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.
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.
I was thinking more non-occupancy just meaning "that you don't live in yourself", so that would mean filling your rentals with tenants doesn't save you from the tax.
Ah, then we are on the same page. I thought you were referring to:
According to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 15.1 million vacant homes nationwide in 2022.
These vacant homes, which include rentals, represent 10.5% of the country’s total housing inventory. -source
If a landlord who actually takes their job as servant to their tenants seriously gets some efficiency of scale - say enough units to justify a full time maintenance person who is available on call to support tenant issues - I don't want to punish them for that. Surely we can develop metrics to identify predatory landlords that are more accurate than number of properties.
Nah, number of properties is a pretty fucking good metric.
Being a "bad" landlord isn't the issue, the issue is taking properties off the housing market for rent collection, and driving up prices for everyone else in the process.
There are more empty units in this country than unhoused people to fill them, this housing crisis is one built entirely out of artificial scarcity created by letting speculators buy up supply basically for the purpose of scalping them to poor people who can't say no to the product.
It's the same kind of "market efficiency" that has ballooned medical costs, who can afford to compare costs on a kidney transplant? Nobody. Who can afford to shop around and wait on houses? Unless you're very lucky in today's economy, also nobody.
Housing does not abide the same market rules as designer T-shirts. Necessity goods will inherently have a hostage effect on the customers where you could in theory charge any price and just make the disinfortuned eat shit for it.
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.
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.
It was never a free market because of antiquated zoning laws.
At very least free market would have driven more dense residential construction because they would have made more return on their buck.
We need to allow and even promote medium rise residential zoning in more home scarcity is an issue.
Land owners be damned, the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few.
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.
Its hard to take that at face value. The UK and the US have a lot of anti consumer perspectives.
Do you have anything that describes the mechanism?
Its sort of a similar arguement to food stamps raising food prices right?
In either case its on the groups abusing a rule that are the problem, not the rule. There can be well worded regulations that minimize abuse, and we can also audit things.
Essentially, housing prices have hugely inflated (in much of the developed world) because demand is much higher than supply. Prices in the real-estate market are generally really reactive to changes in supply or demand because each 'product' is unique and limited, as well as being worth a lot of money so there is more pressure to maximize the potential gains.
This sort of plan increases the resources available to the demand side without increasing the supply side. This drives up prices since there are more potential buyers.
Anyone who couldn't buy a house without such a program is being added the the pool of people competing for a limited supply of houses. It won't increase supply because supply is heavily limited by other factors, most notably zoning.
It's unfortunate, because the thought behind such a policy is admirable. It's trying to make buying a house more fair and more easily achievable for a broad segment of the population that currently is effectively shut out from owning a home.
The current administration is already doing most of the things regulation wise. Its just not catchy or easy to understand like the down payment assistance part.
The changes the Biden administration has made and is making will take time, houses can't be built overnight, but the down payment assistance helps now.
In my opinion, its only a bad policy if we choose to allow it to be.
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?
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).
My wife and I only own our home because her wealthy dad was willing to front about half of the down payment with an interest-free repayment to him alongside the mortgage. With 25k from the government we'd not have needed that, and we got an acre in California. 25k is huge.
We've only ever had trouble with this mortgage once, and it was trouble we could have managed without help had we just tightened our belts for a while (just don't go to the ER. Even if you have insurance. Even if you're dying on the floor and an ex first responder demands you to for your safety: die instead. I am not joking, had it not been for familial help we'd be paying it off for the next 5 years and it would eat almost all of the little savings we've finally started managing to build up, so one more bump and we'd lose fucking everything), so it looks like all those "well sure you can afford rent that's 1.5x the cost of the potential mortgage, but how do we know you can afford it on the job you've had for 8 years?" Pricks were wrooooooooooong
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think in my case its only sentenced time that is charged, but I had to pay a bunch of fines and stuff after so it might have just been included in the court costs and fees.
It costs a lot to be in the judicial system. If you have money its far easier.
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).
Pretty much any time in human history where someone has tried to displace that many people, they've either failed or it turned into an ethnic cleansing.
This wouldn’t be rounding people up based on their ethnicity.
It would not be rounding people up
It would not be based on ethnicity
Instead:
It would be applying a particular dispatch when people encounter the legal system
It would be based on legal status
So in the same way that a government could have a policy like
IF you are stopped while driving drunk THEN you will be put in a jail cell for drunk people
this would be a policy like
IF you are brought into custody and we determine you’re here illegally THEN we will deport you
So no, this isn’t in any way like rounding people up (ie performing a dragnet across all of society to ferret people out) based on ethnicity. Like, at all.
Let's say you suddenly got yanked from your home and sent to live in the land of your ancestors (where you don't have a home or any friends). Would you survive?
If yes, ask yourself again, but now you're broke and have a medical condition and you require medication to survive. How about now?
These people getting deported don't have 2nd homes they can return to, and they can't just put one on a credit card.
Don't like homelessness? Mass deportation creates homelessness crises.
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.
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.
Nope! Everyone knows undocumented immigrants are buying ALL the houses, they're taking ALL the jobs, and getting ALL the public benefits (except for the benefits welfare queens get), they're bringing in and doing ALL the drugs, they're committing ALL the crime, and they're voting in ALL elections. It's true, I saw it on the TV. They're busy, I don't know how they have the time to do all of that.
You know, it seems kind of ridiculous when typing it all out like that. Were the TV people lying to me? Can't be; now excuse me, I'm going to tell my employees to keep working after clocking out and use the savings to buy several blocks of housing and rent them out at high rates. Their poor time management is not my problem.
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...
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.
The best way to change perception of mixed use residential areas is having people live there.
The bigger issue is that these buildings don't work by themselves. The biggest issue with suburbia is car dependency, which can only be countered by walkable cities and public transport (both of which require higher population densities)
I had another idea, if we reduced meat production we would get back land, could use that to make more houses. Sort of short term I guess. Or maybe its easier to plan a walkable city if you are starting with a blank slate.
What do you think of building new cities rather than retrofitting old ones?
Land isn't the problem, even in suburbia large commercial complexes fail all the time or rich people get some grand ambition to build their perfect city outside of the existing one. For example Las Colinas outside of Dallas. Or Rosslyn outside of Washington DC. These were planned in one go to be the ideal future of urbanism at their respective times, and there are many other examples beyond these. The issue lately if the local opposition is small or poor is zoning requirements and parking minimums drastically increasing costs.
Before you can start to change public perception it needs to be legal to build densely. Parking minimums and a variety of other commercial building code regulations make this much more expensive in the US, all while the people nearby in single family homes fight any new builds due to their poor perception of condos and apartments. Just removing the stigma is only one part of the equation.
My perception of dense housing is smelling cigarettes and weed and hearing fighting, dogs barking, loud exhaust, and loud bass for hours on end.
I think we change the perception by enforcing rules to keep people from disturbing others peace at home. Make it a reality that dense housing isn’t a worse experience. That isn’t currently the case.
I’d be much more apt to go back to dense housing if I was confident that my complaints would be heard and actioned up to and including evicting the offenders (after many complaints and no corrective actions taken). But I have never heard of such a place.
Ive heard that might be a materials issue. The apartment I stayed in had great sound proofing. I think its just lazy cheap builders, or whoever commissions their buildings.
I have no issues with my neighbors to either side of me. Either they're quiet or the walls separating us are decent enough to block it.
My issue seems to mostly come via the windows. Even closed, I can hear far too much.
I should clarify my original comment - I'm currently living in a townhouse (first time) and we're already trying to sell to get the hell out of here and back into what we're used to, a single-family home. I now understand why people hate them so much. I should have known from my time living in an apartment when I was younger.
Honestly I really don't think that's effective either. Giving people more money to buy something generally just means the market will respond by charging more money for that thing. The assistance will effectively get "priced in" given time.
It's honestly the weakest part of the Harris/Walz platform for me. Trump plan is utterly insane top-to-bottom though, and they're just using immigration as a scapegoat here, which is... something.
Makes sense to me. 25k is an incentive to buy a home, not an incentive to build one or sell one.
Make owning multiple homes more expensive. Fine landlords for unfilled housing, and make the fine is proportional to maximum advertised rate for the unit. Now they have an incentive to keep their units filled, and keep from jacking up rent.
Yeah, I don't think the idea is a total non-starter, but I'd definitely like some details. How will this be limited to ensure it's not being used by investors and house flippers? How will this be ramped down once the housing market settles to avoid it being permanently "priced in"? How will this be paid for and how much will it cost?
Unfortunately American political debates right now are more of a pissing contest about rally turnout than they are about actual policy details, because that's what sways the voters on the fence for some reason.
I started getting tons of calls because I was approved last year when she announced this. So if it can get me into something I want to know. But it just might be bullshit.
Yes we know the point of the post is "Democrats good" so it sounds off topic to you when people push back against that. But $25k of down payment assistance is fucking pathetic and we need to be calling this shit out.
The democrat solution isn't "get 3 more chairs" it is "provide the 7 kids who are already in chairs some extra materials to build more chairs for themselves"
Try using your words. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
This post is seriously sad though. Here you are enthusiastically disseminating propaganda for some of the most soulless, most evil humans who have ever lived just because they pretend that they're better than their buddies from two doors down the hall
it's down payment assistance, and down payment is typically around 20% of the value of the house. $25k would fully cover the down payment of a $125k [probably trashed] house, or 1/4th of the down payment of a half-million house
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.
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.
As usual, the blue choice is obviously much better than the red choice, but only in comparison to this bat shit crazy red choice. On it's own, the blue choice is still rather bad.
I'm starting to think that Republicans just exist to make the bad Democrat options look always better in comparison.
If you have one side that is pushing into the crazy territory really hard, the public discourse will change and shift in a way, that a moderate position will be perceived as extreme. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Your comment made me think of this spoken piece at the end of Anti-Police Aggro by Oi Polloi.
"Revolution isn't a thing that happens overnight. It's not a thing that - the orgasmic storming of Buckingham Palace and everything's all right in the morning, we've got a revolutionary society. We've got to realize that as things get harder - when we have a revolution, when we're headed towards a revolution things'll be harder still - and when we've obtained our revolution it doesn't stop - it continues on and on and on and on - It continues on until WE are the moderates. Right? When we are the moderates that's when we have a revolution. When ordinary people say "Anarchists? Ah, fuck - they're a load of fuckin liberals - they don't believe in revolution at all, ah, fuckin hell they're useless, like, you know" - Yeah, that's what I wanna see. That's what I'm fuckin' fighting for."
Well said. Yes, this is what self-identified-"leftists" miss out on. Their dismissal of Democrats is based in a child's fantasy of politics. In the real world, you have to win the election, move everybody up one, win another election, move everybody up one, win another election, etc. In the meantime, republiQans kick everybody back at-least-two either way, and the cycle repeats.
Magical leftist thinking says we all vote for gay space communism and tomorrow BAM it's replicators and free energy. Alas. There exists a timeline where that is at least sort-of-possible - but we ain't in it right now.
Leftism, at least the version currently prevalent on Lemmy, is literally religious thinking. There's in-groups and saints and prophets and holy scripture and a Rapture everyone keeps waiting for.
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, ...
That same article says it clear: the lion's share is the taxes part, not the house. If there was a public program, the taxes should be far lower. After all, that project wouldn't be a for profit one.
"While hard costs have surged during the pandemic, thanks to complications like diminished trade and supply chain issues, Alameldin said San Francisco has long been “practically infamous” for driving up soft costs with long, volatile planning debates."
That "practically infamous" means is not just a tiny part of the price.
Because being poor, uneducated, and unloved with a chip on your shoulder makes you a likely Republican voter. I would bet the whole farm that unwanted children are far more likely to grow up to vote Republican, and I think that's one of the primary reasons they fight against abortion, and any other policies that increase education and security for children.
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.
Don't know that it would be sufficient, but it's not free money to all property owners, just those that haven't yet been able to get to home ownership, but have been renting consistently for a couple of years.
So if in a normal market, a new homebuyer has a budget that's about $15k less than some speculative asshat looking for an investment rather than a home, then this tips the scales in favor of that would-be new homebuyer.
There needs to be some sort of tipping the scale in favor of people seeking to own their own primary residence versus those that already have their primary residence and ideally disincentivize those looking to acquire property they have no interest in using themselves.
When I say free money to the owners, I mean the primary effect on the market is only to increase the price, giving more money to sellers and more equity to owners. Without a significant increase in supply, it won't help much and giving 25k for single family homes would be counterproductive in general in my opinion. You want to fuck speculators and parasitic landlords, you do it by increasing supply. That can include a focused effort on high density and mixed use housing that the 25k doesn't help with.
Note that the proposed incentive only goes into play after a set level of housing stock is constructed. So significant new stock with advantage to people seeking first primary residence.
Nah, using tax dollars to increase property values in a housing crisis is counterproductive as fuck. It increases rents for everyone else as well. Better off attacking it from the supply side with a massive subsidized housing effort and just tanking the market. But that's politically toxic.
Federal housing policy has always been about inflating housing asset values. The Harris "plan" is just more of the same. Anyone who thinks either party actually wants to lower housing prices is delusional.
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.
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.
That depends heavily on how you are counting regulations in this case. You are increasing the number of enforced federal regulations while the regulations at the local level may be increased, decreased, or unchanged based on how local regulations interact with the federal regulation.
It is in the figure as a part of the housing policy proposal of a presidential campaign. The executive of the federal government doesn't control city councils so it must be federal regulations that will be impacted.
I mean they kinda are, but those areas just miss out on tax dollars of larger scale developments. I'd rather see more support and for lower cost housing that doesn't get flipped immediately into airbnbs. Stronger regulations that temper this current market of turning housing into a commodity where speculative reality businesses are out bidding home owners. That goes for single family and multifamily. U can build a huge priced right housing development but if all the units just turn into air bnb or rented out by shitty land lords, then we have solved nothing
In the macro picture, more supply always helps. Flood the market with airbnbs and airbnb owners can't charge as much so they'll stop buying so many. More rentals lowers prices so you don't have to rent from a slumlord.
But I agree, direct legislation is more immediate and effective.
Yes but the real difference is the scale. Approx half of housing in Vienna is publicy owned. This means rent becomes affordable for most as prices depreciate. And it costs the government suprisingly little, saving a lot on crime, homelessness etc etc. Another big part of the market is tightly rent controlled. So you only have maybe 20% of housing that is in similar market conditions to 97% of US housing.
I recently moved to Vienna and don't qualify for the public housing (you need to have lived here for a certain amount of time)but the sheer amount of it (and relative quality) means that even in the private market, competition is much less.
Compared to other cities we have lived in, the rent is much lower and the quality much higher.
Something like 60% of the population lives in either public or subsidized housing!
Or just build more public housing. It can be nice. It doesn’t have to be dystopian blocks in the sky and it should target all price ranges so that poverty isn’t just entrenched into public housing blocks.
It's the perfect solution for the democrats because it sounds good but also won't actually cause housing prices to go down, so homeowners won't feel like they are 'losing' money.
Yeah that's what I mean... it would be good for society if prices went down, but it would also make a lot of people pissed off, so they intentionally dance around actual solutions in favor of shit like this.
And financial support for non chain shops. We need a small locally owned economy too.
Also we used to have a very dense train network that we let rot because iT wAsN't PrOfItAbLe (and then we spent hundred of millions on roads ajd highways of course)
I'm here in Georgia, USA. The small towns in my state, those well outside the major metro suburbs, are either emptying out OR the state is bringing in non-union factory and data center jobs to dominate the local economy with the promise of jobs and economic revitalization. These companies are given huge tax incentives to build (or relocate) and thus contribute nothing to local coffers directly (necessitating higher property and sales taxes on locals). Currently, there's a car plant being built near where I live. The locals in the rural areas were shocked to find out after construction began that their water wells might stop working as the factory and it's subsequent suppliers setting up in the area will be draining the county dry... the state said they could. They're out of pocket to drill deeper wells and the state doesn't care... at the state level, they've actually made it harder (legally through environmental review) for local municipalities to direct the development of water infrastructure but easier for private developers (who have fewer reviews to go through) to just build whatever water infrastructure they see fit. Meanwhile, back in town, a handful of out of state multibillion dollar corporations are buying up any and all real estate that isn't nailed down and renting it back to us at exorbitant prices.
it's sorta like that but with way more opioid deaths
edit: and instead of rotting empty, megacorporations buy the empty homes and turn them into airBnBs to keep the house prices high. maybe that happens in france too?
Limiting how many homes that can be owned and preventing foreigners from owning rental homes would hurt the oligarchy, so our bought government would never do that, though.
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.
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.
In the UK a similar scheme just led to the entry-level segment of the real-estate market inflating faster than the rest.
It also led to a rise in more 'luxury' entry-level properties being built.
Again, it's not exactly the same concept, but in the case of the UK, most economists agree that most buyers actually would have been better off if the policy had never been introduced, since the price rises ended up outpacing the value of the assistance.
I'd have to look at numbers to say one way or another. I do know that the bottom of the market is already disproportionately expensive for what it is, but it's been a while since I learned about that that so I can't explain it to satisfaction.
This meme is extremely naive. For many American voters, the primary residence is their one major investment -- and will severely punish any elected official that reduces housing prices. The result is neither party will do much on this issue.
My assessed house value being high only makes my property tax burden higher.
I'm not particularly eager to use my residence as a financial instrument, I use it to live in, not just some asset.
Meanwhile, I'm worried about the next generation of my extended family finding somewhere to live without getting stuck on the rental treadmill. If my house value tanked 60% but now the folks currently struggling to own a house can find them, I'd be ecstatic.
Is this more projection from the right? The idea of 'luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in' very comfortably includes golf courses and expensive hotels. I haven't seen either of these things with Kamalas name plastered on the side. Trump makes this a part of his core identity. Figure it out.
Nice straw man, I was talking about dem nimbys refusing to tear down pointless low density housing, remove sfh zoning, and refuse to introduce regulations preventing mcmansions developers from receiving the funds like the ones being proposed as they always seem to be the ones to actually get federal funding.
California's housing crisis is exclusively because of dem plans like Harris' that refuse to address the elephant of old white nimbys refusing to give up their wastes of space.
179 replies
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.
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.
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.
The only rational argument against taxing the rich is that if you do it piecemeal, they'll just move to a lower tax area.
They're working 1 000 000 000 000 times harder.
tweets racist shit all day
That on top of a tax that is highly progressive after x number of properties, regardless of occupancies.
I was thinking more non-occupancy just meaning "that you don't live in yourself", so that would mean filling your rentals with tenants doesn't save you from the tax.
Ah, then we are on the same page. I thought you were referring to:
which is just another fucking gut punch.
If a landlord who actually takes their job as servant to their tenants seriously gets some efficiency of scale - say enough units to justify a full time maintenance person who is available on call to support tenant issues - I don't want to punish them for that. Surely we can develop metrics to identify predatory landlords that are more accurate than number of properties.
Nah, number of properties is a pretty fucking good metric.
Being a "bad" landlord isn't the issue, the issue is taking properties off the housing market for rent collection, and driving up prices for everyone else in the process.
There are more empty units in this country than unhoused people to fill them, this housing crisis is one built entirely out of artificial scarcity created by letting speculators buy up supply basically for the purpose of scalping them to poor people who can't say no to the product.
It's the same kind of "market efficiency" that has ballooned medical costs, who can afford to compare costs on a kidney transplant? Nobody. Who can afford to shop around and wait on houses? Unless you're very lucky in today's economy, also nobody.
Housing does not abide the same market rules as designer T-shirts. Necessity goods will inherently have a hostage effect on the customers where you could in theory charge any price and just make the disinfortuned eat shit for it.
When "landlords" own 10k+ properties, it's 100% a numbers game.
"Kill 3 kids and bulldoze the neighboring nature reserve (it won't give us more chairs, but it'll feel good)"
its called a nature reserve because its a piece of nature thats reserved to be used as a golf course in the future
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.
dont allow corporations and billionaires to buy thousands of flats
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.
It was never a free market because of antiquated zoning laws. At very least free market would have driven more dense residential construction because they would have made more return on their buck. We need to allow and even promote medium rise residential zoning in more home scarcity is an issue.
Land owners be damned, the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few.
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.
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.
Its hard to take that at face value. The UK and the US have a lot of anti consumer perspectives.
Do you have anything that describes the mechanism?
Its sort of a similar arguement to food stamps raising food prices right?
In either case its on the groups abusing a rule that are the problem, not the rule. There can be well worded regulations that minimize abuse, and we can also audit things.
Sure, here's a paper which explores the effects.
Essentially, housing prices have hugely inflated (in much of the developed world) because demand is much higher than supply. Prices in the real-estate market are generally really reactive to changes in supply or demand because each 'product' is unique and limited, as well as being worth a lot of money so there is more pressure to maximize the potential gains.
This sort of plan increases the resources available to the demand side without increasing the supply side. This drives up prices since there are more potential buyers.
Anyone who couldn't buy a house without such a program is being added the the pool of people competing for a limited supply of houses. It won't increase supply because supply is heavily limited by other factors, most notably zoning.
It's unfortunate, because the thought behind such a policy is admirable. It's trying to make buying a house more fair and more easily achievable for a broad segment of the population that currently is effectively shut out from owning a home.
The current administration is already doing most of the things regulation wise. Its just not catchy or easy to understand like the down payment assistance part.
The changes the Biden administration has made and is making will take time, houses can't be built overnight, but the down payment assistance helps now.
In my opinion, its only a bad policy if we choose to allow it to be.
They fucked it up then. When obama did 8k it worked well
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?
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).
My wife and I only own our home because her wealthy dad was willing to front about half of the down payment with an interest-free repayment to him alongside the mortgage. With 25k from the government we'd not have needed that, and we got an acre in California. 25k is huge.
We've only ever had trouble with this mortgage once, and it was trouble we could have managed without help had we just tightened our belts for a while (just don't go to the ER. Even if you have insurance. Even if you're dying on the floor and an ex first responder demands you to for your safety: die instead. I am not joking, had it not been for familial help we'd be paying it off for the next 5 years and it would eat almost all of the little savings we've finally started managing to build up, so one more bump and we'd lose fucking everything), so it looks like all those "well sure you can afford rent that's 1.5x the cost of the potential mortgage, but how do we know you can afford it on the job you've had for 8 years?" Pricks were wrooooooooooong
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right now some americans don't know they have items in their house produced by slave labor.
https://www.wkar.org/wkar-news/2022-03-08/pay-to-stay-jails-in-michigan-and-across-the-country-are-billing-people-for-time-behind-bars
Here's a quick read about it.
I think in my case its only sentenced time that is charged, but I had to pay a bunch of fines and stuff after so it might have just been included in the court costs and fees.
It costs a lot to be in the judicial system. If you have money its far easier.
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).
Additionally, "Mass deportation" is a fucking genocide, I don't know how this can even be said loudly. Guess people never learn...
It’s not in any way genocide. How do you figure that it is?
Pretty much any time in human history where someone has tried to displace that many people, they've either failed or it turned into an ethnic cleansing.
Rounding up people based on their ethnicity usually goes poorly
This wouldn’t be rounding people up based on their ethnicity.
Instead:
So in the same way that a government could have a policy like
this would be a policy like
So no, this isn’t in any way like rounding people up (ie performing a dragnet across all of society to ferret people out) based on ethnicity. Like, at all.
Are you saying that you believe that mass deportation would turn into mass murder?
Just look at history, Germany tried to deport hundreds of thousands of Jews before the extermination camps were built.
Let's say you suddenly got yanked from your home and sent to live in the land of your ancestors (where you don't have a home or any friends). Would you survive?
If yes, ask yourself again, but now you're broke and have a medical condition and you require medication to survive. How about now?
These people getting deported don't have 2nd homes they can return to, and they can't just put one on a credit card.
Don't like homelessness? Mass deportation creates homelessness crises.
Is it being proposed that people be yanked from their homes?
What do you think mass deportation means?
Free lollipops?
Read a wiki.
Learn to articulate yourself
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.
https://clearinghouse.net/case/15342/
He was found by a court of law to be a racist slumlord.
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.
Nope! Everyone knows undocumented immigrants are buying ALL the houses, they're taking ALL the jobs, and getting ALL the public benefits (except for the benefits welfare queens get), they're bringing in and doing ALL the drugs, they're committing ALL the crime, and they're voting in ALL elections. It's true, I saw it on the TV. They're busy, I don't know how they have the time to do all of that.
You know, it seems kind of ridiculous when typing it all out like that. Were the TV people lying to me? Can't be; now excuse me, I'm going to tell my employees to keep working after clocking out and use the savings to buy several blocks of housing and rent them out at high rates. Their poor time management is not my problem.
Immigrants own Chase Manhattan?!!?!
Damn, lern somethin' new errday ...
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...
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.
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.
It's actually an instance of super small government. Those regulations are dictated by city's and counties not by states
The american dream isnt raising a family in an apartment, and a lot of people were raised on that dream.
We need to change the perception of condensed housing I think before there is support for that.
The best way to change perception of mixed use residential areas is having people live there.
The bigger issue is that these buildings don't work by themselves. The biggest issue with suburbia is car dependency, which can only be countered by walkable cities and public transport (both of which require higher population densities)
I had another idea, if we reduced meat production we would get back land, could use that to make more houses. Sort of short term I guess. Or maybe its easier to plan a walkable city if you are starting with a blank slate.
What do you think of building new cities rather than retrofitting old ones?
Land isn't the problem, even in suburbia large commercial complexes fail all the time or rich people get some grand ambition to build their perfect city outside of the existing one. For example Las Colinas outside of Dallas. Or Rosslyn outside of Washington DC. These were planned in one go to be the ideal future of urbanism at their respective times, and there are many other examples beyond these. The issue lately if the local opposition is small or poor is zoning requirements and parking minimums drastically increasing costs.
Unless those requirements and costs are entirely padded numbers, they are there to handle the amount of cars people will be using right?
How do we reduce car usage if we can't make walkable cities because of cars?
Before you can start to change public perception it needs to be legal to build densely. Parking minimums and a variety of other commercial building code regulations make this much more expensive in the US, all while the people nearby in single family homes fight any new builds due to their poor perception of condos and apartments. Just removing the stigma is only one part of the equation.
Which part do you think has a larger effect, the regulations or the stigma?
My perception of dense housing is smelling cigarettes and weed and hearing fighting, dogs barking, loud exhaust, and loud bass for hours on end.
I think we change the perception by enforcing rules to keep people from disturbing others peace at home. Make it a reality that dense housing isn’t a worse experience. That isn’t currently the case.
I’d be much more apt to go back to dense housing if I was confident that my complaints would be heard and actioned up to and including evicting the offenders (after many complaints and no corrective actions taken). But I have never heard of such a place.
Ive heard that might be a materials issue. The apartment I stayed in had great sound proofing. I think its just lazy cheap builders, or whoever commissions their buildings.
I have no issues with my neighbors to either side of me. Either they're quiet or the walls separating us are decent enough to block it.
My issue seems to mostly come via the windows. Even closed, I can hear far too much.
I should clarify my original comment - I'm currently living in a townhouse (first time) and we're already trying to sell to get the hell out of here and back into what we're used to, a single-family home. I now understand why people hate them so much. I should have known from my time living in an apartment when I was younger.
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.
Aaaaaand I know everyone hates when someone points out their hypocrisy so I'm sure I'll get crucified for this...
This applies to student loan forgiveness too.
Absolutely. I'm for student loan forgiveness, but right now it's just giving money to banks and then burdening the next generation with the cost.
Lol what???
Tell me you don't understand what the student loan forgiveness was supposed to do...
Student loan forgiveness was not supposed to reduce the cost of schooling you.moron it was to stimulate the economy and.woukd have done exactly that.
God you people are dense.
Bullshit. You're the first person I've ever seen mention that as a primary purpose.
I've seen it explained that way in multiple places. It's what I understood it to be.
$25k down payment assistance where one bed one bath houses are routinely nearly half a million is a joke tbh.
Honestly I really don't think that's effective either. Giving people more money to buy something generally just means the market will respond by charging more money for that thing. The assistance will effectively get "priced in" given time.
It's honestly the weakest part of the Harris/Walz platform for me. Trump plan is utterly insane top-to-bottom though, and they're just using immigration as a scapegoat here, which is... something.
Makes sense to me. 25k is an incentive to buy a home, not an incentive to build one or sell one.
Make owning multiple homes more expensive. Fine landlords for unfilled housing, and make the fine is proportional to maximum advertised rate for the unit. Now they have an incentive to keep their units filled, and keep from jacking up rent.
I do think it can help those that are prepared and on the border of approval. But those that aren't it ain't gonna do shit.
Yeah, I don't think the idea is a total non-starter, but I'd definitely like some details. How will this be limited to ensure it's not being used by investors and house flippers? How will this be ramped down once the housing market settles to avoid it being permanently "priced in"? How will this be paid for and how much will it cost?
Unfortunately American political debates right now are more of a pissing contest about rally turnout than they are about actual policy details, because that's what sways the voters on the fence for some reason.
I started getting tons of calls because I was approved last year when she announced this. So if it can get me into something I want to know. But it just might be bullshit.
That's not everywhere in America. That's not even most of America.
And while it's an interesting discussion, it's not the point of the post.
Yes we know the point of the post is "Democrats good" so it sounds off topic to you when people push back against that. But $25k of down payment assistance is fucking pathetic and we need to be calling this shit out.
The democrat solution isn't "get 3 more chairs" it is "provide the 7 kids who are already in chairs some extra materials to build more chairs for themselves"
Bullshit. Not that you would know.
Try using your words. What the fuck are you even trying to say?
This post is seriously sad though. Here you are enthusiastically disseminating propaganda for some of the most soulless, most evil humans who have ever lived just because they pretend that they're better than their buddies from two doors down the hall
You're fun. We should hang out more.
it's down payment assistance, and down payment is typically around 20% of the value of the house. $25k would fully cover the down payment of a $125k [probably trashed] house, or 1/4th of the down payment of a half-million house
I'm curious how many houses/apartments are unused in the US, acting as a speculative asset and if building more is even necessary.
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.
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.
As usual, the blue choice is obviously much better than the red choice, but only in comparison to this bat shit crazy red choice. On it's own, the blue choice is still rather bad.
I'm starting to think that Republicans just exist to make the bad Democrat options look always better in comparison.
If you have one side that is pushing into the crazy territory really hard, the public discourse will change and shift in a way, that a moderate position will be perceived as extreme. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Your comment made me think of this spoken piece at the end of Anti-Police Aggro by Oi Polloi.
Well said. Yes, this is what self-identified-"leftists" miss out on. Their dismissal of Democrats is based in a child's fantasy of politics. In the real world, you have to win the election, move everybody up one, win another election, move everybody up one, win another election, etc. In the meantime, republiQans kick everybody back at-least-two either way, and the cycle repeats.
Magical leftist thinking says we all vote for gay space communism and tomorrow BAM it's replicators and free energy. Alas. There exists a timeline where that is at least sort-of-possible - but we ain't in it right now.
Leftism, at least the version currently prevalent on Lemmy, is literally religious thinking. There's in-groups and saints and prophets and holy scripture and a Rapture everyone keeps waiting for.
Yup. Lasting change requires shifting the Overton window to the left. Otherwise, you get something like Iran.
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, ...
Those who live in apartments, and only they, should collectively and equitably own the building entirely.
Put the squeeze on the landlord and then collectively make a low-ball offer.
In the SF Bay Area, it costs over $1 million just to build one "affordable" housing unit.
It's sold at that price. I'm sure it doesn't cost that much.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/it-now-costs-more-than-1-2-million-to-build-a-17463355.php
That same article says it clear: the lion's share is the taxes part, not the house. If there was a public program, the taxes should be far lower. After all, that project wouldn't be a for profit one.
No it doesn’t say that at all.
"While hard costs have surged during the pandemic, thanks to complications like diminished trade and supply chain issues, Alameldin said San Francisco has long been “practically infamous” for driving up soft costs with long, volatile planning debates."
That "practically infamous" means is not just a tiny part of the price.
Good thing the fucking country is bigger than the SF bay area then, isn't it?
They ban abortion and then don't want those babies/future adults housed. Classic.
Because being poor, uneducated, and unloved with a chip on your shoulder makes you a likely Republican voter. I would bet the whole farm that unwanted children are far more likely to grow up to vote Republican, and I think that's one of the primary reasons they fight against abortion, and any other policies that increase education and security for children.
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.
This is just to first time home buyers, not to anyone buying a house
Of the four ideas that are listed on this picture that's the one you gonna go with for being the worst?
Don't know that it would be sufficient, but it's not free money to all property owners, just those that haven't yet been able to get to home ownership, but have been renting consistently for a couple of years.
So if in a normal market, a new homebuyer has a budget that's about $15k less than some speculative asshat looking for an investment rather than a home, then this tips the scales in favor of that would-be new homebuyer.
There needs to be some sort of tipping the scale in favor of people seeking to own their own primary residence versus those that already have their primary residence and ideally disincentivize those looking to acquire property they have no interest in using themselves.
When I say free money to the owners, I mean the primary effect on the market is only to increase the price, giving more money to sellers and more equity to owners. Without a significant increase in supply, it won't help much and giving 25k for single family homes would be counterproductive in general in my opinion. You want to fuck speculators and parasitic landlords, you do it by increasing supply. That can include a focused effort on high density and mixed use housing that the 25k doesn't help with.
Note that the proposed incentive only goes into play after a set level of housing stock is constructed. So significant new stock with advantage to people seeking first primary residence.
Nah, using tax dollars to increase property values in a housing crisis is counterproductive as fuck. It increases rents for everyone else as well. Better off attacking it from the supply side with a massive subsidized housing effort and just tanking the market. But that's politically toxic.
The problem is that almost everyone would be better off if the housing market tanked. Except donors.
Federal housing policy has always been about inflating housing asset values. The Harris "plan" is just more of the same. Anyone who thinks either party actually wants to lower housing prices is delusional.
I'm all for it of they include vacant land.. I wouldn't mind having acreage, and getting one of them unfinished Amazon houses.
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.
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.
And that needs to change. Local communities are harming the nation with their NIMBY shit. Feds should step in.
So then the federal government should regulate zoning laws. Which is the opposite of fewer federal regulations.
You'll never believe this, but you can actually add a regulation that removes or negates other regulations, resulting in overall fewer regulations.
That depends heavily on how you are counting regulations in this case. You are increasing the number of enforced federal regulations while the regulations at the local level may be increased, decreased, or unchanged based on how local regulations interact with the federal regulation.
Good thing I said "removes or negates."
No one ever mentioned fewer federal regulations
It is in the figure as a part of the housing policy proposal of a presidential campaign. The executive of the federal government doesn't control city councils so it must be federal regulations that will be impacted.
That's one of the regulations we need to change lol
Regardless, the federal government has a long history of using federal money to convince or bully local governments into doing what the Feds want.
I mean they kinda are, but those areas just miss out on tax dollars of larger scale developments. I'd rather see more support and for lower cost housing that doesn't get flipped immediately into airbnbs. Stronger regulations that temper this current market of turning housing into a commodity where speculative reality businesses are out bidding home owners. That goes for single family and multifamily. U can build a huge priced right housing development but if all the units just turn into air bnb or rented out by shitty land lords, then we have solved nothing
In the macro picture, more supply always helps. Flood the market with airbnbs and airbnb owners can't charge as much so they'll stop buying so many. More rentals lowers prices so you don't have to rent from a slumlord.
But I agree, direct legislation is more immediate and effective.
It depends on which regulations. The second part of that “making federal land available” makes me think they want to develop national parks.
Public Housing broski. Take a look at Vienna for example.
We have that. It's a little complicated in ways that Vienna probably doesn't have.
Yes but the real difference is the scale. Approx half of housing in Vienna is publicy owned. This means rent becomes affordable for most as prices depreciate. And it costs the government suprisingly little, saving a lot on crime, homelessness etc etc. Another big part of the market is tightly rent controlled. So you only have maybe 20% of housing that is in similar market conditions to 97% of US housing.
I recently moved to Vienna and don't qualify for the public housing (you need to have lived here for a certain amount of time)but the sheer amount of it (and relative quality) means that even in the private market, competition is much less.
Compared to other cities we have lived in, the rent is much lower and the quality much higher.
Something like 60% of the population lives in either public or subsidized housing!
The US has a population density of 33 people km2, But "Massss deportation!"
Yeah. If you've ever been to Wyoming, you know that the country is not even close to overcrowded.
Down payment assistance is just going to drive prices up.
Yep, the big fix is to tax the hell out of single family housing owned by corporations. But no politician would dare run on that platform.
I'd settle for breaking apart the housing cartel personally. Its already illegal.
Or just build more public housing. It can be nice. It doesn’t have to be dystopian blocks in the sky and it should target all price ranges so that poverty isn’t just entrenched into public housing blocks.
It's the perfect solution for the democrats because it sounds good but also won't actually cause housing prices to go down, so homeowners won't feel like they are 'losing' money.
It's not intended to make prices go down you utter doughnut
Yeah that's what I mean... it would be good for society if prices went down, but it would also make a lot of people pissed off, so they intentionally dance around actual solutions in favor of shit like this.
Didn't happen last time and that's not how the housing market even works.
But both parties are the same? Right? RIGHT?!
Kill 10 kids, sell 7 chairs
Clearly the better solution, this will drive down the price of chairs and dramatically reduce the chairless population.
I don't know how it is in the USA but here in France we kinda have the following issues:
We need people coming back to the countryside and small cities but all the employment is bundled away in big cities...
WFH, better communications, give benefits to anyone opening business in a small town, ...
And financial support for non chain shops. We need a small locally owned economy too.
Also we used to have a very dense train network that we let rot because iT wAsN't PrOfItAbLe (and then we spent hundred of millions on roads ajd highways of course)
I'm here in Georgia, USA. The small towns in my state, those well outside the major metro suburbs, are either emptying out OR the state is bringing in non-union factory and data center jobs to dominate the local economy with the promise of jobs and economic revitalization. These companies are given huge tax incentives to build (or relocate) and thus contribute nothing to local coffers directly (necessitating higher property and sales taxes on locals). Currently, there's a car plant being built near where I live. The locals in the rural areas were shocked to find out after construction began that their water wells might stop working as the factory and it's subsequent suppliers setting up in the area will be draining the county dry... the state said they could. They're out of pocket to drill deeper wells and the state doesn't care... at the state level, they've actually made it harder (legally through environmental review) for local municipalities to direct the development of water infrastructure but easier for private developers (who have fewer reviews to go through) to just build whatever water infrastructure they see fit. Meanwhile, back in town, a handful of out of state multibillion dollar corporations are buying up any and all real estate that isn't nailed down and renting it back to us at exorbitant prices.
it's sorta like that but with way more opioid deaths
edit: and instead of rotting empty, megacorporations buy the empty homes and turn them into airBnBs to keep the house prices high. maybe that happens in france too?
Airbnb seems to be more of an issue in cities than here.
I still can't get over the other lack of journalistic integrity for CBS to put that up there. To concede that point. Like it's a fact. Utter bollocks.
Post-2016 Journalistic Integrity is a cruel joke.
With some few, rare, exceptions.
Wouldn't you want 5 more chairs, so the parents could sit too?
I feel like at the point you phrase what you're going to do as "mass" anything you're doing something wrong.
Can't think of a single sentence that starts with mass that ends well
Different definition of mass though.
Lol fair point. I thought of "mass adoption" since making the comment but that's it
I'd say the middle ground of learning from your mistakes and focussing on having less children in the future is perhaps something to consider.
In the meantime you should get enough chairs.
Both ideas are terrible.
Limiting how many homes that can be owned and preventing foreigners from owning rental homes would hurt the oligarchy, so our bought government would never do that, though.
The analogy is just incorrect. It's not that there's 7 chairs and 10 kids. It's that there's four kids and one asshole is taking up all seven chairs.
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.
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.
In the UK a similar scheme just led to the entry-level segment of the real-estate market inflating faster than the rest.
It also led to a rise in more 'luxury' entry-level properties being built.
Again, it's not exactly the same concept, but in the case of the UK, most economists agree that most buyers actually would have been better off if the policy had never been introduced, since the price rises ended up outpacing the value of the assistance.
It'll make the bottom of the market more expensive.
The increase in demand will a little. But not near the amount the aid is helping. We are talking a different order of magnitude.
I'd have to look at numbers to say one way or another. I do know that the bottom of the market is already disproportionately expensive for what it is, but it's been a while since I learned about that that so I can't explain it to satisfaction.
Bothesidezzz
sell the kids to purchase a tenth of a house
Broke: Kill three kids
Woke: Buy three chairs
Bespoke: Birth control 20 years ago
Dems: Loan money to the poor, give money to the rich
Republicans: mass deport legal residents (this one is much more morally balanced (lol you're retarded))
This meme is extremely naive. For many American voters, the primary residence is their one major investment -- and will severely punish any elected official that reduces housing prices. The result is neither party will do much on this issue.
My assessed house value being high only makes my property tax burden higher.
I'm not particularly eager to use my residence as a financial instrument, I use it to live in, not just some asset.
Meanwhile, I'm worried about the next generation of my extended family finding somewhere to live without getting stuck on the rental treadmill. If my house value tanked 60% but now the folks currently struggling to own a house can find them, I'd be ecstatic.
It's only going to get worse in the coming years as weather gets more extreme and entire towns and city's get swallowed up by the ocean.
"destroy nature and ruins lives" vs "destroy nature, increase stock value, build three luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in."
Is this more projection from the right? The idea of 'luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in' very comfortably includes golf courses and expensive hotels. I haven't seen either of these things with Kamalas name plastered on the side. Trump makes this a part of his core identity. Figure it out.
Nice straw man, I was talking about dem nimbys refusing to tear down pointless low density housing, remove sfh zoning, and refuse to introduce regulations preventing mcmansions developers from receiving the funds like the ones being proposed as they always seem to be the ones to actually get federal funding.
California's housing crisis is exclusively because of dem plans like Harris' that refuse to address the elephant of old white nimbys refusing to give up their wastes of space.