• slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Housing is a basic human need, it shouldn’t be allowed to be only an investment. With the other items, you can just say “so don’t buy it”, which is not possible with housing, you have to pay for it, even of you wouldn’t like to.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’re all pieces of shit and deserve to be kicked out an airlock into deep space.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        When scalpers buy all the tickets to a concert in milliseconds, and the only way to buy a ticket is through a scalper, why are you blaming the person who wants to go to the concert instead of the scalper?

        • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          You could go do something else instead or watch one of their performances on YouTube for free. Nobody has a gun to your head, a concert isn’t a necessity.

      • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        6 as well. Imagine if nobody would buy houses and just expand their parents house by a floor for their own family.

        If that doesn’t work - make the neighborhood criminal by yourself right after those “people” bought houses.

        If that doesn’t work, just purge them.

          • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            If my assumptions are correct, there should be a crash of something within the next 4-6 months. My problem is that a new president always means a new unknown variable, like Bitcoin did nearly double its value after Trump won, there will be a still unknown thing once he gets into office.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        You could, but they aren’t the ones causing the issue, they’re just enabling profits to be made from it.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    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.

    • bunchberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • eatCasserole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Nederlands
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          Exactly. Good housing can be done.

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

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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).

        • Delphia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days 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.

    • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • bunchberry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    It always impresses me how much people worship landlords, even Canada up there is having a housing crisis but nobody dares question the sanctity of landlords. You can watch both the major parties arguing for hours and nobody ever brings up landlordism once. A lot of them choose to instead become hostile to immigrants, both parties moving further right on immigration because stopping immigration or potentially even kicking out immigrants to them is more acceptable than questioning the sanctity of landlords. You also saw a similar thing here in the USA, I remember after the Trump/Kamala debate when they revealed the plans for bringing housing prices down and Trump was “mass deportation” and Kamala was “a tax credit.” Not sure about every country definitely here in US and Canada, people here treat landlords like unquestionable deities, the idea that their right to rule should even be called into question is not even something that passes through most people’s heads.

    • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      One thing that started here in New Zealand was reporting on and ranking their portfolio sizes (lots had it tied up in an estate or trust, but that connection was able to be reported on - even if it might be ‘co-owned by the family’).

      We still have huge problems in this area but the noble few that don’t ‘stand out like a dogs bollocks’ and all the others just looked like the same bunch of psycho/sellouts

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      People with lots of money shouldn’t be allowed to make other people suffer.

      If I punched you in the face, I’d be in trouble. But if I drive up housing process so you become homeless, well that’s your fault.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        What the hell does that have to do with luxury goods? The house is the only thing you Might not consider a luxury good because you need housing but, owning your own property and not sharing walls with a neighbor is in fact, a luxury.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Maybe I missed it, but I think the OP is about how home “investors” are also scalpers. So the topic is home investors.

          • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            If them buying it denied other legitimate buyers with the same purchasing power from doing so, then yes. A home is too unique a purchase to be scalped though. It’s like art in that the house is the only 1 one available exactly like it. The same exact house built on a corner or further in on the block have different values.

            2 pairs of the exact same sneaker treated the same from the same production run are practically identical. Market manipulation through scalping is the only method to raise it’s price at the time of market sale.

            Tickets have a limited duration they hold ANY value so their prices can be manipulated through scalping too.

            Houses just shouldn’t be in the same conversation.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              This take only makes sense when there’s more houses than needed she people can be picky. That’s not this world.

              • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                There are as many houses as people want but not all the the quality or location they want. Manufactured homes can be dropped on lots for a fraction of the price. People live in the central valley and commute so they can have a home for much less. The world will never have everything everyone wants the way they want it. Thats not this world.