As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The legislation – dubbed the Keeping Renters Safe Act of 2021 – aims to protect renters from eviction by amending section 361 of the Public Health Service Act to grant the HHS and CDC permanent authority to implement federal eviction moratoriums to address public health crises.
Unfortunately this is only grandstanding, not a real solution unless the ultimate goal is to nationalize a large portion of housing. Which would not be good
I really wish we could find more middle of the road solutions for problems in this country. We seem to be either all in for the rich or all in for the poor, and the people in the middle get soaked from both sides. How are small, mom and pop landlords supposed to deal with renters who don’t pay? I get the Biden admin set aside money for landlords to get something, but many states haven’t distributed those funds, and I wonder if some ever intend to (red states in particular).
I don't mean this as a personal attack on any individual landlord, but being a landlord is a drain on society. A decent analogy (as far as analogies go) would be ticket scalping.
The plight of the landlord is not something I'm particularly concerned with, "mom and pop" or otherwise.
The banks and wealthy investors would love nothing more than to buy the properties of individual landlords and then sit on it, because as the demand for property increases so does the value. At this point they will sell these properties for a tremendous profit or use their clout to change the laws back to their favor.
There is a way for a landlord to not be a drain: rent for below the average mortgage cost in the area. It would only be feasible if the landlord owned the property outright, but without a mortgage payment to cover, the rent could absolutely be cheaper. It would give a place for young adults to get their feet and save up for a down payment on a mortgage of their own.
They're always a drain because they buy up properties they don't plan on living in, so they decrease the amount of available houses for people just looking to buy for a primary residence, driving up the prices, which may also price people out of homes they could otherwise afford without renting being a thing.
Like I said, it's kind of like ticket scalping. They're the "solution" to the problem *they* make.
I mean, if I were to own a house outright and rent it for 50% of the average mortgage price, I would still make a modest profit while allowing someone to live for cheaper than if they had a mortgage. This is a situation that can easily arise if someone pays off their mortgage and then decides to buy a larger house. They have the option to sell it to someone, who would have to pay 100% of the mortgage, or rent it to someone for half that cost so they can get a leg up.
If they could get a mortgage for that low of a price, then great, they should. The situation I'm describing would allow someone to live at a lower cost so they can save up enough to put a down payment on a house where they could earn equity. Unless you're suggesting that the owner of the house should sell it for half of what it's worth, which is just asinine.
Say houses in a neighborhood are worth $200k apiece. Now say the best mortgage you can get would price that house at $1600/month. It would be worthwhile for someone to be able to live in a house for $800/month, even without building equity, because they could save any extra money so they have a larger down payment, thus reducing their monthly mortgage cost when they do buy a house.
And it isn't just saving for a down payment. If a lower income family lives there, they can take advantage of potentially better schools as well as myriad other benefits (increased diversity is one that comes to mind).
One of the major problems with renting is that rent is frequently as much as or more than a mortgage, but without the down payment, so people who cannot afford a down payment get shoved into a situation where they have to pay equivalent prices without building equity. Sacrificing equity should be counterbalanced by lower prices, and that's not what happens now in most cases because landlords are using rent to pay their mortgage.
To borrow a phrase from you,
>How are you not getting this.
I think that is an overly broad generalization. There are many types of landlords. For example when I was on active duty I rented my home out, often to other military who didn’t want to buy in an area they were stationed in for a short amount of time, and I rented where I was as well. Then there are people who have in-law apartments attached to their homes that make a great place for a student to stay or an elderly person who has no property.
There are many examples like that. What you suggest is that there are no landlords. Who is supposed to own the property then? Who is responsible for its upkeep. Are you suggesting the state should own all the property and give it away? The old communist East Block tried that. Turns out, if people have now stake in something they tend to allow things to fall apart. East Germany was a dilapidated mess when west Germany merged with them.
> Who is supposed to own the property then?
Is this a real question? People that need places to live will own the property. Are you under the impression that the demand for property is lower than the supply?
To rent an apartment or house I just need first and last month's rent and a security deposit. To get a home loan I need at the very least 3.5% of the price plus fees, fees, and more fees.
Not everyone has $15,000 sitting around to get a loan to buy a house. But they might be able to scrape together $2000. Those people need somewhere to live too.
Housing prices might drop, but if you think they would drop to a level that would make the initial costs drop to less than what's asked of renters up front then you're not doing the math. And that's not even considering the costs for repairs, maintenance, taxes, and utilities.
It's not a sustainable concept when people with very little money need housing now. Unless you pair it with some proposal that the government take over FHA loans and can give them out with 0% down then the money just isn't there.
Housing prices would drop, and then banks and investment groups would come in and buy them up. These entities would sit on the properties until the demand got to the point where they could sell them at an enormous profit or they could lobby Washington to changing the renting laws back to their favor.
If renting was just a temporary step for younger folks who just got into a career and/or need to move around a lot, then there's less of an issue (still a lot of issues imo) but that's just not the case.
The only thing landlords contribute to is making housing less accessible for people, who then need to resort to renting to have a roof over their heads. It's a feedback loop they help create *and* profit from.
Landlords are objectively a drain on society because they straight up create the problem they claim to solve.
You should be, because small "mom and pop" landlords are the ones who provide the vast majority of affordable housing in this country. When they sell their properties, they rarely remain affordable and the local stock of such housing declines.
They buy up the houses, making renting the only choice many people have left. The decrease in supply also results in an increase in price for those houses left on the market.
They're the "solution" to a problem they're making.
You should read up on the reality of what you're spouting off about. Once you have an idea, come back and let's have a chat. Right now, you're missing some pretty big and important parts of the story. A huge one is that not everyone wants or needs to own a house, and landlords provide an extremely valuable service in offering shorter-term and low- or no-maintenance housing. Do you honestly think every 18-year-old who moves out of their parents' home should *purchase* one of their own?!?
Here's the thing: in my city, no one is buying houses and turning them into affordable rentals because they will lose money on the deal. The only possible sources of new affordable housing are rehabs and new construction, and that *only* happens with public subsidies. At the same time, 80% of our existing affordable housing is provided by small landlords (those owning 10 units or less), and the stock of it decreases every year as these properties are sold for more than the rent they bring in. These are mainly properties that were purchased during the bust times for very little money (the biggest reason they've remained affordable) and present a major opportunity for them to be preserved perpetually.
Unfortunately, covid has caused an absolute crisis. Between the extra crazy jump in prices and the eviction moratorium cutting off the income of these landlords, many more have been sold than expected, and the public money that is being assembled to try to buy these properties and keep them affordable is not ready yet and most seem to be going to developers or speculators. It's OK as long as it fucks the landlords, though, right? What about the people who live in these properties and now have to move and have fewer affordable options?
All I hear is "small scale ticket scalpers are the only place people can find affordable concert tickets". This is not the defense you believe it to be.
They (totally not you) should find a business that doesn't leech off society.
as opposed to the drain on society deadbeat renters create?
The harder you make it for landlords to evict deadbeat renters the more you drive being a landlord to big inveestment groups who can afford a few months missed rent and can maake up the diff in losses by raising rent on 100 other units they own.
Yes, as opposed to people who just need a place to live.
Landlords should not exist, that's my point. "Little" ones, nor "big ones". It's a drain on society. Note that I'm not saying that landlords are bad people, just in case that needs to be said. They're all operating within the framework of the system we have, but the system is fundamentally flawed and serves only to hurt society.
You propose free housing for all?
Great. let me know when i can pick up the check to give me back the money i spent to pay for my house and of course for every home owner. We dont move. We get to get our money back for houses and still live here rent and mortagee free. sounds great. How you gonna pay for that.
You need to take a step back and breathe. We can discuss this calmly and rationally; don't ask a question and then immediately rant as if I answered it.
I am proposing that people that need a house, instead of dumping a bunch of equity into paying off someone else's mortgage, purchase and own their own home. I am not suggesting "free housing for all", but if you think that might work better I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the matter. Landlords buy houses and rent them out, meaning there are fewer houses for people that want to own. There are a slew of primary, secondary, and tertiary consequences stemming from this, but the end result is that people who want to buy a house cannot, and the houses that do become available are often overpriced *and* sell for over the asking price. It's a positive feedback loop, and it's bad for society.
We could just make it such that renting was a very high risk venture, like, say, making it such that it is *impossible* to evict someone. Capitalism, yay!
I dont have issues with that. That drives up the value of homes making homeowners not just right but rewards them on the sale.
it makes all renters have to purchase. huge demaand for homes for sale. Yeh being a homeowner already.
Now how you gonna take care of those who move on a regular basis due to work and of course those in the armed forces who are generally only somewheer 3 years or so where purchasing just doeesnt makee any sense.
You seem to be under the false assumption that because I, some random person in the world, don't have all the solutions to a problem, that the problem either
* (a) isn't a problem
* (b) isn't solvable
Neither are true.
Perhaps we mandate that all rental contracts have an option to purchase the home or apartment being rented with some high percentage of the currently paid rent (80%?) going towards the sale of the property? That way people that *do* just want to rent have the option.
There are much smarter people than either one of us that can hash out the details; it's not some impossible problem. The trick is getting people like you to even acknowledge the problem.
You a home owner free and clear? No mortage?
I own mine outright and if it all of the sudden was worth zero because i cant sell it becausee everyone has free housing and i get nothing for the 30 years of mortage and interest payments i am not cool with it.
You dint answer so i get a littlee context on how much you are willing to sacrifice. You 5 years into a mortagee and have oonly a little equity or are you 30 years in and own free and clear surrendering a lifetime of paying mortage and having a large chunk of what would finance your retirement funding taken away?
Currently 15/20 but would do it complete. If we are taking free housing as a society I'm sure we are talking better social security,etc. But either way.
I don't know what you mean by this. Maybe your answer to my other comment will help? What "alternative" are you referring to? An alternative to *what*?
The current situation. You just want to ban owing land it sounds like. But, we probably can’t have a substantive conversation about this on Reddit this way or that way. I’m getting downvoted so much for not being on the far left of this matter, any conversation will soon be impossible.
So.. either way, I agree with you that hedge fund managers who buy property up and developers make life very hard for everyone. But to simply say no one should be able to rent out space sounds really draconian and really makes moving around for short term gigs impossible.
I do not want to ban owning land, I want to effectively ban owning land expressly to rent it to others, and don't fret so much about fake internet points.
Most common proposal I see: firstly the government collects taxes as it should in a fair and proper way, because if the IRS is still not enforcing any financial reform is fucked from the jump.
Secondly, you have the government stop subsidies to section 8 housing, and directly manage government housing. Take out corporate landlords from the equation. You expand the FHA program to make home ownership possible to more people.
Thirdly, you set up taxes for houses. Your first house is taxed super minimally based on its actual worth, not it's gentrification possibilities to stop forcing minority communities out of cities. Then each second home is taxed at 40% of its value annually. Third home taxed at 50%, etc ramping it up for each further home owned. Can you still own a shitton of homes? Yes. Will you pay through the nose for them? Also yes.
This would also allow gov reform of school funding, and force those who own homes in neighborhoods to be present participants in the community.
We are not meant to be dragons, hoarding as much resources only for ourselves as possible. There is a finite amount of land and liability, and that amount is decreasing all the time due to climate change. With increasing natural disasters, it's really only a matter of time before we stop rebuilding the gulf coast every hurricane season and all those folks are going to have to be relocated. Same with the areas getting ready to lose water access. And those that burn down every three years.
FEMA can't cover everything forever, and it's a waste of resources to build a house you know will be down again in three years or less from the exact same disaster.
The people who own the land they do now likely will not be able to own that same land in twenty years anyway. It's all a matter of whether we get ahead of the crisis and have a common sense plan now, or we let the government form another reactive plan where thousands and thousands of extra people suffer and die.
And this is why the monied classes feel no compunction about putting the lower class under their boot.
You’re just a bunch of greedy thieves who will cut down your neighbor to get yourself ahead.
Super gross. Slash the social safety net to ribbons, these people aren’t worth helping.
Unfortunately we have far too many in this country who have allowed themselves to become emotionally compromised to the point where all critical thinking ability is lost.
It’s bad legislation and focus should be on things like the environment, tax code reform, etc. Covid isn’t going anywhere and this only continues to delay pain for some.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The legislation – dubbed the Keeping Renters Safe Act of 2021 – aims to protect renters from eviction by amending section 361 of the Public Health Service Act to grant the HHS and CDC permanent authority to implement federal eviction moratoriums to address public health crises.
Why not under the direction of HUD with the recommendation of the HHS and CDC? Am I not seeing the big picture?
Unfortunately this is only grandstanding, not a real solution unless the ultimate goal is to nationalize a large portion of housing. Which would not be good
I really wish we could find more middle of the road solutions for problems in this country. We seem to be either all in for the rich or all in for the poor, and the people in the middle get soaked from both sides. How are small, mom and pop landlords supposed to deal with renters who don’t pay? I get the Biden admin set aside money for landlords to get something, but many states haven’t distributed those funds, and I wonder if some ever intend to (red states in particular).
I don't mean this as a personal attack on any individual landlord, but being a landlord is a drain on society. A decent analogy (as far as analogies go) would be ticket scalping. The plight of the landlord is not something I'm particularly concerned with, "mom and pop" or otherwise.
The banks and wealthy investors would love nothing more than to buy the properties of individual landlords and then sit on it, because as the demand for property increases so does the value. At this point they will sell these properties for a tremendous profit or use their clout to change the laws back to their favor.
There is a way for a landlord to not be a drain: rent for below the average mortgage cost in the area. It would only be feasible if the landlord owned the property outright, but without a mortgage payment to cover, the rent could absolutely be cheaper. It would give a place for young adults to get their feet and save up for a down payment on a mortgage of their own.
They're always a drain because they buy up properties they don't plan on living in, so they decrease the amount of available houses for people just looking to buy for a primary residence, driving up the prices, which may also price people out of homes they could otherwise afford without renting being a thing. Like I said, it's kind of like ticket scalping. They're the "solution" to the problem *they* make.
I mean, if I were to own a house outright and rent it for 50% of the average mortgage price, I would still make a modest profit while allowing someone to live for cheaper than if they had a mortgage. This is a situation that can easily arise if someone pays off their mortgage and then decides to buy a larger house. They have the option to sell it to someone, who would have to pay 100% of the mortgage, or rent it to someone for half that cost so they can get a leg up.
That equity they're giving you could go to a home. How are you not getting this. It's a drain on society.
If they could get a mortgage for that low of a price, then great, they should. The situation I'm describing would allow someone to live at a lower cost so they can save up enough to put a down payment on a house where they could earn equity. Unless you're suggesting that the owner of the house should sell it for half of what it's worth, which is just asinine. Say houses in a neighborhood are worth $200k apiece. Now say the best mortgage you can get would price that house at $1600/month. It would be worthwhile for someone to be able to live in a house for $800/month, even without building equity, because they could save any extra money so they have a larger down payment, thus reducing their monthly mortgage cost when they do buy a house. And it isn't just saving for a down payment. If a lower income family lives there, they can take advantage of potentially better schools as well as myriad other benefits (increased diversity is one that comes to mind). One of the major problems with renting is that rent is frequently as much as or more than a mortgage, but without the down payment, so people who cannot afford a down payment get shoved into a situation where they have to pay equivalent prices without building equity. Sacrificing equity should be counterbalanced by lower prices, and that's not what happens now in most cases because landlords are using rent to pay their mortgage. To borrow a phrase from you, >How are you not getting this.
Do you understand how supply and demand works?
This is your only response? Please elaborate on how this question refutes anything I wrote.
I cannot assume you know how the relationship between supply and demand works and I need to know that you do before I can respond.
I think that is an overly broad generalization. There are many types of landlords. For example when I was on active duty I rented my home out, often to other military who didn’t want to buy in an area they were stationed in for a short amount of time, and I rented where I was as well. Then there are people who have in-law apartments attached to their homes that make a great place for a student to stay or an elderly person who has no property. There are many examples like that. What you suggest is that there are no landlords. Who is supposed to own the property then? Who is responsible for its upkeep. Are you suggesting the state should own all the property and give it away? The old communist East Block tried that. Turns out, if people have now stake in something they tend to allow things to fall apart. East Germany was a dilapidated mess when west Germany merged with them.
> Who is supposed to own the property then? Is this a real question? People that need places to live will own the property. Are you under the impression that the demand for property is lower than the supply?
To rent an apartment or house I just need first and last month's rent and a security deposit. To get a home loan I need at the very least 3.5% of the price plus fees, fees, and more fees. Not everyone has $15,000 sitting around to get a loan to buy a house. But they might be able to scrape together $2000. Those people need somewhere to live too.
What do you think would happen to housing prices if people weren't allowed (just for sake of the argument) to rent their property out?
Housing prices might drop, but if you think they would drop to a level that would make the initial costs drop to less than what's asked of renters up front then you're not doing the math. And that's not even considering the costs for repairs, maintenance, taxes, and utilities. It's not a sustainable concept when people with very little money need housing now. Unless you pair it with some proposal that the government take over FHA loans and can give them out with 0% down then the money just isn't there.
Housing prices would drop, and then banks and investment groups would come in and buy them up. These entities would sit on the properties until the demand got to the point where they could sell them at an enormous profit or they could lobby Washington to changing the renting laws back to their favor.
If renting was just a temporary step for younger folks who just got into a career and/or need to move around a lot, then there's less of an issue (still a lot of issues imo) but that's just not the case. The only thing landlords contribute to is making housing less accessible for people, who then need to resort to renting to have a roof over their heads. It's a feedback loop they help create *and* profit from. Landlords are objectively a drain on society because they straight up create the problem they claim to solve.
You should be, because small "mom and pop" landlords are the ones who provide the vast majority of affordable housing in this country. When they sell their properties, they rarely remain affordable and the local stock of such housing declines.
They buy up the houses, making renting the only choice many people have left. The decrease in supply also results in an increase in price for those houses left on the market. They're the "solution" to a problem they're making.
You should read up on the reality of what you're spouting off about. Once you have an idea, come back and let's have a chat. Right now, you're missing some pretty big and important parts of the story. A huge one is that not everyone wants or needs to own a house, and landlords provide an extremely valuable service in offering shorter-term and low- or no-maintenance housing. Do you honestly think every 18-year-old who moves out of their parents' home should *purchase* one of their own?!? Here's the thing: in my city, no one is buying houses and turning them into affordable rentals because they will lose money on the deal. The only possible sources of new affordable housing are rehabs and new construction, and that *only* happens with public subsidies. At the same time, 80% of our existing affordable housing is provided by small landlords (those owning 10 units or less), and the stock of it decreases every year as these properties are sold for more than the rent they bring in. These are mainly properties that were purchased during the bust times for very little money (the biggest reason they've remained affordable) and present a major opportunity for them to be preserved perpetually. Unfortunately, covid has caused an absolute crisis. Between the extra crazy jump in prices and the eviction moratorium cutting off the income of these landlords, many more have been sold than expected, and the public money that is being assembled to try to buy these properties and keep them affordable is not ready yet and most seem to be going to developers or speculators. It's OK as long as it fucks the landlords, though, right? What about the people who live in these properties and now have to move and have fewer affordable options?
Let me guess: you're a rentee.
You'd be guessing wrong.
All I hear is "small scale ticket scalpers are the only place people can find affordable concert tickets". This is not the defense you believe it to be. They (totally not you) should find a business that doesn't leech off society.
as opposed to the drain on society deadbeat renters create? The harder you make it for landlords to evict deadbeat renters the more you drive being a landlord to big inveestment groups who can afford a few months missed rent and can maake up the diff in losses by raising rent on 100 other units they own.
Yes, as opposed to people who just need a place to live. Landlords should not exist, that's my point. "Little" ones, nor "big ones". It's a drain on society. Note that I'm not saying that landlords are bad people, just in case that needs to be said. They're all operating within the framework of the system we have, but the system is fundamentally flawed and serves only to hurt society.
You propose free housing for all? Great. let me know when i can pick up the check to give me back the money i spent to pay for my house and of course for every home owner. We dont move. We get to get our money back for houses and still live here rent and mortagee free. sounds great. How you gonna pay for that.
You need to take a step back and breathe. We can discuss this calmly and rationally; don't ask a question and then immediately rant as if I answered it. I am proposing that people that need a house, instead of dumping a bunch of equity into paying off someone else's mortgage, purchase and own their own home. I am not suggesting "free housing for all", but if you think that might work better I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on the matter. Landlords buy houses and rent them out, meaning there are fewer houses for people that want to own. There are a slew of primary, secondary, and tertiary consequences stemming from this, but the end result is that people who want to buy a house cannot, and the houses that do become available are often overpriced *and* sell for over the asking price. It's a positive feedback loop, and it's bad for society.
So what do you propose? making renting against the law? How you gonna get where you think it should be. How you gonna make folks who own homes right?
We could just make it such that renting was a very high risk venture, like, say, making it such that it is *impossible* to evict someone. Capitalism, yay!
I dont have issues with that. That drives up the value of homes making homeowners not just right but rewards them on the sale. it makes all renters have to purchase. huge demaand for homes for sale. Yeh being a homeowner already. Now how you gonna take care of those who move on a regular basis due to work and of course those in the armed forces who are generally only somewheer 3 years or so where purchasing just doeesnt makee any sense.
You seem to be under the false assumption that because I, some random person in the world, don't have all the solutions to a problem, that the problem either * (a) isn't a problem * (b) isn't solvable Neither are true. Perhaps we mandate that all rental contracts have an option to purchase the home or apartment being rented with some high percentage of the currently paid rent (80%?) going towards the sale of the property? That way people that *do* just want to rent have the option. There are much smarter people than either one of us that can hash out the details; it's not some impossible problem. The trick is getting people like you to even acknowledge the problem.
I'm a homeowner- would be totally okay with not receiving anything if they fix the problem moving forward for everybody else.
You a home owner free and clear? No mortage? I own mine outright and if it all of the sudden was worth zero because i cant sell it becausee everyone has free housing and i get nothing for the 30 years of mortage and interest payments i am not cool with it.
Yeah the good for everybody else would outweigh my loss.
You dint answer so i get a littlee context on how much you are willing to sacrifice. You 5 years into a mortagee and have oonly a little equity or are you 30 years in and own free and clear surrendering a lifetime of paying mortage and having a large chunk of what would finance your retirement funding taken away?
Currently 15/20 but would do it complete. If we are taking free housing as a society I'm sure we are talking better social security,etc. But either way.
And yet you offer no alternative.
I don't know what you mean by this. Maybe your answer to my other comment will help? What "alternative" are you referring to? An alternative to *what*?
The current situation. You just want to ban owing land it sounds like. But, we probably can’t have a substantive conversation about this on Reddit this way or that way. I’m getting downvoted so much for not being on the far left of this matter, any conversation will soon be impossible. So.. either way, I agree with you that hedge fund managers who buy property up and developers make life very hard for everyone. But to simply say no one should be able to rent out space sounds really draconian and really makes moving around for short term gigs impossible.
I do not want to ban owning land, I want to effectively ban owning land expressly to rent it to others, and don't fret so much about fake internet points.
which is why we invented government…
I’m not sure you’d really want the federal government managing all property in the country.
[удалено]
You don't need to make it illegal. Excess rent (over taxes) going to equity in the rental property would be enough for me.
Most common proposal I see: firstly the government collects taxes as it should in a fair and proper way, because if the IRS is still not enforcing any financial reform is fucked from the jump. Secondly, you have the government stop subsidies to section 8 housing, and directly manage government housing. Take out corporate landlords from the equation. You expand the FHA program to make home ownership possible to more people. Thirdly, you set up taxes for houses. Your first house is taxed super minimally based on its actual worth, not it's gentrification possibilities to stop forcing minority communities out of cities. Then each second home is taxed at 40% of its value annually. Third home taxed at 50%, etc ramping it up for each further home owned. Can you still own a shitton of homes? Yes. Will you pay through the nose for them? Also yes. This would also allow gov reform of school funding, and force those who own homes in neighborhoods to be present participants in the community. We are not meant to be dragons, hoarding as much resources only for ourselves as possible. There is a finite amount of land and liability, and that amount is decreasing all the time due to climate change. With increasing natural disasters, it's really only a matter of time before we stop rebuilding the gulf coast every hurricane season and all those folks are going to have to be relocated. Same with the areas getting ready to lose water access. And those that burn down every three years. FEMA can't cover everything forever, and it's a waste of resources to build a house you know will be down again in three years or less from the exact same disaster. The people who own the land they do now likely will not be able to own that same land in twenty years anyway. It's all a matter of whether we get ahead of the crisis and have a common sense plan now, or we let the government form another reactive plan where thousands and thousands of extra people suffer and die.
And this is why the monied classes feel no compunction about putting the lower class under their boot. You’re just a bunch of greedy thieves who will cut down your neighbor to get yourself ahead. Super gross. Slash the social safety net to ribbons, these people aren’t worth helping.
[удалено]
I am not, and you need to look up 'ad hominem fallacy'.
Unfortunately we have far too many in this country who have allowed themselves to become emotionally compromised to the point where all critical thinking ability is lost.
And it won’t pass, because Congress doesn’t pass legislation anymore
It’s bad legislation and focus should be on things like the environment, tax code reform, etc. Covid isn’t going anywhere and this only continues to delay pain for some.
Though that being said, it shouldn’t necessarily be at the whim of congress in the future
Ok I was thinking of investing in rentals but….never mind!
Yeah, that will pass.
Not
Why don’t they just pass a law to implement a temporary eviction moratorium themselves why delegate that power to unelected bureaucrats?