far far higher than it currently is.
- electriclove 1y agoOr limit people to owning 1 or 2 homes. Does it make sense for one person to own 100 homes and rent them out? Think about the distinction that permanently creates for people who live in that community. Something like that only benefits the landlord class.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWhat to do with the people who would rather rent than own?
- electriclove 1y agoLet them rent. There are many good reasons why someone would want to rent. Limiting the number of homes one can own spreads it out.
- vel0city 1y agoHow can they rent when there is practically zero supply of rental units because we've now made it illegal to own multiple properties?
- electriclove 1y agoThink shades instead of black/white. Our current rules can be tweaked. For example: 1-2 properties can be considered primary homes and get all tax benefits 3-4 properties allowed but no tax benefits 5+ properties not allowed
- jabjq 1y ago[flagged]
- electriclove 1y agoSeriously? How?
- poulpy123 1y agoWhy not ?