this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1320 points (97.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

7316 readers
1905 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 15 points 18 hours ago

We need non-profit public housing that is suitable for middle-class families.

Non-profit doesn't mean "free" or that money is being lost, just that the goal is to provide housing at cost rather than profit-seeking. Subsidies and such would still be available for low-income households as needed.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

We're well past things leading to economic crisis, and it sure wasn't caused by affordable housing.

HeLpiNg pEoPLe iS tOo ExpeNsiVe

Fuck. You.

This would lead to collapse eventually as no one could afford upkeep on rental housing. Making everyone who rents homes lose money would be very bad for you economy if done overnight.

[–] GooberEar@lemmy.wtf 7 points 18 hours ago

On one hand, yes this would hurt a lot of people and corporations. On the other hand, we're already hurting, so fuck it.

[–] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago

Just ban being a landlord guys. Tax owning land that you're not using out of existence. Rent/leases are simple vectors of wealth transferal - they move money from the poor to the rich. Everyone should own their own flat/house. Every business should own the space they work out of.

There is no good reason housing should be an investment vehicle akin to a stock or a bond.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 18 hours ago

We should live in Tardises

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 22 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Why couldn't the US have guaranteed government housing available to any citizen that needs it? A $100 a month apartment to cure homelessness shouldn't be a funny joke ... it should be questioned with "why should it even cost money"?

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Government housing tied to the cost of 1 weeks minimum wage. So simple, so elegant.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The government actually helping people without lining the pockets of the capital class? That's commie talk

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

NOT IN MY AMERICA HIPPY!!! -Richard Nixon

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Soapbox1858@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

It should be locked at 50 cents per square foot. So a studio apt would be like $500 a month. Its close enough to what prices were in recent memory before the insane jumps in rent cost the last decade.

[–] stormdahl@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (13 children)

For me personally I’d like a 50-60 square meter apartment for no more than 2x my annual income. And I’d like to be able to get a loan with a monthly down payment equal to whatever I’ve been paying in rent for the last couple of years.

I can pay 12500 NOK a month in rent, but for some reason the bank can’t trust me to pay the same amount if I were to buy an apartment? Fuck that.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That was a scam they put in place after 2008 when they were being punished for scamming us. (while scamming us for bailouts for the previous scam) It takes a lot of government regulation to keep the banks from stealing, good thing thats gone now!

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Turn every company into a worker owned co-op and then it becomes 100x harder for companies to do shady immoral stuff

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I mean thats fine as long as the Millions of chinese and vietnamese workers making Iphones get to keep their cut of the company. I just hate nationalistic protectionism. These are all global companys. I'd be down to share.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 day ago (12 children)

My take?

  1. corporations aren't allowed to own land or houses other than the office space and production facilities.

  2. people can only own the buildings they live in (with proof of living there at least X% of the year)

  3. The state takes over all houses and land that become unused by these laws

  4. The state rents out their property as 'rent to own', or as housing for the homeless

[–] musubibreakfast@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

That's basically China with extra steps. How are you going to deal with your companies siphoning money out of your economy by buying foreign real estate?

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Of course, it's basically a communist idea from even before the Russian revolution.

To answer your question: since corporations aren't allowed to own more than the buildings they work with, they could not buy foreign real estate - except for facilities or offices they really use.

I don't think I know all the answers, it was just a interesting idea I read a while ago.

As far as I know it was never implemented, so weather it would work out or not is just speculation.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Then this is my take:

  • no taxes on first home
  • some tax on second home
  • taxes on any home past the second grow exponentially, doubling for each additional home
  • order of the homes is always from less expensive to most expensive
  • same is valid for companies
  • for companies owned by other companies, all the houses owned are considered as belonging to the mother (root) company, so there's no "creating matrioskas to that each own a single house"

Obviously offices and factories are not habitable space and therefore not counted in this system.

[–] Mustakrakish@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Housing shouldn't be an investment asset, especially in a for profit system, or you'll just make BlackRock again.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think that’s what s/he was trying to resolve with the doubling of tax on each additional property. It would become cost prohibitive very quickly to have multiple properties.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It shouldn't be an investment asset.

Homebuilding is still a business though. You still need someone to risk their money, assemble the materials and crew, complete the project and find a buyer for it.

If there's no demand for a product no one will build it. There's always going to be demand for a mythical product that can't be built. Like cheap housing.

I just spent $2,000 on a handful of wood, shingles, and siding to patch my house up. like 1/10th of a single wide trailer. That's just the materials i'll be providing the labor which would normally cost $30-$60 hour.

So it shouldn't be an investment asset, someone still has to invest in it being built, so that a homeowner may live there.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 day ago (8 children)

THATS UNIRONICALLY BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

If I were President, I wouldn't try to rule my country like a (particularly stupid) King. I would ask Congress to convene a task force comprised of economic experts, and then to propose, debate, amend, and hopefully pass a piece of legislation that addresses housing costs while having the consent of a majority of elected representatives. And if Congress said no, I would suggest that the citizens vote in new Congresspeople who will actually take the actions they desire.

Also I would ban any stupid kids from voicing any "if I were in charge" opinions, on penalty of time-out and having their phones taken away.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 158 points 2 days ago (50 children)

It would only be an economic crisis for land owners who seek rent. Really housing shouldn’t be something that people profit from.

load more comments (50 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›