Memes

1208 readers

20 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

572

Landbastards (midwest.social)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TexasDrunk 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think the key is to tax the absolute dog shit out of houses after your first or second. A company can own a house but unless the company lives there, tax the dog shit out of it.

Make it so that houses are reasonable for people to own and live in but speculators are out here subsidizing all our schools, parks, and roads.

[–] Delphia 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sliding scale makes more sense. I dont object to a person owning a couple of apartments or houses as investments (as long as they actually landlord ethically) but once you're a person making more than a "good living" off the rental income then ratchet up the tax sharply.

The reason I say that is 2 fold.

Investors drive a lot of new development, someone has to buy the land and pay for the house to be built and not a lot of people can afford to rent and pay a mortgage for the 12 to 18 months it takes, you need people building houses for people to buy completed. Its either going to be mom and pop investors or property developers.
Realestate is about the best investment regular folks can make. If you have worked hard, gotten lucky, had a demand job... whatever. Its realestate, stock market or just shove it in the bank and get diddly in interest. Im all for "people" doing well by owning half a dozen apartments as opposed to corporations buying up whole subdivisions.

[–] TexasDrunk 0 points 7 months ago

I ain't mad at that idea either. And now I'm drunk enough not to have any arguments about much of anything.

[–] grue 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'd love to see that happen, both because (a) fuck speculators, and (b) being able to say "told you so!" when it still doesn't result in housing that's affordable because the real problem is still simply high-demand areas not being allowed to have enough supply.

[–] TexasDrunk 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If high demand areas don't end up more affordable, you can absolutely say that. But if they do you have to come back here and tell me I'm the prettiest drunk you know.

[–] grue 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, I would gladly pay that price for zoning reform!

(If it ever happens, send me a PM to remind me.)

[–] TexasDrunk 2 points 7 months ago

Same, buddy.