So then what would you recommend happen instead? Landlords don’t provide the house? They give it to you for free? Like it’s fun to complain but what’s your solution exactly?
Back in the 19th century, Henry George suggested to solve this with a very high land value tax.
The idea, in a nutshell, is that a good chunk of the worth of a property is not the building itself but the land it is built on - and that component does not come from the landlord’s investment, it comes from the community’s effort. Take that away, and housing prices will dramatically drop (or at least - stop rising so steeply) because real estate will no longer be such an attractive investment avenue, since most of the value that comes from the land will be taxed away. The part that remains - the value of the building itself - is the part that landlords really do have to build and maintain themselves.
I’m usually skeptical about economic ideologies that claim to be both morally correct and utility increasing - simply because I’ve never seen an economic ideology that doesn’t claim to be both these things. But here I think Georgism did manage to show a direct link between the two, so I’m more inclined to believe in it.
What if housing were owned collectively by the people who fucking lived there and the landlords were hunted in the streets like fucking dogs for all the innocent blood they’ve spilled? Or something with bamboo? Maybe build houses with it after?
The solution is collective ownership of housing. Housing is a right, as much as healthcare or education, and centralizing and socializing housing would ensure affordable access for everyone, as it has historically.
Housing could be owned by unions, by local councils, by the central government or by all of the above, and then rented at maintenance costs to tenants under no threat of eviction. This was the case in the Soviet Union for example, and led to the total elimination of homelessness and to the average rent costing 3% of the average monthly income.
One option would be the rent you pay slowly increases your ownership share of the house/appartment. If you live in the same place for 20 or 30 years and have paid enough to approximately match the value of the house you now own it and don’t have to pay any more rent.
Fair enough, that’s all I was looking for was a solution to the problem instead of just complaining. I am not a landlord but I do like the rent to own model, it’s a solid idea.
Who would offer a property to you in that scenario though? We’re talking state funded housing right as there’s no incentive for private landlords to outlay the money for you to pay it off slowly while living there
I’d go with something a tad more moderate like make it illegal for any private entity to rent out property as that would then remove the issue we currently have which is large volumes of property falling into the hands of corporations and pushing towards indentured servitude. As a bonus it would also remove Airbnbs/holiday lets
With what money? They own the means of ‘nonviolent’ change enforced by men with guns. There is one solution. They must die. Unless you own an oil company or something.
The solution is to tax any property that is not your primary residence 10x the normal amount. Landlords will pay the tax or be forced to sell. Especially if no one rents it at whatever ridiculous price they would set.
So then what would you recommend happen instead? Landlords don’t provide the house? They give it to you for free? Like it’s fun to complain but what’s your solution exactly?
Back in the 19th century, Henry George suggested to solve this with a very high land value tax.
The idea, in a nutshell, is that a good chunk of the worth of a property is not the building itself but the land it is built on - and that component does not come from the landlord’s investment, it comes from the community’s effort. Take that away, and housing prices will dramatically drop (or at least - stop rising so steeply) because real estate will no longer be such an attractive investment avenue, since most of the value that comes from the land will be taxed away. The part that remains - the value of the building itself - is the part that landlords really do have to build and maintain themselves.
I’m usually skeptical about economic ideologies that claim to be both morally correct and utility increasing - simply because I’ve never seen an economic ideology that doesn’t claim to be both these things. But here I think Georgism did manage to show a direct link between the two, so I’m more inclined to believe in it.
Despite the fact I got downvoted to hell for my comment I appreciate the well thought out and articulated response. Very well said.
What if housing were owned collectively by the people who fucking lived there and the landlords were hunted in the streets like fucking dogs for all the innocent blood they’ve spilled? Or something with bamboo? Maybe build houses with it after?
The solution is collective ownership of housing. Housing is a right, as much as healthcare or education, and centralizing and socializing housing would ensure affordable access for everyone, as it has historically.
Housing could be owned by unions, by local councils, by the central government or by all of the above, and then rented at maintenance costs to tenants under no threat of eviction. This was the case in the Soviet Union for example, and led to the total elimination of homelessness and to the average rent costing 3% of the average monthly income.
No but that would be communism and that’s bad.
So what can we do to fix the problem without taking thr landlord dick out of our mouths?
One option would be the rent you pay slowly increases your ownership share of the house/appartment. If you live in the same place for 20 or 30 years and have paid enough to approximately match the value of the house you now own it and don’t have to pay any more rent.
Just the first thing that cane to mind
Fair enough, that’s all I was looking for was a solution to the problem instead of just complaining. I am not a landlord but I do like the rent to own model, it’s a solid idea.
Who would offer a property to you in that scenario though? We’re talking state funded housing right as there’s no incentive for private landlords to outlay the money for you to pay it off slowly while living there
Landlords will need to be killed. Thats a hell of an incemtive. Butcher them and display the mangled remains. Make their kin watch.
So, that’s one incentive structure I can think of. I’m sure there are others though.
Erm, OK then?! :)
I’d go with something a tad more moderate like make it illegal for any private entity to rent out property as that would then remove the issue we currently have which is large volumes of property falling into the hands of corporations and pushing towards indentured servitude. As a bonus it would also remove Airbnbs/holiday lets
With what money? They own the means of ‘nonviolent’ change enforced by men with guns. There is one solution. They must die. Unless you own an oil company or something.
The solution is to tax any property that is not your primary residence 10x the normal amount. Landlords will pay the tax or be forced to sell. Especially if no one rents it at whatever ridiculous price they would set.
Or take the greatest hits of Maoism. One of these is going to happen, and I have a favorite. I want revenge.
I wish we could go back to the 1960s and make Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) legal for commercial real estate only. Prohibit residential.
Maybe that doesn’t solve the problem fully, but turning a commodity that everyone needs into a large scale investment vehicle was a mistake.
Damage is done, landlords won’t surrender, and too much of our stolen money will be used to buy elections.
The solution is blood. No other will work. The landlords must die.
Inb4 replies to this: