First I would like to provide some context for my question. I live in a suburb in a "flyover state" and also see wealth inequality as the problem to solve for. For more information on why I feel this way, see just about any video by Gary Stevenson: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXuOBKrmFYbKytq9mkcd62sJPb6w12vpU.
I think it is safe to assume that in the next 4 years, wealth inequality will not be addressed even verbally at the national level. I suspect most states will not attempt to address this issue either. I think suburban city councils are absolutely an option for near term changes and could even be a perfect place to start. I think the odds of a major company or billionaire showing up to protest any local changes in a smaller town are relatively small.
I propose that we as a society should be able to attend a city council meeting and suggest legislation similar to the following:
Any single family home owned by either a company or an individual who does not live in the same state should have a large property tax applied to it.
My thinking is that no company should ever own a single family home (if you're a builder making a new home give them a window of like 1 year to sell it or something similar). If there are companies owning homes, they would be incentivized to sell the property. Large numbers of properties being dumped by businesses would lower housing costs locally. This would in turn lead to more locals having money to spend (hopefully locally, but you never know). I think the locality of their spending should probably be emphasized in a sales pitch to a city council. Businesses who refuse to sell will be paying large local taxes that the city could spend on the countless things that a city needs to operate but is currently underfunded. I guarantee you the local government has projects they want to do but can't afford. Here is their solution. I do think that if businesses are refusing to sell, that means they are charging tenants the increased tax, and the property tax was set too low. The tax has to be high enough that businesses sell the property or else I don't think this works.
The number of businesses or individuals affected by this new tax is probably really low for any given city. If you imagine a small town there are only going to be so many companies owning single property homes (less than 10?) same story with wealthy out of state home owners (less than 20?) The total number of homes in the area is going to be much larger though so there should be a sizeable and noticable impact. I use out of state as the qualifier for individuals as it is pretty easy to ask for a local driver's license as proof you live in the state, and to my knowledge states don't let you carry IDs from multiple states. You only live in 1, you only have 1 ID, and you always have it with you so it should be easy enough to enforce.
People/businesses who don't comply could have their property foreclosed on, then auctioned off to a state resident with proceeds again going to the city. I think the pushback would be that this is anti business. To which I would agree and say yes, businesses have no business owning single family homes, that is what citizens do. These citizens will have more money to spend locally which will attract more businesses and pay more local taxes. Money from local citizens going to major businesses who pass earnings on to investors is how local money gets exported out of the community and is not business we want owning our homes. It also diminishes the ability of locals to spend at local businesses.
My hopes is that Lemmy can help poke holes in this plan and provide solutions to the holes. Perhaps you see a better way to present this idea. Perhaps better ideas are proposed. Perhaps you see a smarter solution. Something needs to change, and I want the best odds of successfully bringing about change for the better. I want my kids to be able to buy a house some day. At this rate, that won't happen. We need a solution, and maybe this is a start.
If you're using the model publicly traded stock, when a company needs more money they issue more stock for sale the public. What this also does is devalue the existing stock in circulation. Assuming these suggestions go into law, that sounds like a massive loophole that owners could exploit.
As long as the price is fair, I don't see why this should be a problem. It sounds like it should be mathematically equivalent to purchasing a percentage of everyone's shares. So share value goes down because you've essentially "sold" some of it to someone else without changing the absolute number of shares you own.
Fair to whom? The owner, the workers, or the new non-worker stock buyer?
Fair in the sense that both the buyer and "sellers" agree on the price.
If that's the case the buyer and sellers would be fine, but the employees would be screwed. The workers shares would have been issued at a higher value. Lets say $10 per share. The owner could issue new stock at 1 penny per share and sell billions of shares to new non-worker buyers.
Sellers includes the employees. I put it in quotes because it isn't exactly the same as other buying and selling transactions where the sellers are actively part of the transaction.
Stock owning employees don't have any say on stock sales of the owner to other buyers of stock. I think you're torturing the model of publicly traded stocks beyond the real definition of usefulness for comparison.
Its fine if you have a model of employee ownership, but it looks like you're going to have to define it end-to-end instead of reusing the publicly traded stock model.
For sure. I was suggesting we look at the stock market model as inspiration, not to copy it exactly. I don't really know what the exact solution would look like. I haven't thought through this as deeply as Pete probably would have.
The devil is in the details. I thought you were providing a system of those details for discussion. No worries.