cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162

Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Real estate should be considered an investment. It’s one of the few things people invest in that is actually valuable. It’s the speculative and labrynthine financial markets that are the problem in that regard.

    The only reason mega-renters like Blackrock and Vanguard are able to monolithically buy property in the first place is because of dubious speculative earnings and government bailouts.

    It’s not surprising that home ownership was actually a lot higher 60 years ago.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What should people invest in then? How is land ownership handled? Etc etc etc

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          What should people invest in then?

          Literally any other type of business.

          How is land ownership handled?

          People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.

          • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Literally any other type of business

            You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

            Owning land for personal use

            Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

              If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.

              And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.

              Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

              To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

              • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                To use it for a business

                This is wealth extraction

                Or enjoyment

                So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is wealth extraction

                  Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.

                  So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment

                  Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.

                  but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

                  That’s bullshit too.

                  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m okay with some kinds (of making money with land)

                    Like what? There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

                    Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to rich people owning acreage for enjoyment)

                    I’m glad you changed your mind.

                    Yeah that’s bullshit too (in regard to a normal dude owning an investment property)

                    Why?! What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need as opposed to an ice cream shop or whatever? Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses? Usually at great financial risk to themselves? The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally. They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

              And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?

              • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                For doing dick all

                Yeah because they just plucked the property off of a tree… people often work years and years to get enough for a property investment and it can take 30 years to pay it off. Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  it can take 30 years to pay it off.

                  It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren’t paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s instead ultimately the tenants.

                  Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

                  They hire people to do that, they don’t do it themselves.

                  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    They hire people to do that

                    This is why you don’t get it. I spent my childhood cutting grass and repairing shit at a property owned by an elderly family member on a fixed income. We didn’t have money to hire someone to do it and tons of people are in the same boat. We did it for free because it was the best thing for everyone involved including tenants who often stayed for years because it was a nice place to live. No one got rich off of that property believe me.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you think “passive” means in the term “passive income”? I don’t care if it becomes harder to earn “passive income”, especially if it’s coming from people just doing what is necessary to survive.

    • SamboT@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why should it be anything but a personal investment? I’m not seeing your point there. Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why should it be anything but a personal investment?

        What do mean? I don’t see how what I said negates that.

        Isn’t it better for everyone to decommodify housing?

        Not really no. Commodfication is why things used to be cheap. High [insert item here] prices are directly related to money printing, corporate welfare and regulations that are designed to raise the barrier of entry for normal people.

              • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, so many reasons…

                At the individual level drugs are a HUGE reaaon, mental illness, poor care for veterans etc Although there is SOME government housing and charitable housing for people that need it.

                At a macro level there is money printing, endless war, corporate welfare, cronyism etc

                Let’s face it though we could probably house everyone in Europe within South Dakota alone. Not to mention most homeless people are in extremely expensive areas like LA, Austin, Seattle and New York.

                Passing an ill-conceived law that will have unintended consequences should be way, way low on the list of ways to lower housing prices. Especially since it’s highly likely it won’t be enforced properly.

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Its interesting that you say drugs and mental illness are the problems. Isn’t the fact that housing is commodified and costs money the HUGE problem? They can’t afford it, is the reason they’re homeless. The way you’re making it look is that the problem is just them, which is an extremely dehumanizing starement, especially when you are ignoring the obvious answer that’s its because some people are allowed to profit off of others need for shelter.

                  Are you a libertarian? The way you bring up printing money, cronyism, ill-conceived laws etc. sounds like you might be

                  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not a libertarian. Printing money, endless wars, corporate welfare, cronyism, ill-conceived laws and poor enforcement are very real MACRO (not individual) causes and you’ve not refuted them at all. These affect the price of EVERYTHING.

                    At the individual level homelessness can be fueled by all the things I mentioned. Some of those things are self inflicted and some are out of the control of the person. Either way there’s nothing dehumanizing about stating facts.

                    I get the feeling in this thread that everyone thinks housing should be free which is… ridiculous… Nothing is free because everything has a cost. I agree, however, with the overall issue of corruption and exploitative wealth – wealth that is often derived by anticompetitive, preferential treatment etc The average dude renting a house doesn’t want to screw poor people they just want an alternative to a 401k so they can retire.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Real estate should be considered an investment.

      Housing can be affordable, or it can be an investment. Not both.