this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
1305 points (98.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26961 readers
4324 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

There should be a hard limit of houses you can buy. Two by default (the one you live in and one you can rent to someone, maybe with a requirement that you need to live there occasionally) and an additional one for each child if he or she doesn't have one yet.

[–] stevedice 2 points 10 hours ago

Too soft. You should not be able to own a house in which you're not gonna live at least 6 months and 1 day per year. Period.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

In Cuba they have a law that requires you to sell your house if you buy a new one. That also means you can't be a landlord or else you yourself would be homeless. They also have a law that guarantees that if you don't own your own home, you at least get public housing guaranteed, which has rent capped at 10% of income so it can never exceed that. They have the lowest homelessness rate in all of the Americas.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

And they're guaranteeing this super affordable public housing all while under a comprehensive trade embargo for 60+ years imposed by the most powerful nation there is, who also happens to be their neighbor.

Never believe that housing "needs" to be expensive, it's 100% a decision made by people who profit from it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago

Exactly. Good housing can be done.

Shortages are an issue, and desirable only by capitalism -- because it drives up prices.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The problem is most houses are being bought by huge companies, not people.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We should really start by limiting that. If we start treating housing as a basic right, which we should, there's zero reason a company should be allowed to own housing to profit off of. It's a far bigger problem than my landlady who owns five flats. We can talk about limits for people like her later.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 20 hours ago

For sure. But we don't even consider water a basic right and concede unlimited water rights to mega corporations before reserving water access to the local population. So I have no hope for that to happen with housing...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago

They are using advanced algorithms to find the best prices for in demand properties based on profit percentages. Its become so ridiculous corpos are buying houses before individuals can even bid or have access. They buy them in lots at a time. Even using the same algos to place offers on existing properties where people live. Its ludicrous.

[–] Ookami38 1 points 23 hours ago

So limit those, too. A company can only own X properties. Above Y number of properties owned, Z% of them must be income-based. Go after any company getting around this with shell companies and shit. It's a solvable problem, no one wants to tell the fat cats no though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

First 5 investment properties should carry a 1% property income tax that is directly funneled into a housing development program, then a 5% property income tax on the next 5, 10% on the next 10...

Realestate is the safest and highest yield investment working people can make to build generational wealth. Dont cut the throat of the guy who can afford a brand new Audi to spite the guy who has to decide between wether his driver fetches the Rolls or the Bentley.

People should be able to aspire to being rich, just not filthy rich.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The problem is the taking beyond their need, not if it's many doing a little bit each or a few doing a lot each.

A swarm of locusts still leaves you with nothing to eat, even if each one only takes a bit (and unlike people buying a handful of houses to profit from merely owning them, the locusts only eat what they need).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Im advocating for pushing the wealth from the top down. Make it financially non viable to own hundreds of houses, make it seriously sub optimal to own dozens over the long term.

A lot of new development is driven by investors, to build a new house you need to live somewhere while its built, and pay for the land and pay for the build in stages as it goes. That pretty much requires you to be able to cover two mortgages at once. Most investors I've met are buying off the plan when its a block of dirt or an unleveled paddock and consequently getting it CHEAP. They pay say $500k for a house that will sell for $800k when its finished because average working people cant cover the difference. But the house gets built and adds more supply to the system.

If you destroy property investing as a market, you will seriously hamstring new development and make the problem worse. You need to make owning thousands over the long term nonviable but make investing and adding to the supply be the money maker.

[–] Ookami38 1 points 23 hours ago

I've no problem with people getting a bit of cash, but it's a problem when the investment vehicle is a necessity. What if it was water, or food, that people were hoarding, keeping at artificially low supplies, and selling as high as possible. We have that, it's called Nestle, and they suck massive asshole. Let's just not use basic necessities as profit vehicles.