You should be forced to sell your house and rent

[BirdinHand]

these kids need to wake up.

Who are you addressing that to?

 

[anatta]

You can tax earnings on social security for cheaper than creating a new department to means test it.

earnings above a certain limit are already taxed -means testing is pretty simple to do
just report your incomes which are are already doing since rich file taxes

 

[anatta]

and the inevitable MORE demand for housing.

soon you an live like a China person -with no say over your local density

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.

the argument is silly, yes

 

[JRTurner]

of which your party is DETERMINED to make MORE of, millions upon millions by allowing illegal entry to flow freely within this country.

Why call it my party? It's more than half of the United States--which makes it the leading voice in this matter.

Aside from that bit of nonsense--the rest is nonsense as well. You have no idea about the national housing crisis going on for many years now, do you?

This isn't a debate post. Do better.

 

[BirdinHand]

of which your party is DETERMINED to make MORE of, millions upon millions by allowing illegal entry to flow freely within this country.

Last I checked, the Republicans were the ones that refused to pass immigration reform. There was a bipartisan bill ready to go and the MAGAs shit themselves and shot it down because their great Orange leader needs SOMETHING to campaign on.

 

[JRTurner]

Yeah, we have strong protections of private property especially residential ones. You seem to think we should adopt a Kruschev model for housing

Naaa, that's just what you think.

By which expert?

Try reading about the Housing First initiative--that should get the ball rolling. But please--use primary sources and don't let others tell you what to think.

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.

Why did they leave their homelands?

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.

Funny--I thought you said it was because there weren't at least 4 bedrooms. The MAJORITY of the homeless are not addicts, not mentally ill, and have jobs. Bet you were completely unaware of that fact, weren't you?

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.

The only difference between a schizophrenic who has a job and one who doesn't is money.

Learn what you speak of.

As to addiction, it's a medical issue. The only difference between that medical issue and say--diabetes--is that diabetes is only $30 a month now, thanks to Biden.

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

And which child, raped by their father, should make nice with their family?
Or which child, beaten by their mother, should make nice with their family?
Or which child, who's parents and relatives are all dead, should make nice with whose family?
Or which child, who's parents are addicted to drugs, should make nice with their family?
Or which child, who's parents are incarcerated, should make nice with their family?
Or which child, who's parents are also homeless, should make nice with their family?
Or which child, who aged out of fostercare, should make nice with whose family?
Or which child, who was pimped out by their uncle because their parents were dead, should make nice with their family?

Most people who are homeless are homeless due to TRAUMA.
They don't fit into your cookie-cutter image of the family you've been blessed with. There is a whole big bad ugly world out there, just in case you weren't aware, since you've been so "sheltered" your entire life

 

[Gatsby]

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.

Yes. In a world where you have a fixed mortgage and new homeowners are paying higher rates, your home will be worth a little bit less than in the world where new homeowners are paying lower rates. All this is to say that the future is unknown, and you are taking a risk by buying a home just as you are when you rent a property. But you're taking a bigger risk with the home because you have more cash tied up in it, and you're typically planning to be there for at least a few years. Whereas a renter with a 12-month lease can just pick up and move somewhere else if the local rental market becomes too expensive.

I'm not saying that renting is uniformly better than homeownership (although in March 2024 it mostly is, in most parts of the country). I recognize the advantages of owning too. Just run the numbers before you buy.

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.

Right. I don't think that either homeowners or renters can predict what the real estate market will do in the future with any accuracy. It will most likely ebb and flow. What I am saying is that right now, in March 2024, renting generally makes more economic sense than owning, in most parts of America. This is especially true if you are on the West Coast.

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

I think there's a lot of money to be made in real estate by property-owners who know what they are doing. Many of those property management companies are very professionally run and I'm sure they do quite well. The ROI is lower for random homeowners, or mom-and-pop landlords with four units who fix the leaky faucets themselves. Those people can still make money if they are good at it, but generally they'd be better off just renting and investing the difference in the stock market.

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.

They are value adds compared to an empty field that's doing nothing. But a surface parking lot isn't a very efficient use of land in a big city with expensive real estate (unless it's located in an area with no parking and where you can't fit a big parking garage). Doing almost anything else with that land would be more productive.

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.

If the market thinks that another office tower would be more economically valuable than an apartment building, then I think we should have tax policies that do not discourage the development of another office tower where the apartment building used to be. I agree that the city can only have so many high-rise office towers...at a certain point the marginal utility of one more office tower will be less than the marginal utility of the apartment building, and so they will be equally valuable and therefore the land-value tax will not discourage the apartment building.

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

IMO the voters elect government to figure this shit out, zone accordingly, and make it happen. Not to listen to randos for weeks, months, or years of "community input". The community input is the election.

 

[JRTurner]

That was the societal comment

My children are not for commentary--thank you very much. There is nothing "societal" about involving them.

 

[instagramsci]

And now they’re telling the younger generations that they have to work longer in order to get the same benefits (which will actually wind up being lower benefit considering the increases in cost of living, etc that will occur) IF they get anything at all.

its not even just people of a certain age demographic. you have people who are probably your age and mine who think retirement is "stupid"

 

[RetiredUSN]

One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.

I wouldn't want the homeless or section 8 types anywhere near my property if I was still renting out.

They will tear the place up in months.

I made a pretty nice chunk of change off of the damages they caused in various rental properties in my area.

 

[instagramsci]

One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.

agreed. as a communist i think i should get the best house and all you libs and conservatives get the worst ones. problem solved ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Hypothetical]

Last I checked, the Republicans were the ones that refused to pass immigration reform. There was a bipartisan bill ready to go and the MAGAs shit themselves and shot it down because their great Orange leader needs SOMETHING to campaign on.

That bill does NOT reform immigration the way immigration needs to be reformed.

 

[Gatsby]

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:

Homeowner Data and Statistics 2023 | Bankrate

Parse the latest U. S. homeowner statistics by age, race, gender, and more — and learn how economic trends have impacted homeownership.

www.bankrate.com

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.

We kinda went off on a tangent. OP was talking about banning homeownership, which I then took to advocate for a Georgist land-value tax more broadly. To OP's original point (which was tongue-in-cheek): I do not think people should be prohibited from owning homes entirely. Obviously that's too extreme and wouldn't be desirable. But I do think a land-value tax would be a good middle ground.

You are correct that most people own a home, not just the wealthy. What I probably should have said is that the wealthy own most of the *dollar value* of homes. Plenty of people own modest-sized homes, but they wouldn't pay very much land-value tax or property tax compared to the wealthy.

 

[highroller]

earnings above a certain limit are already taxed -means testing is pretty simple to do
just report your incomes which are are already doing since rich file taxes

The right wants to add all these hurdles to government programs that don’t need to be there to make interactions with government more aggravating.

So write a law that says income over a certain percentage for Social Security is taxed at 100%, done. You don’t need to add anything to government.

But then the Republicans would have to say they raised taxes instead of cutting spending, but it’s the same thing.

 

[Gatsby]

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

- "Made it in LA."
- Brags about having his mother buy him a house.
- Cannot understand why that solution does not scale for anyone beyond his immediate family.

 

[highroller]

That bill does NOT reform immigration the way immigration needs to be reformed.

So you negotiate and debate and work within the government to adjust it closer to what you want.

But this is the modern Republican party. We take our ball and go home if we don’t get everything we want.

 

[Hypothetical]

So you negotiate and debate and work within the government to adjust it closer to what you want.

But this is the modern Republican party. We take our ball and go home if we don’t get everything we want.

Try writing a bill that actually addresses the issue, first.

Hey though, it doesn't matter to me, I will be sitting here in my house working a professional level job for good money and will continue to do so. It's all of the one's who are worried about being able to buy a home and working normal jobs for currently decent pay that are going to get shafted with the influx of millions of illegal immigrants and the advent of automation.

But regardless of whether you like it or not, I am the one trying to save this country for our citizens and their children, instead of mistakenly handing it over to plutocratic oligarchs in a state where no one will be worth ANYTHING without loads of cash.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

The government would own all the land and facilitate housing. If people got too lazy it would just raise rents since apparently the threat of homelessness is what makes people productive workers.

Therefore under my plan we would have a much more productive workforce.

There is one flaw with your overall assessment ("lazy") of the situation. It well-known that homelessness can be (but isn't always) a symptom of mental illness. Basically, the mental ill have either accepted homelessness as way of life (abnormally) or their brains are not functioning correctly to hold a job for too long (if ever). How would you factor that into your plan?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

- "Made it in LA."

Yes. I work and pay rent at the market level

- Brags about having his mother buy him a house.

My mother did not buy me a house. I never wrote that.

I am renting in LA and do not receive money from my family except a marginal amount to keep our second bedroom furnished for visits

- Cannot understand why that solution does not scale for anyone not in his immediate family.

I never said the solution Is for family to cash buy the homeless houses, the point I was making is that if your immediate family owns a house and you’re living with them then you’re not benefitting from taking their house away and redistributing it. This poster I responded to was unironically stating that we should seize all the housing and making the government the landlord because it will help 18 to 35 y/os living with their parents

 

[Michael Cole]

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.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Last I checked, the Republicans were the ones that refused to pass immigration reform. There was a bipartisan bill ready to go and the MAGAs shit themselves and shot it down because their great Orange leader needs SOMETHING to campaign on.

A bad bill that did nothing to limit green cards and allowed 5000 illegal crossings a day before closing the border without abolishing immigration parole. The House actually passed a law and the senate refuses to vote on it

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The government would own all the land and facilitate housing. If people got too lazy it would just raise rents since apparently the threat of homelessness is what makes people productive workers.

Therefore under my plan we would have a much more productive workforce.

Under your sarcastic plan, I would die.

 

[Opossum]

One of the main arguments against programs like giving housing to homeless people or the government funded housing is that, without the constant threat of homelessness, people will be less productive or possibly not work at all. This logic is also often applied to other welfare programs that provide some kind of social safety net.

So if providing people with housing for free is bad because it makes people lazy, it makes sense to me that forcing homeowners to sell their houses is good because it makes people more productive and competitive. After all, those home owners with paid off mortgages or low mortgage payments have had it too good for too long. With their lower costs than renting and economic stability gained from owing their home there just isn't a fire under their ass anymore like their is for renters.

So, what do you think? Is it time we put and end to what no doubt must be one of the laziest demographics who might be able to do horrible unproductive things like turn down shitty jobs because they have a place to live?

I think we could increase GDP by at least 20% with my radical plan.

You understand that being given something for free is not the same as paying for something yourself, right? People tend to treat the things they have to pay for, with their own blood and sweat, better than things they get for free.

 

[Opossum]

A bad bill that did nothing to limit green cards and allowed 5000 illegal crossings a day before closing the border without abolishing immigration parole. The House actually passed a law and the senate refuses to vote on it

Actually, it was worse than that. It didn't close the border, just allegedly stop crossing outside of accepted ports of entry where they could still cross. Further, there was no forcing mechanism in it, so it's utterly worthless if the President can just ignore it. I mean, we already have all the laws on the books we need to shut down the border but Biden is actively stopping any efforts in that direction. The only thing he has pushed for is removal of barriers and trying to stop Texas from filling the gap that he's left.

No immigration law should be signed without a forcing mechanism that disallows the President from ignoring it.

 

[ksu_aviator]

What do you think happens if you try that in a college dorm?

What can you do about it? It's community property.