1195
"Housing" Proposals (lemmy.world)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 128 points 1 month ago

Of course there's the best option which is an non-occupancy tax that goes up exponentially for each additional property you're sitting on for speculation.

That right there would be a hard counter to wallstreet hoovering in the housing market.

[-] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

It's like you're not even considering the feelings of the millionaires and billionaires with 72 houses each and I for one just won't stand for it.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I can't wait for the "rational" peoples argument against taxing the rich. Will it be something like a slippery slope fallacy? Maybe it will be "it's unfair to thoses that only just recently got rich." I'm thinking though they will go with, "it's not going to make a meaningful difference" then try and sell us trickle down in some new way.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago

"Kill 3 kids and bulldoze the neighboring nature reserve (it won't give us more chairs, but it'll feel good)"

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

its called a nature reserve because its a piece of nature thats reserved to be used as a golf course in the future

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 74 points 1 month ago

Neither choice is great. One is evil.

That 25k quickly becomes "oh, everyone had 25k more so we can charge 25k more".

Don't give rich house builders tax breaks, they're the ones causing the problem by deliberately not building enough. You're the fucking government. Build houses yourselves. Rent them through social housing programs.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

dont allow corporations and billionaires to buy thousands of flats

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 12 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that too.

The precious "free markets" have had their crack at it, and have shown that they're not to be trusted to either own or build them. Prices have soared and that's 100% intentional on their part.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

25k is for first time home buyers, not everyone. You can't have separate prices for first time buyers and the rest of the public, and a seller won't know how you are financed until after the house is listed anyways.

This absolutely will help, because if you'd just ask anyone trying to get a home, the down payment is the hardest part to satisfy.

The only way a house cartel can form like this is for those that own the homes. The builders don't own the homes, corporations do. Those corporations collude and price fix to create a cartel. Focus on that.

[-] ECB@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago

The UK had a similar scheme for first time buyers and it's often cited by economists as one of the biggest things fueling their housing crisis.

[-] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

The builders have made the 16 million empty homes in this country because they were just selling them to corporations. It's not that they are not hiding enough, it's that the rich have engulfed the entire pipe with their gluttonous mouths and there is nothing left for the rest of us.

When will we finally slay the beasts that are killing us?

[-] MrMcGasion@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

I've started to come around on the 25k down payment assistance. It definitely has it's problems, and there will absolutely be those who gouge because of it. But because it's specifically down-payment assistance it will still help first time buyers get mortgages on houses they can afford the regular payments on, but don't have the extra to set aside for a 10% down payment because rent is taking everything they could be setting aside for a down payment. And it's limited to first time home buyers, with 2 years of on-time rent payments, and says "up to" 25k. Wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being limited to 10% of the purchase price (which gets you more favorable loan terms).

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

It's not that they aren't building enough. It's that they are building big luxury homes because there is a bigger profit margin than making affordable homes.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Most builders are already fully booked for work. The one's that could work faster generally aren't the ones you want building your house.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

thinking that homeless illegal immigrants are the root cause of home shortage where a single corporation or a billionaire buys thousands of flats to rent them to people for exorbitant prices.

in one way it works because if you kick out many homeless people out of the country, you can say that in one year you cut homelessness by half.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Thats currently already done with jail. The main problem is homeless people don't pay their jail bills. In my state 15 years ago it was 30$ per day you had to pay to be incarcerated in jail, not prison.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 21 points 1 month ago

Okay america is sounding more and more like a joke. You have to pay to be in a processing facility? When you have no choice. And you’ll be incarcerated there during trial so before you are proven guilty of anything.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Fun fact! The Constitutional amendment that outlawed slavery also legalized slavery!

Yeah! And until right now, this very minute, as you're reading this, some Americans didn't know that.

[-] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago

Quick reminder: The Nazi German government emptied out Eastern European towns and villages taken by the Wehrmacht during various campaigns, most notably Operation Barbarossa, for resettlement of "pure" Germans to those occupied lands (called Lebensraum)... this started almost literally once these occupied towns and villages were far enough from the front lines. Also, the whole point of the US Government's genocidal forced march of native tribes, often referred to as the Tail of Tears, was to clear said native tribes out so the Southern aristocracy could seize the land for plantations worked by chattel slaves... whole swaths of what is today Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi were settled by whites as a result.

Many a "populist" (read: Fascist or proto-Fascist) operate their politics in this manner. Promise either cheap land (or, at the very least, housing) to the workers and others by committing what is, on it's face, a genocide. There's more modern examples (two in particular, going on right this minute for all the world to see), but I don't want to get the ban-hammer so I won't name them directly (I forgot to check the instance in which I am commenting before doing so, but not taking my chances).

[-] daddy32@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Additionally, "Mass deportation" is a fucking genocide, I don't know how this can even be said loudly. Guess people never learn...

[-] Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 month ago

Donald John Trump comes from a family of real estate speculators.

Akira Toriyama once said he based the character of Freeza on Japanese real estate speculators, who he called "the worst kind of people." (Source)

Am I saying Trump is Freeza? No, Freeza is several orders of magnitude more competent on his worst day than Trump was when he peaked in 1951. But I think it's important to underline, for the people in the back, what level of cartoonish evil we're dealing with, because for some reason people will read stuff like this and it won't sink in. Maybe DBZ will help.

I don't know. I'm tired, y'all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Marthirial@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

So the mass deportation would be of lawful alien residents, because undocumented residents cannot buy houses unless it is straight up cash, and even then would have a hard time getting insurance or utilities, you know, without a SSN, credit history or IDs. Unless they use a stolen SSN, which is very difficult and rare.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] superfes@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

Immigrants own Chase Manhattan?!!?!

Damn, lern somethin' new errday ...

[-] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 month ago

If they really wanted to change regulations they'd push changing zoning regulations in cities to allow building anything other than detached single family housing. That would be totally reasonable and help alongside tax incentives. But I have a feeling that's not what's meant by changing regulations...

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 month ago

They said “making federal land available”. I take that as they want to sell off land in places like national parks to be developed.

Which, needless to say, is an awful idea.

[-] somethingp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I thinks that's one of those state's rights things where federal government can't just tell a town how to zone it's own land unless they're taking it away from the town like for a national Park or something.

[-] terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

It's actually an instance of super small government. Those regulations are dictated by city's and counties not by states

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

I hate any financial assistance that doesn't address the root cause, because all it is at that point is more tax and wealth transfer to the rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm curious how many houses/apartments are unused in the US, acting as a speculative asset and if building more is even necessary.

[-] transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

Building more is necessary if the available housing is not located where appropriate employment is located. Thus, the gross number of available homes isn't a good metric to use for determining the actual need for new construction.

[-] Lyrl@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

If enough more houses are built that prices stop increasing faster than inflation, housing will no longer be valuable as a speculative asset. Building more houses BOTH makes housing immediately available, and changes the market forces in a way that pushes out investors squatting on un-lived-in units.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The worst idea is ever giving down payment assistance. Government subsidizing actual builders, sure, but free money to property owners just increases the price to meet supply and demand and goes right into their pocket. It actually increases home prices. Extremely stupid.

[-] ParanoiaComplex@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

This is just to first time home buyers, not to anyone buying a house

[-] friendlymessage@feddit.org 20 points 1 month ago

Of the four ideas that are listed on this picture that's the one you gonna go with for being the worst?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago

I have one "weird" and "radical" proposal: public housing to rent. Not to but. At affordable price. That would lower the price of every house, flat, ...

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

They ban abortion and then don't want those babies/future adults housed. Classic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Liz@midwest.social 15 points 1 month ago

The only thing proposed that's reasonable is "changing regulation." It's too easy to block new housing, and often times it's just flat out illegal to increase density or build mixed use.

[-] StructuredPair@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

But those regulations are largely controlled by local governments, not the federal government. Federal regulations can prevent building new housing in certain areas and conditions (like destroying habitat of an endangered species), but that is much rarer than a city council not approving projects or zoning changes because they want to keep property values high.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] telllos@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

The US has a population density of 33 people km2, But "Massss deportation!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FundMECFSResearch 14 points 1 month ago

Public Housing broski. Take a look at Vienna for example.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Down payment assistance is just going to drive prices up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] art@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

But both parties are the same? Right? RIGHT?!

[-] nroth@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Trump's sucks, but just giving people money will make all of the housing $25000 more expensive on average over time. There are so many better things to do with that money, like better public transportation and schools. She just wants to throw it down a hole and make housing more expensive, in exchange for some short-term support.

[-] FundMECFSResearch 7 points 1 month ago

It’s assistance not giving. I think it’s just a fund you can borrow from to get enough to start a mortgage.

It would also only apply to people who can’t afford the mortgage.

So it’s not going to impact house prices in the sense you say it would. Except slightly increasing demand to buy and thereby decreasing demand to rent.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

Dems: Loan money to the poor, give money to the rich

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

Republicans: mass deport legal residents (this one is much more morally balanced (lol you're retarded))

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
1195 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5432 readers
2711 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS