• Nurgle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 months ago

    Build. Social. Housing.

    Its not a difficult concept. The “market” is not going to build anything that lowers the price. The market is not going to build anything fast enough. The market is absolutely not going to give a flying fuck about building to create communities.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The market will built it normally, the government doesn’t allow them to.

      If you really want to incentive building then you need a land value tax.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…

    Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.

    That’s what would fix it. Tax them out of the housing market slowly and.prices will go down as they get out of the business.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Indeed. Nothing about this addresses rental markets and general extreme cost of living. Rather, it finds new ways to prop up severely overvalued housing markets.

      Housing costs are so high because it’s become an investment over a necessary place for a human to live. A correction is severely needed and long overdue, but the government works hard to keep values artificially high from zoning laws at the bottom to preventing corrections at the top.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        That and most people just do the standard deductions.

        So tax breaks mostly help the wealthy in mansions.

        It’s like how conservatives want to move income tax to sales tax. The wealthiest make a lot more than they spend. And when they spend it’s usually thru some shady shit where they don’t pay sales tax. Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It’s way of dressing up expenses to fit our criminally low corporate tax structure.

          It’s a special kind of fucked up that the government is paid for by the poor to serve the interests of the wealthy.

    • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      At the very least, they should raise real estate taxes on empty units. This will penalize people for owning several vacation homes, as well as incentivize landlords to lower rates in order to fill the unit.

      Difficult to enforce, but send a few people to jail for real estate tax fraud and the rest will fall in line.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not really, because the rental market does not behave like commodities do. Generally, you have to live within a reasonable distance of employment. For this and other reasons, renters are much more vulnerable and tend to get exploited far beyond the cost of the service.

        Basically, if tenants had any more money to exploit, they would already take it. Rents are maximally high wherever possible to extract maximum money from people who need a place to live.

        Consider the common joke that I pay this much in rent every month but the bank says I can’t afford a house where the mortgage would be substantially less.

        • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Agreed, and this would be solved by sufficiently high land value tax - if wasn’t profitable to be a landlord nobody would do it and the price of land would decline sharply. Henry George saw all of this coming a long time ago.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.

        They could try to pass it on to consumers, but smaller landlords wouldn’t have to pay it.

        Making the biggest get out of the game first

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.

            That might not have been clear.

            Set it at the parent company level so it’s not easy.

            If they have X amount invested in rental real estate, that can just be taxed then

            Believe me, the tax code for the wealthy is already complicated, they can handle this

  • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Decommodify housing along with every other human necessity, like water, food, utilities, and healthcare. There’s no way that any of these problems will be fixed permenantly otherwise.

  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    My piece of total shit landlord just took 4 months to fix my bathroom then raised rent an absurd amount. I’m enraged.

  • Iampossiblyatwork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    We don’t need tax credits.

    We need Private equity out of the housing market.

    We need better safeguards for tenants.

    Financial moves like tax credits and incentives always end up benefitting the haves.

  • Feliskatos 🐱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve never understood the need for a downpayment to purchase. If you can make the monthly payments that’s all that should matter.

    • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      In theory I guess it protects against the costs of dealing with defaults or having people walk away from underwater mortgages. But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.

        Thats exactly what PMI (Private mortgage insurance) covers. However if the insurance company doesn’t think you’re a good risk, then you might not be able to get that either. I have never looked at what criteria they use to grant or deny PMI. I’ve also never known anyone personally denied PMI.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The downpayment requirements are much looser now then they used to be. Pretty much anyone in the US can get as low as 3 to 3.5% down, which means the down payment can easily be less than all the other home buying expenses (closing cost, inspection, title insurance, loan origination, moving, transfer taxes, …). You also typically have a month before you need to make your first principle repayment, which helps offset the down payment.

      Veterans, active service members, and people buying in qualified rural areas can get 0 down mortgages.

      Depending on where you live, there might be further assistance available. Around here, the county offers (means tested) down-payment assistance loans that cover 100% the minimum down payment, and has an interest rate that is at least 2% lower than that of the main loan. They also wave all transfer taxes for all first time buyers.

    • Lizardking13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s risk mitigation for the banks. You don’t have to put 20% down, but generally you’ll have to pay an additional insurance (PMI) if you don’t.

    • ohlaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Exactly. The entry is a hurdle for many when that money could be used for repairs.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it’s not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.

  • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of course they are, landlords are buying the house for what you would and doubling the mortgage payment as your rent. It should be illegal for people/corporations to rent out more than one single family home.