• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You should be forced to sell your house and rent

Socialism IS mainstream.
socialism is government control of resources
Millions of seniors are currently getting a check every.single.month from the government.
hardly socialism. try a social contract, I pay in now so i get SS insurance later.

They also have government funded healthcare.
subsidized HC,, I pay Part B. sociliazed HC is means tested for others
And live paying lower taxes than their neighbors.
Time doesnt stand still - it's the circle of life to dumb it down for you
 
And when you are 60+ you can continue to pay property taxes on your property at the going market rate. Not have them frozen because you are a senior. Get out there and bust your ass like the rest of us to live in our neighborhoods or move.

I'll have to look into that.

Step 1 is eliminating property tax freezing for seniors. That will get a bunch of them moving out of their houses and make property available for those who can afford them. And seniors get a chunk of cash to do what they want with.
F*** that, they have earned some rest. The young people need to do their share now.

I'd be careful If I wanted to take their house from them... a older citizen who has had their life's work taken from them has nothing to lose.
 
He'd get the vote of every adult forced to live with their parents because there is nowhere else financially feasible to go.

Imagine everyone between the ages of 18 and 35 was given the opportunity to rent according to their income by Biden.

He'd win in a landslide--especially if Trump was stupid enough to say he would use an executive order to force all those people to go back and live with Mom and Dad.

Mom and Dad would probably vote for Biden just as enthusiastically. Sometimes folks DREAM of an empty nest.
and here we go, more ACTUAL authoritarian crap by the DEMOCRATIC party.
 
F*** that, they have earned some rest. The young people need to do their share now.

I'd be careful If I wanted to take their house from them... a older citizen who has had their life's work taken from them has nothing to lose.
Neither do the homeless.
 
And this right here is what is driving a lot of problems in lots of parts of America. Hint: those Karens often aren't 30-somethings. They're 65 year old seniors who don't want their neighborhood to "change" and want things to be the "way they always were".

They don't want multi-family units, they don't want public transportation expanded, they don't want new development, etc. They want their neighborhood to be the same that it was in the 60, 70, 80, 90's.
we dont want addtional population density with apt buildings and multi-familiy homes.
Just like NY is struggling with migrants.. Population pressures are a bitch.. I experience the front end of the curve here in Florida.. You go in stores- nothing on the shelf, get in your car for some gridlock at 3PM'

Put in a bunch of newcomers ( and I dont mean just migrants- and the infrastructure is stressed
So you wind up with a neighborhood of single family homes, with a growing segment of the population in "frozen" property tax status because they are older...holding onto homes that other people would buy in an instant. And then schools, townships, etc. struggle to maintain their current levels of services (because providing those services gets more and more expensive and their property tax revenues are stuck due to portions of their town having "frozen" tax rates)...and can't even go and build anything NEW to generate revenue - because the Karens don't want things to change.

add in more populations you get all that without the benefits of home ownership
And when they CAN or DO develop more housing, their services lag behind because they can't fund them. And its the same Karens that show up and bitch about THAT also.
if they cant fund new infrastructure, why do you want more residential density?
 
Yeah, mass immigration is a real problem isn’t it.
No. We need the immigrants. Someone has to pay taxes to fund the socialism being received by the Boomers and older generations and do the labor to keep the economy chugging along. The next generations of Americans aren't as big as the older ones were because most Americans don't care to have (nor can they afford) 4, 5, 6+ kids.
hardly socialism. try a social contract, I pay in now so i get SS insurance later.
No it is socialism.
subsidized HC,, I pay Part B. sociliazed HC is means tested for others
Still socialism. Even if you don't want to accept that reality.
 
and here we go, more ACTUAL authoritarian crap by the DEMOCRATIC party.
If you think believing that housing is a right is something only Democrats believe, or that it is authoritarian, you are obviously ignorant about the subject.
 
You have no control over what home prices, mortgage rates, or home maintenance costs are in the future. You can prepare for the future and hedge your risks if you want to, but no one knows what the future holds and that's OK.

But most mortgages in America are fixed for the entire term and so if you have a fixed mortgage your mortgage cost will not go up unless there’s an increase in property taxes.

As far as maintenance, sure but if you’re renting your landlord has to pay the maintenance costs so that gets amortized to you through rent. And if you’re very responsible anx keep up your place and very handy with fixing appliances and stuff like that you end up paying more because you’re subsidizing people who trash the place.
You seem to be confusing "Is it better to rent or own" with a very different question: "Is it better to have a sizable amount of home equity vs not have a sizable amount of home equity".
Well somebody has to own the property to be able to rent it to you. So your own argument fails, clearly the property management companies and property developers believe owning is more profitable or else they’d lease property to sublease to you
Yes. Obviously it's better to have money than not have money. Again, that is not actionable. Renting vs owning is the correct calculation, even for people who already have a home. The only thing that's different for them is they should be slightly more biased toward owning, since moving is expensive and a PITA.

I would massively increase land-value taxes, which are currently zero in most places. (I think Pennsylvania is the only state that has one.)
I'm not really interested in increasing property taxes, except inasmuch as it's politically easier to do that, since the basic tax code for property taxes is already in place.

Glad you asked. The reason that a land-value tax is better than a property tax is because the structures represent some genuine effort on the part of the landowner (or whoever they bought it from) to improve and develop their property. There's no need to do anything to discourage that. In contrast, the value of the land is determined by things mostly outside the property-owner's control: The location vis-a-vis desirable cities and neighborhoods, any natural resources under the land, the farming quality of the land, how naturally beautiful it is, etc. In the words of Barack Obama, "You didn't build that." I think it's less desirable to tax productive behavior, such as building a house on the land or setting up a factory.
Property tax does encourage productive use of land, that’s why you see lots of strip malls and the old “taxpayer” buildings, or surface parking lots. Which are value ads.
Yes. Correct.

The wealthy own the vast majority of land in America and would pay the vast majority of land-value taxes.

That is precisely the idea. A land value tax encourages productive behavior (i.e. develop your land because it will not increase your taxes), whereas a property tax tends to muddle this message (i.e. develop your land so you have a more valuable house and we'll tax you for it).
Supposedly but there’s not really evidence that it does. Estonia has this tax and I see no evidence it encourages more development. The level of development in a society is dependent on many things and tax policy is way at the bottom. A city can only have so many high rise office towers and so if you’re taxing the land block by block you’re in effect overcharging the apartments rented to working people to subsidize profits from a bank headquarters tower.
I do believe democracy should be used to determine both of those things. I just don't think that four bored Karens shrieking at the city council because someone wants to build a duplex over the "historic" parking lot next door is what democracy looks like. Obviously zoning laws should be subject to democracy like any other law, which is why I'm happy that California's elected state government has made progress upzoning lots of land.
Well you say everything when you characterize city government as “four bored shrieking Karen’s” this has not been my observation going to county commission meetings
 
No. We need the immigrants. Someone has to pay taxes to fund the socialism being received by the Boomers and older generations and do the labor to keep the economy chugging along. The next generations of Americans aren't as big as the older ones were because most Americans don't care to have (nor can they afford) 4, 5, 6+ kids.

Egypt and Afghanistan have a very big young population base, good thing they’re stable countries with advanced social services just unlike Japan and Switzerland
No it is socialism.
No, that’s not socialism
Still socialism. Even if you don't want to accept that reality.
 
socialism is government control of resources

hardly socialism. try a social contract, I pay in now so i get SS insurance later.


subsidized HC,, I pay Part B. sociliazed HC is means tested for others

Time doesnt stand still - it's the circle of life to dumb it down for you

The government always does control all resources.

The question becomes is it publicly owned, or privately owned government that you get. The boomers opted for a private government that was not accountable to voters.

That’s why outside of senior citizens, you have to have a job to get healthcare because that is not provided by the government. And that’s just one example.

And that’s started changing since Gen X and millennial’s have started voting. That’s how you get things like Obamacare.
 
No. We need the immigrants. Someone has to pay taxes to fund the socialism being received by the Boomers and older generations and do the labor to keep the economy chugging along. The next generations of Americans aren't as big as the older ones were because most Americans don't care to have (nor can they afford) 4, 5, 6+ kids.

No it is socialism.

Still socialism. Even if you don't want to accept that reality.
lol..insurance isn't socialism.. we have a social contract to pay now for money later because our working income potential drops like as stone past 65
 
F*** that, they have earned some rest.
Says who?
The young people need to do their share now.
Why do you assume they aren't?
I'd be careful If I wanted to take their house from them... a older citizen who has had their life's work taken from them has nothing to lose.
Tell that to the working poor, younger generations that have no chance at owning a home and the homeless who don't have ANY place to live.
we dont want addtional population density with apt buildings and multi-familiy homes.
Why? We need to increase housing availability. We need the workers to fund the social security, medicare, etc. for the Boomers and above.
 
we have a social contract to pay now for money later because our working income potential drops like as stone past 65
Then why are you asking younger generations to work past 65 before they get benefits?
 
The government always does control all resources.
no
The question becomes is it publicly owned, or privately owned government that you get. The boomers opted for a private government that was not accountable to voters.
what?
That’s why outside of senior citizens, you have to have a job to get healthcare because that is not provided by the government.
ya it's called going to works and paying your bills
 
Says who?

Why do you assume they aren't?
easy,.. because they haven't worked hard until they are 67 or older yet.

Tell that to the working poor, younger generations that have no chance at owning a home and the homeless who don't have ANY place to live.

Why? We need to increase housing availability. We need the workers to fund the social security, medicare, etc. for the Boomers and above.
Not with communism , we don't
 
We are the United States of America--haven't you noticed?
Yeah, we have strong protections of private property especially residential ones. You seem to think we should adopt a Kruschev model for housing
Mixed-housing is considered by the experts to be an excellent answer. Try reading them sometime, it helps.
By which expert?
This has nothing to do with the NATIONAL HOUSING CRISIS. We had this before Trump left office. Get over trying to blame everything on brown people--they don't run the country.
Yea. This has happened for decades. When the amnesty was passed in the 1980s we had maybe 3 million illegals in the country nearly all of them Mexican which isn’t that bad, now we have as many as 20 million the majority of which are not from bordering countries, and that’s not even including an influx of wealthy legal aliens from India and China who just buy property as a hedge against financial uncertainty in their home countries.
Sure. Because every homeless person has turned down all possible housing
Homeless people often do turn down housing options because it involves getting clean and they get kicked out of others because they’re destructive to property. Street vagrancy is not a product of a “housing crisis” maybe there’s some people on the margins of homelessness who used to live in boarding houses or flop houses, but for the most part these are people struggling with addition and mental illness who cannot be disciplined enough to hold down a job to pay rent no matter how good the rent is.
unless it has 4 bedrooms. I don't think they're the ones who are--as you say--retarded (really?)

Celebrate your good fortune without demeaning those who haven't had that.
I will demean lifestyle people who refuse to make nice with their families and want to live in cities they can’t make it in. I made it in LA if you can’t make it here pack up and go home, we’ll both be better for it
It will make you a better person.
 
Says who?

Why do you assume they aren't?

Tell that to the working poor, younger generations that have no chance at owning a home and the homeless who don't have ANY place to live.

Why? We need to increase housing availability. We need the workers to fund the social security, medicare, etc. for the Boomers and above.
I am forewarning you. population density present much more problems then it solves with extra workers
Heed my advice . Those workers have kids who need more schools, you can't find street parking. the roads are jammed. medical appoints are pushed further out. stores have shortages.
 

I can’t help you if you don’t understand what a private government is.. but basically think of it as neo- feudalism. This is just a return to feudalism and monarchy, which is of course, private government.

Do you guys want to return to pre-Magna Carta?

ya it's called going to works and paying your bills
Why do old people get singled out? Get to work you lazy bums. Get out of the nursing home and contribute something to GDP.
 
I can’t help you if you don’t understand what a private government is.. but basically think of it as neo- feudalism. This is just a return to feudalism and monarchy, which is of course, private government.
whatever
Why do old people get singled out? Get to work you lazy bums. Get out of the nursing home and contribute something to GDP.
wait till i get my cane, now my meds, and my special needs, and I'm going to need an afternoon nap
My body just tripped,, broke my hip -now you pay my insurance claims and I sue you
 
I dont. Im in favor of means testing the rich for SSA, not raising the retirement age
You can tax earnings on social security for cheaper than creating a new department to means test it.
 
Did you want a biography? I could offer you one--I've disclosed most of them in the blog space here.

Otherwise, you could address the SOCIETAL issue and leave my children out of it, thank you ;)
That was the societal comment
 
The wealthy own the vast majority of land in America and would pay the vast majority of land-value taxes.

I thought we were/are primarily focusing on home ownership (per the wishes of the OP) and taxes are paid by home owners, yes?

Anyway, maybe I'm getting something wrong, BUT I just went looking for some reliable numbers on home ownership and finally settled on this site:


The homeownership rate in the U.S. was at 65.9% during the fourth quarter of 2022 and was not statistically different from the fourth quarter of 2021 (65.5%) or the third quarter of 2021 (65.4%).

Gatsby, what defines "wealthy" in your view? I mean, "wealthy" in the U.S.?

You see, where I may be getting on the wrong track on this point in this thread is that land ownership can cause confusion when we want to focus on who owns their own home. And the question of whether disallowing home ownership can fix the problem of folks who don't have a residence, which is what I thought was the focus of the OP.
 
I am forewarning you. population density present much more problems then it solves with extra workers
Heed my advice . Those workers have kids who need more schools, you can't find street parking. the roads are jammed. medical appoints are pushed further out. stores have shortages.
and the inevitable MORE demand for housing.

As far as illegal entry goes, these kids need to wake up. the current government and its republicrats are doing this to give themselves a slave workforce like China, not for their benefit. Not to give them a bigger workforce so they can own a home.
 
Back
Top Bottom