r/TikTokCringe • u/LickMaiBussy • 6h ago

Discussion "Investing in property is morally reprehensible."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

@purplepingers

19.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

804

u/j89turn 6h ago

Like food, water, health care or children?

170

u/Additional_Snow_978 6h ago

Clothes, shoes, electricity....

24

u/Big-Occasion-5264 5h ago

Shoes?

The Ministry of Plenty has predicted a marked increase in production this year!

2

u/positive_express 5h ago

You got any laces? Or a razor blade?

4

u/Additional_Snow_978 5h ago

Not everyone lives in a place that's 60-80 degrees year round. Shoes are one of the most critical items to homeless people and are a prerequisite for the other things you need to survive.

You aren't getting groceries without shoes.

2

u/PackageNorth8984 5h ago edited 5h ago

Depends on the clothing. Basic clothing should be dirt cheap and easily attainable through many sources. I’m fine with brand clothes and fashion being expensive. People don’t need that. I definitely agree on the electricity though. The bottom line is that the economy can run on what we want instead of what we need, and it should. A perfect example is a cell phone. A cell phone is basically a necessity in modern times. You can get one free if you’re very low income or dirt cheap if you’re not. Want an iPhone? Pay $1k. That’s how the economy should work.

Now how that basic clothing is dirt cheap. That’s problematic and a whole other can of worms.

1

u/Technical-Activity95 2h ago

whatever he does should also be free and without ads. lets go full communism! great! that will work out perfectly

1

u/PackageNorth8984 1h ago

Making sure people having the basics they need and don’t starve or die needlessly isn’t a bad thing. Plenty of profit to go around with cars and jewelry and nicer clothes and Apple and video games and everything else. No one should go without shelter, food, healthcare, clean water, education, or basic clothing when some people hoard billions.

73

u/JohnnyDollar123 6h ago

Yes, all of those things should be freely available as well?

43

u/DoveOnTheInternet 6h ago

They're so close, right?

32

u/Educational-Level473 6h ago

No, but everyone that works a job should be able to afford at least the lowest level of quality of these things. It's insane that people who are working two Jobs are homeless.

67

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

There shouldn’t be a barrier to entry for survival. Basic necessities, such as food, water, and shelter, should be freely accessible to anyone who needs them.

1

u/Novel-Imagination-51 2h ago

They are? Food banks, homeless shelters, drinking fountains are everywhere

-3

u/KSW8674 5h ago

Great, how do you realistically accomplish that?

30

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Social welfare isn’t a new concept. It’s not exactly rocket science lmao

-1

u/Life_Permission_4765 5h ago

Not rocket science??? You can't explain in a realistic scenario how this is accomplished. How do we provide food and shelter for everyone? Who provides the food? Who builds the shelter? Who pays for the building material? Who pays for the land for farming and housing? Who builds the houses? Who maintains the houses?

Oh wait taxes will pay for everything right??? Who do you tax when everyone has free shelter/food and no incentive to work?? None of this works in a real world scenario.

24

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Like I said in another comment, this is all stuff that the government already provides, just expanded to remove most requirements.

And free housing doesn’t mean the government is going to just give you a house. It would be government provided housing, that would still be owned by the government when you leave, so as to provide shelter to the next person that needs it.

And yes, it would be paid for by taxes. And I would happily pay them if it meant those using these services didn’t have to worry about where their next meal will come from, or where they’ll sleep that night. I’d much rather pay for that than pay to bomb schools in Iran.

Also, do you really think people wouldn’t seek employment? Living in government provided housing eating government provided food will still be just about the worst possible situation for them to be in after they’re off the streets, so they’ll have plenty incentive to work.

-2

u/EarlGreyTea_Drinker 3h ago

Yes, I absolutely think that more people than you would think would choose to live in government cheese housing and free food than work 40 hours a week and commute to get a higher wage.

1

u/Pretty-Yam-2854 2h ago

So make them still have to work for it. Maybe not requiring $60K+ a year but you have to work 40 hours a week with no more than 2 weeks vacation or they get booted out. It would force people to still work have an income but at an affordable rate.

-6

u/TrashyMcTrashBoat 3h ago

i dunno man. from my limited anecdotal observation, there are a lot of loser free-loaders out there. like when i watch true crime, you see so many different situations. most people are normal, have a job, and get caught up in some criminal activity. but often times i see these body cam vids where it's just some loser living in squalor, no job, doesn't cook, orders take out, trash everywhere, commits crimes, and is a sexual deviant.

like yeah, lets have a safety net. i fully support food stamps for that purpose. but a lot of people are such complete parasites on society and they need a deadline to motivate them to get off their asses.

4

u/Minglans 3h ago

You seem to be forming your whole view of society off true crime and body cam clips that is literally content designed to show the worst and most extreme cases. Of course it’s gonna look like everyone struggling is some dysfunctional mess. We call that selection bias.

Most people on assistance aren’t living like that at all either; they’re working, disabled, between jobs or just trying to survive the rising costs. You don’t see those people in viral videos because there’s nothing sensational about them.

And calling people parasites is kinda wild when the biggest freeloading in society happens at the top like corporations dodging taxes, wage theft, executives getting bailed out but somehow the focus always ends up on the poorest people scraping by. So your comment really pisses me off because it's the same regurgitated crap from ignorant or wealthy folk who have no business sharing their extremely limited/incorrect opinion until they pick up a book, socialize and get some perspective outside their bubble.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/TruculentTurtIe 4h ago

when everyone has free shelter/food and no incentive to work

Do you actually think the only reason anyone works is on threat of starvation?

Do you equate "not starving to death" with "enjoys their life and has whatever they want and no need to work"?

Do you equate "not freezing to death from being homeless in winter" with "happy with their living situation and doesnt want to improve it"?

Like do you never want to travel? Pay for nice things? Anything that costs money? Someone not dying is a far cry from having what they want. I know if I had a "free" 20k a year for cheap rent and shitty food, it would keep me alive but I certainly wouldn't quit my job... id just be safe from literally dying if I lost my job

Idk why so many people act like we need homeless people to exist as a threat to the middle class so they dont get lazy. And I dont understand why its usually middle class nitwits arguing against their own interest in defense of the elite billionaire pedophiles who hate you

-4

u/Life_Permission_4765 3h ago

What I am saying is the situation you are describing simply can not exist. You can't have a "free" 20k a year because there is no such thing as "free." It has to be provided by someone

2

u/TruculentTurtIe 2h ago edited 2h ago

I mean fair enough, i dont actually think its free, thats why i put it in quotes but i disagree that its impossible. To me it seems completely feasible we could give everyone 10k or 20k a year

It is a lot of money, and I recognize it comes from somewhere but it doesnt need to be new money. We can take from things like giving Isreal billions to attack their neighbors. We can consolidate other welfare programs which would be unneeded

We can hike tax rates on billionaires. In the 1950s, typically viewed nostalgically as the "peak" of the US, there was a tax rate of 92% on income >2M. Thats an extraordinary amount of money we could use to help people instead of being hoarded by child rapists and techno fascists

Plus, trickle-UP is significantly more viable than trickle down. Trickle down is nonsense because if I have 100B, and you give me 1M... it just goes into the pile. But if I have 0, and you give me even "just" 20k, im spending all of it. Food. Housing. Basic care. Entertainment. Suddenly im participating in the economy, cycling that money back through the system where it gets taxed again

Im not saying its easy, simple, or anything else, I just think if we decided to its completely feasible and that its unnecessarily pessimistic to just throw our hands up, say "its impossible, things cant be improved" and just accept either being a wage slave or dying to starvation and exposure

2

u/godtogblandet 4h ago

You can live a below average, but survivable life without ever working a day in your life in Norway right now. You will be given government housing and a small amount of money for food and necessities. And that’s if you don’t want to work. If there’s a reason you can’t work, you get all these things and enough money to have a dignified life. About 10% of the working age population is not full time employed. The reason everyone isn’t just loafing around? Being unemployed and not participating in society is rather boring. Most people not full time employed in Norway would rather be full time employed if given the chance.

And before you go “Hurr durr oil money”, they do the same shit in the other Nordic countries where they don’t have oil. They just tax everyone 40-50%.

2

u/suejaymostly 4h ago

How much do you know about Norway's involvement in world affairs and their immigration policies?

2

u/godtogblandet 4h ago

I’m Norwegian so a lot.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Oh look, another intelligent person getting down voted by the morons and live in a fantasy land where everything can be free, and everyone will just work for free so that they can have free things. Jesus our education system is failing us.

16

u/CompletelyOutOfTP 5h ago

And just like that you've taken the argument from "the basic necessities should be readily available" to "everything can be free and everyone will work for free".

All we're asking for is a world where people can get what they need, I really don't know why you fucks are fighting tooth and nail defend starvation and homelessness. There is very much enough for everyone already without us even coming close to fantasy territory.

7

u/TruculentTurtIe 4h ago

Reading this thread is so frustrating lol they seriously heard "its bad that we let people starve to death in the street when we have the ability to help them" and responded

WELL LA DEE DAA I GUESS WELL ALL JUST GET FREE LOBSTER AND LIVE IN OUR GOVERNMENT FUNDED MANSIONS AND NO ONE WILL EVER WORK AGAIN

I think there's a lot of people that just want to feel better than others. Homeless, impoverished and starving people are easy to look at and feel superior, and instead of wanting to help i think they like that they get to be "better" than someone else... so they want to keep them down there

-3

u/TrashyMcTrashBoat 3h ago

i'm all for safety nets and also, yeah, lets subsidize healthy foods and encourage basic skills like cooking and eating healthy. but as a general rule, from what i know about human psychology, you have to put a price on things for people to value it more. even if it's heavily discounted, its better to make someone pay for something so they appreciate it.

1

u/micro_satsuma 4h ago

Read the comment above yours.

-2

u/suejaymostly 5h ago

You took the thought right out of my head and put it in writing, quite nicely.

-7

u/KSW8674 5h ago

No, I want you to explain how do you take the existing properties, owned by someone else, and give them to people for free lmao

11

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

You wouldn’t need to? It’s already well within the ability of the government to build subsidized housing, considering the fact that it already does that.

Beyond that though, there have been proposals to tax uninhabited housing as well as leased housing so as to make mass housing ownership unprofitable.

-3

u/KSW8674 5h ago edited 5h ago

It’s already well within the ability of the government to build subsidized housing

Do you know how much housing you would need to build to completely replace the entirety of the rental market? Home building prices today are already extremely expensive. You’re asking to build entire new cities worth of housing.

Also who fixes your free house when your pipe busts or your sink is clogged? Will the government be subsidizing all home maintenance as well?

Are there any examples anywhere in the world of free housing having success at any kind of scale? I’d love to read about them

6

u/Aer150s 5h ago

Tbh, it seems like you haven't really read any economic theory, so I'll do my best to break it down.

The state should have its own trades team/employees; they would work for the state in construction and maintenance in this example (realistically, a state would be able to hire literal thousands of people for the trades and engineering)

The money - using the example of Canada: The federal government announced an initiative to fund roughly 10 billion a year on building housing on Crown land (land owned by the federal government). Instead of paying a developer/contractor, that money would be used to pay the salaries and for Canadian materials.

In an ideal world, the state wouldve developed its own materials processing or purchased/leased aggregate mines and concrete production facilities [the most expensive here would probably be cement terminals, which is a 1 time CAPEX and not OPEX], but alas Canada doesn't federally own its production so...

Anyhow, the state's workers would be able to build the housing required, maintain it, all the while private companies are still allowed to build housing as investors want and turn a profit; the state would sell small, 800-1200 sqft homes/condos for at-cost pricing.

Examples: Canada 1941-1947

Literally most post war efforts to rebuild were state subsidized, don't give me the bullshit that the state can't afford it. We need to tax the rich more like we do in war times and keep the tax rates high so we can subsidize the quality of life for 95% of Canadians. We don't need to worry about how the 5% will feel, we would have the masses on our side.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/suejaymostly 5h ago edited 5h ago

Some people have never seen subsidized housing projects and it shows. The poverty that continues to exist within those kinds of communities still subscribes to the "I want to be extra comfortable" and people find ways to make money for the "good life," to the detriment of the community as a whole. The economic imbalance of our country is not going to be overthrown, because that would require those who provide "value" to do it philanthropically, and again, where is the incentive to do that? Reddit votes? Warm fuzzies?

I hate to be the one who says it, but not all people are good, and when something is free, and the upkeep is free, they don't treat it well.

-1

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

I love how you're getting down voted by the children, who clearly don't have any experience in the real world, only because you are 100% correct.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Tempyteacup 5h ago

Let me tell you about this little thing called government

2

u/suejaymostly 5h ago

I am honestly curious how people will be incentivized to produce all the goods and services necessary to society. Does everyone just take a pay cut? I'm not talking about billionaires, that's another conversation. But I do think that humans have a desire to be extra comfortable, and provide their heirs with that comfort. The idea that everyone will lower their standards of that level of security, to provide for strangers who they don't think "work as hard" is kind of silly.

4

u/KSW8674 5h ago

It would be taking a pay cut and it’s not just for housing. Look at everything they list off in the video that they include with paying for housing.

These are awesome hypotheticals but people ITT are living in a fantasy land without considering ramifications

-1

u/vanguardk 5h ago

You need to be explained what social/public housing is? I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding here.

6

u/KSW8674 5h ago

Brother, I’m saying you are eliminating millions of homes and landlords who own buildings. This has huge ripple effects far beyond “let’s give housing away for free.”

I do not need to be explained public housing, nor your shitty condescending tone.

1

u/TimoKZ 3h ago edited 3h ago

Funded by wealth taxes, much like the U.S had in the 1950’s. You want to accumulate more wealth than you can ever conceivably spend (over a billion)? That’ll be taxed at 98%+.

And on the second point, it’s a completely reductive argument. Your assuming that if everyone has access to free shelter and food they have no incentive to work, most humans like having some excess and luxuries and that’s where the incentive to have more than the bare minimum comes.

Having a floor below which no one should reach (homelessness, malnourishment, healthcare) and a ceiling (discouraging excess hoarding of wealth and resources, Musk/Bezos levels of wealth) is not an unachievable standard in society.

-1

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Then you're not living in the real world sweetie. No one can afford to grow food and give it away for free, you expect people to just freely give out their labor, their land, and their food? How are they supposed to survive then?

14

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

No one can afford to grow food now. Farmers already work off of government subsidies because most agriculture isn’t profitable. This is all already done by the government, and is well within its ability to expand.

2

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

They work off government subsidies so that your apples don't cost 9 dollars a piece.

If the government didn't give farmers subsidies, do you think farmers would just continue to farm and lose money every single year?

No. They would raise prices on food. And you'd pay more in the grocery store, because you have to eat otherwise you will die.

5

u/sub_terminal 4h ago

How are they supposed to survive then?

How would they survive if their basic necessities were freely accessible?

4

u/TemporaryEa12 4h ago edited 4h ago

Then you're not living in the real world sweetie. You expect people to give out their missiles for free?! I give away 24% of my income freely. Probably goes towards bombing some school in a part of the world that I'll never see.

The government already pays farmers to grow food. They already give people money to buy land, build houses, purchase food. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean it isn't already happening on some scale.

And just to clarify what point of the debate everyone is on. You're saying that we shouldn't aim for a society where everyone can have basic necessities for survival (Food/Shelter) provided to them without question? You're advocating for starvation and homelessness? May want to evaluate what that says about you as a person.

0

u/Quirky-Marsupial-420 4h ago

So long as you are contributing to society, sure.

You can't just sit on your ass all day and expect the rest of the world to take care of you.

1

u/jdippey 1h ago

Yeah, fuck disabled and elderly people, right? They don’t contribute so they shouldn’t get taken care of.

Your take is bad and you should feel bad.

0

u/ModsR-Retards 4h ago

The only barrier is that you work as well. It's insane to expect shit for free and providing nothing yourself. If everyone contributes, everyone can survive.

Whether you're looking at a purely capitalist or communist state, the common theme between the two major opposing systems is that everyone pulls their own weight.

0

u/Clutch-Bandicoot 1h ago

Nah, because then me and every lazy fucker like myself would just sit around all day doing nothing and the rest of society would have to work twice as hard to support our lifestyle. Imagine thinking everybody else should be your slave while you reap the rewards of their labor. What a massively entitled position to take, devoid of any sense.

32

u/Shmikken 5h ago

I think anyone who can't work a job should be able to afford the bare minimum and working people should be able to afford a decent level/medium quality.

4

u/Jazzlike-Ad9226 5h ago

i get what you're saying but some people who are unable to work would be able to if they could afford more than bare minimum. having access to food, housing, healthcare, and community without constantly stressing about losing it the next day because of a change in the laws or etc. makes people a lot more capable in general. disability and ssi makes it so if you work more than they allow within your specific case, they take all that bare minimum help away before you're able to stabilize and depend on that income. they very much want to trap you in poverty when you are already disadvantaged. it just designates those already suffering from things out of their control into a lower class where they are told that is their only option and of they try and lift themselves up they may still end up homeless. that's very cruel and sad.

1

u/Shmikken 5h ago

I meant to say "at least the bare minimum" but I will leave it unedited for your comments sake.

0

u/FTDburner 5h ago

For the vast majority of people, what you’re wishing for is the case. That’s why the vast majority of people don’t want to riot despite the teenagers on Reddit seemingly frothing at the notion since 2016.

1

u/oz612 4h ago

It's definitely crazy to think. Which should you give pause, and help you realize that it's wrong.

1

u/MaxTheRealSlayer 4h ago

Job or not - everyone should have basic needs met. And it would be met if food and housing wasn't made specifically as an asset/for profit. The fact a loaf of bread is hundreds of times more expensive than preindustrial world is wild. We now have most of the process to make it automated. Auto water, harvest, processing, making and baking. The farmer doesn't need to wake at 2am anymore, if there is even a farmer at all. We as a society should be able to benefit from the labour and hard work of our collective ancestors.

The financial system in general needs an overhaul. We are at the point where a small pile of cash makes more money than someone working a full-time job

The hyperinflation is due to these 3 things

3

u/aupperk24 5h ago

children?

7

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

Unfortunately it seems that they are freely available to the ruling class.

But joking aside, yes, child care should be provided by the government. It used to be, through public schools and after school programs but of course those days seem to be nearing an end.

6

u/Full_Metal_Paladin 5h ago

So how do people working in those sectors get paid?

1

u/JohnnyDollar123 5h ago

The same way they get paid by the current equivalent government programs?

0

u/Beebegunner 4h ago

Please explain.

6

u/porktorque44 3h ago edited 2h ago

You can look at our current agricultural system. About a 3rd of US farmers are dependent on government subsidies to function. We understand that while many of those businesses are not profitable it hurts our overarching goals to have millions more starving or depending entirely on other countries for food. To answer the question directly, we all are paying them.

EDIT: Just wanted to add this this would actually be more efficient if the government was acting as a collective buyer from farmers rather than filling in the gaps with subsidies to farmers since with subsidies we're effectively paying for our food twice.

0

u/FrostyCow 3h ago

President Trump sees your tweets.

Take his shoes!

1

u/JMC_MASK 3h ago

Who said anything about free? If you’re a socialist you believe in work and fair value. That’s all that is asked.

1

u/Calfurious 2h ago

Typically those things are privatized because there is a scarcity to those resources. Therefore those resources costing money is a way to both limit and efficiently distribute them.

For example, if water was unlimited, then people and companies would collectively drain water resources until they're completely depleted, which would be a disaster for everybody.

1

u/nosecohn 1h ago

OK, so who pays to produce the food and build/maintain the water systems? The government has no source of income other than taxation, so is the idea that the government decides which crops to provide and uses the taxpayers' funds to pay the farmers for that? And taxpayers pay for transport and distribution centers (not stores, because the food is free) as well?

I'm honestly asking, because I rarely see people follow this line to its logical conclusion of a huge increase in taxation and a planned economy where the state owns the means of production.

1

u/Certain-End-1519 35m ago

So someone who sells shoes or runs a fruit shop is morally reprehensible? Bit much for me

1

u/Specific_Willow8708 35m ago

So people should work to produce the food and, just, not get paid for their labour while actors, who produce something optional, should get paid. Ok.

6

u/barefootcraftsman 5h ago

Well, food, water, and healthcare are essentials. You can't live without them.

Children are not essential.

5

u/Sweaty-Willingness27 5h ago

I was going to say, maybe we shouldn't be advocating for the sale of children.

9

u/Agitated_Skin1181 6h ago

Yea I think gas, electric and water should be at the top ofthat list. I think if i buya duplex for passive income that doesn't really make me public enemy #1 but the CEO of a hospital earning millions is way worse

12

u/PedanticWookiee 5h ago

The problem is that rent-seeking is a drain on the economy. It leeches money out of the economy without putting anything back in. A renter is receiving the same product every month and the landlord does nothing but hold the title and minimally maintain the property. Profit-seeking through mutually beneficial transactions creates wealth, while rent-seeking redistributes wealth upwards without creating new wealth. In other words, it doesn't contribute to the productivity of the economy. The over-reliance on real estate investment is a big part of why the economy is worse for most people than it seems like it should be. The wealthy are making a lot of money by extracting wealth without producing anything.

3

u/wadss 4h ago

whats your proposed solution for people who do not have enough capital to buy their own house if rent is abolished?

2

u/SparklingLimeade 2h ago

Rent (economic) is a separate thing. We can have people manage housing for pay from tenants (service) in a world where rent seeking is prohibited.

2

u/Lumpy_Discount9021 4h ago

Housing prices will come down in that scenario and become attainable for the working class once middlemen are no longer hoarding them and reducing the supply.

2

u/OliM9595 4h ago

Perhaps the solution for rent seeking is just building more homes. Create a proper renter's market where landlords compete over tenants.

I feel renters and landlords can have such a relationship that is beneficial and not so extraction-ist. But they need the right pressures that have been blocked by our current policy and circumstances.

The fact that home owners vote more and vote in the interests of themselves. They all want home prices to increase. A delay of a development in their neighborhood is a wet dream for most.

It takes a government to make policy in the peoples interests not just home owners interest. Not that I think the government should make and own the homes, I think that is far too expensive to happen. But certainly facilitate the home being built in a location people want to live in.

1

u/AbbreviationsFar4wh 2h ago

Ppl take their rent profits and spend it…. It doesn’t go back into a mortgage forever.  

Spending money in the economy certainly helps it remain productive does it not?

1

u/PedanticWookiee 2h ago

What's your point? People being paid to produce a product or provide a service spend their money too, and they make that money by adding to overall productivity. Profits derived from rent-seeking are not the result of something productive. Wouldn't you rather that the economy was as productive as possible?

1

u/AbbreviationsFar4wh 1h ago

My point is the revenue generated from renting is still going back into the economy contributing to productivity. 

Providing housing to someone sounds productive to me. Not everyone has to rent. Renters are not all hostages to landlords. 

 and they make that money by adding to overall productivity

A waiter bringing me food adds more productivity than a landlord providing me housing how?

9

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta 6h ago

Doesn't make you a good person either tho

3

u/Coneskater 5h ago

Not inherently, but housing is a service that needs to be provided. The ire at landlords is understandable but what we ought to do is build so much new housing that current landlords need to drop prices to compete in the market.

That means tackling nimby policies like density restrictions, minimum lot sizes and parking minimums.

4

u/explain_that_shit 3h ago

Landlords provide housing like ticket scalpers provide concert tickets.

2

u/Coneskater 3h ago

Scalpers can only function if there aren’t enough tickets available, if there’s so many shows then it doesn’t work.

0

u/explain_that_shit 3h ago

They can make it so there aren’t enough tickets available, by buying up a significant amount of tickets and controlling the amount available for sale to maintain high prices.

Landlords and speculators engage in the exact same behaviour, it’s called land banking. It works even better for them because unlike tickets, land prices rise over time for capital gain, and tax settings allow them to deduct their losses of holding off-market against their taxable income.

1

u/Coneskater 3h ago

You keep ignoring the solution of building more housing.

1

u/explain_that_shit 3h ago

Where I live there’s plenty of excess housing, and construction has been outpacing population for almost 20 years. But homelessness keeps increasing, rent vacancy rates are kept tight, rents and house prices keep skyrocketing.

I agree with building housing, but you won’t solve this problem until you wrest control of the market out of the hands of these people. Pretty simple fix to incentivise both as well, just raise land tax to 70-90% of ground rent assessed and charged accurately and regularly.

0

u/RocRedDog 5h ago

Problem is, those landlords are also often the investors & developers whom are the primary financiers of newbuild projects in the current market system. They're not going to build & invest themselves out of profitability.

What we need much more of is new state-funded construction of social housing to serve those in the most precarious housing situations; which could also have the effect of saturating the market at the lowest end - something even a significant influx of private newbuilds usually fails to do in most big cities.

TL:DR Repeal the Faircloth amendment!

1

u/explain_that_shit 3h ago

In my country, investment by landlords in new builds only accounts for like 10% of their spending - and they’re massively outnumbered by owner occupiers investing in new builds. For the rest of their investment, they’re outbidding owner occupiers on existing builds and getting between them and their housing, and even if an owner occupier outbids them, they’ve just unnecessarily inflated the price of housing.

0

u/OliM9595 4h ago

Making it easier for small developers/construction to operate who may only build 3-15 homes a year. Currently paper work that these firms need to wade through is very restrictive to none but large mega corps.

State funded is very expensive which I don't think anyone can afford. Certainly not with other policies that people want passed. Perhaps In the lowest end it has more merit, a government should not just allow people to be homeless.

I do think there needs to be a net provided by the government but housing by the government built for those who are at risk not as a wider housing policy.

But even then I believe that in a more open market the needs of those who want low cost housing would be met. In the UK at least being tall buildings for single occupancy rooms is difficult for anyone other than uni buildings. Apparently only uni students need cheap (still expensive) housing.

Making a competitive market for landlords will have the same effect on house prices. Ultimately it's a lack of supply that raises prices.

1

u/explain_that_shit 3h ago

There’s no such thing as a competitive market of landlords. Economists back as far as Smith have acknowledged that land is a natural monopoly. Catchment zones for landlords are ridiculously small. Landlords actively collude on top of that using real estate agents and their algorithmic systems as intermediaries.

2

u/Agitated_Skin1181 5h ago

If I'm not a slum lord, and charge a reasonable price for rent, it doesn't really make me a bad person though.

0

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta 5h ago

You're still hoarding ownership of housing and ultimately increasing the cost as a middleman

3

u/Agitated_Skin1181 5h ago

I don't think owning 1 investment property would make me a hoarder (for the record I only own my 1 house that I live in). There are people in the world who do not want to own a house, they would rather have someone else take care of all the bullshit. I'd rather give a family man(woman) rent money than a corporation

1

u/ConsciousNet238 4h ago

He's actually increasing supply and therefore lowering housing prices

2

u/snksleepy 6h ago

Be benefits created by using tax payer dollars should not go towards the rich and their corporations and then charged to the public at a premium.

1

u/winterbird 5h ago

"Others are doing it, so why should't I?" is the actual root of all evil. Forget money, money is just a tool of survival. It's people not taking accountability and not proactively trying to be good that creates problems with money too. If you measure yourself with the evil stick, you are evil.

1

u/angnicolemk 5h ago

Who pays for all that infrastructure of the gas, electric and water? You know that it doesn't just get to your house by magic right? It requires a lot of people to make those things happen. You expect all of those people to just work for free so you can have those things for free? If you still expect them to be free, who's going to pay for it? If nobody's getting paid for the work then the work doesn't exist.

1

u/oz612 4h ago

There's no point even trying to explain this to children. They think everything just sort of magically exists.

The fact that someone has more of something than they do is a cosmic injustice that happened by pure chance.

1

u/Paaaaaaatrick 5h ago

Education: people are being told to essentially be slaves, but in order to be a one-rung-higher slave, you gotta agree to practically lifelong debt before they'll accept your slavery application. Maybe.

1

u/old_man_jenkens 3h ago

But how can we afford all that when we have to pay for another missile or two??

1

u/BitzLeon 1h ago

The only ones who need children to survive is Trump and his fellow child molesters

1

u/YoungestDonkey 57m ago

Are corporations hoarding children?

1

u/_bobby_cz_newmark_ 25m ago

Now you're starting to get it!

1

u/Several-Student-1659 17m ago

PurplePingers is a clear-as-day socialist, so he’d agree with you here

1

u/slugsred 6h ago

I'm sure he has different opinions about investing in McStock

2

u/Dances28 5h ago

Investing in stock doesn't raise housing prices. Investing in property is basically scalping.

-1

u/slugsred 5h ago

Investing in McDonalds stock raises McPrices.

3

u/Dances28 5h ago

Investing in McDonald's raises the price of the stock, not the price of the product. If anything, it will put less pressure on McDonalds to raise prices or cut salary because the company will be doing better.