▲ 868 ▼ 'Renters Are Struggling': Economists Back Tenant-Led Push for Federal Rent Control (www.commondreams.org) submitted 3 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 258 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] bluGill@kbin.social -32 points 3 years ago (4 children) That is a bad idea as owning a house isn't right for everyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] koro@lemmy.world 39 points 3 years ago* (1 child) While that may be, companies should not be able to have a stronghold on what should be considered a basic human need. Housing is already in pretty short supply, and it’s worsened by the fact that these companies buy a considerable chunk of this short supply and then turn the purchased properties into rentals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (2 children) "buying one home and turning it into 4 home reduces the amount of homes" and other fun takes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] koro@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying a house and renting it out to families that were wanting to buy it outright in the first place” FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Oh I'm sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 4am@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying one home and charging 4x as much for it” is the actual problem, but I suppose you have your head in the sand by default when the large boot of capitalism is on your neck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug. If you want prices down, you must increase supply permalink fedilink source parent [–] csfirecracker@lemmyf.uk 29 points 3 years ago (2 children) The idea being proposed here doesn't outlaw renting, only corporate ownership of residential property. It means that the people you're renting from are human beings who will eventually die and either be estate taxed or the house will be sold, rather than a corporation who owns your property until they go bankrupt or until the sun explodes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago* Bingo. A lot of current problems get better by: A) 100% death tax on all money over 100,000,000.00 at time of death. B) Closing loopholes that allow hiding that kind of money in unnecessary corporate assets or non-charitable trusts. C) Cracking down on what qualifies as a charitable trust. Want to leave that money to trust that makes the world better, better have numbers to prove it or it gets disolved automatically into other more effective charities. D) Automatically splitting every corpportation the moment it crosses a reasonable value threshold. permalink fedilink source parent [–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago So corps pay higher taxes on property vs sole owners? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hextic@lemmy.world 17 points 3 years ago* (2 children) Fuck you you shouldn't own a goddamn thing with that mentality. You bootlickers are the reason shit is bad and was always bad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Bardfinn@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] andrewta@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago (2 children) Solid intelligence response there permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago Parse their response, instead of just the tone. That person's mad and sad both at how tough living has become. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We've all had that one lazy piece of shit roomate that never cleans up after himself and I bet it's him. permalink fedilink source parent [–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 years ago Lol no one gets forced to buy one just because prices become realistic, wth permalink fedilink source parent
[–] koro@lemmy.world 39 points 3 years ago* (1 child) While that may be, companies should not be able to have a stronghold on what should be considered a basic human need. Housing is already in pretty short supply, and it’s worsened by the fact that these companies buy a considerable chunk of this short supply and then turn the purchased properties into rentals. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (2 children) "buying one home and turning it into 4 home reduces the amount of homes" and other fun takes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] koro@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying a house and renting it out to families that were wanting to buy it outright in the first place” FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Oh I'm sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 4am@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying one home and charging 4x as much for it” is the actual problem, but I suppose you have your head in the sand by default when the large boot of capitalism is on your neck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug. If you want prices down, you must increase supply permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -15 points 3 years ago (2 children) "buying one home and turning it into 4 home reduces the amount of homes" and other fun takes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] koro@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying a house and renting it out to families that were wanting to buy it outright in the first place” FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Oh I'm sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 4am@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying one home and charging 4x as much for it” is the actual problem, but I suppose you have your head in the sand by default when the large boot of capitalism is on your neck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug. If you want prices down, you must increase supply permalink fedilink source parent
[–] koro@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying a house and renting it out to families that were wanting to buy it outright in the first place” FTFY permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Oh I'm sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago (1 child) Oh I'm sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 3 years ago People buy parts of buildings all the time. They're called condos and multiplexes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 4am@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) “Buying one home and charging 4x as much for it” is the actual problem, but I suppose you have your head in the sand by default when the large boot of capitalism is on your neck. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug. If you want prices down, you must increase supply permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -3 points 3 years ago* Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug. If you want prices down, you must increase supply permalink fedilink source parent
[–] csfirecracker@lemmyf.uk 29 points 3 years ago (2 children) The idea being proposed here doesn't outlaw renting, only corporate ownership of residential property. It means that the people you're renting from are human beings who will eventually die and either be estate taxed or the house will be sold, rather than a corporation who owns your property until they go bankrupt or until the sun explodes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago* Bingo. A lot of current problems get better by: A) 100% death tax on all money over 100,000,000.00 at time of death. B) Closing loopholes that allow hiding that kind of money in unnecessary corporate assets or non-charitable trusts. C) Cracking down on what qualifies as a charitable trust. Want to leave that money to trust that makes the world better, better have numbers to prove it or it gets disolved automatically into other more effective charities. D) Automatically splitting every corpportation the moment it crosses a reasonable value threshold. permalink fedilink source parent [–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago So corps pay higher taxes on property vs sole owners? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago* Bingo. A lot of current problems get better by: A) 100% death tax on all money over 100,000,000.00 at time of death. B) Closing loopholes that allow hiding that kind of money in unnecessary corporate assets or non-charitable trusts. C) Cracking down on what qualifies as a charitable trust. Want to leave that money to trust that makes the world better, better have numbers to prove it or it gets disolved automatically into other more effective charities. D) Automatically splitting every corpportation the moment it crosses a reasonable value threshold. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago So corps pay higher taxes on property vs sole owners? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hextic@lemmy.world 17 points 3 years ago* (2 children) Fuck you you shouldn't own a goddamn thing with that mentality. You bootlickers are the reason shit is bad and was always bad. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Bardfinn@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] andrewta@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago (2 children) Solid intelligence response there permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago Parse their response, instead of just the tone. That person's mad and sad both at how tough living has become. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We've all had that one lazy piece of shit roomate that never cleans up after himself and I bet it's him. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Bardfinn@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] andrewta@lemmy.world -14 points 3 years ago (2 children) Solid intelligence response there permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago Parse their response, instead of just the tone. That person's mad and sad both at how tough living has become. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We've all had that one lazy piece of shit roomate that never cleans up after himself and I bet it's him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 18 points 3 years ago Parse their response, instead of just the tone. That person's mad and sad both at how tough living has become. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DaveFuckinMorgan@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago We've all had that one lazy piece of shit roomate that never cleans up after himself and I bet it's him. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 years ago Lol no one gets forced to buy one just because prices become realistic, wth permalink fedilink source parent