this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
877 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3162 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 80 points 3 months ago (2 children)

yeah, fuck tax benefits, make it illegal

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Property tax should be 100% for third houses (there are legit reasons to own 2 houses - especially when helping a family member finance a home or inheriting property) and for any houses not owned by an actual human.

Give developers building a house 3 months to sell after completion. If it doesn't sell in that time, it gets auctioned off to the highest bidder with no minimum price.

Also give a maximum construction time of like 2 years to keep them from leaving a door off or something and calling it unfinished until it sells for their inflated bullshit value.

Land zoned residential must be developed or sold to an individual human within X years. Empty land that's zoned residential should be platted with a maximum lot size appropriate to the area to keep them from developing 1 house on a thousand-acre tract and selling it to someone who is trying to sit on the land as an investment.

Essentially, developers need to be forced to build and sell houses at a fair market rate they're prohibited from manipulating.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

also 100% rent tax for second rent and beyond.

you ask rent for one house, fine. maybe you invested in it, inherited it, whatever. maybe you have one house but don't want to live in it so you have renters in it while you rent another apartment yourself, cool, you do you. you're paid rent from one source, you pay regular rates. you put a second place for rent, sorry, all of it goes to subsidizing affordable (if not free) housing.

and because I'm a gracious and benevolent pretend lawmaker, you get to choose which single place you get to pay the regular rates for. all the rest of your places get 100%.

market rates can also be enforced with flexible tax rates:

if the market is 100 and you ask for 100, you pay X.
if you ask for 200, you pay X + 100.
if you ask for 300, you pay X + 250.
if you ask for 400, you pay X + 400. and so on.

the government can easily make sure you get not only zero benefit from inflating prices, but actually take losses. if the rich cunts can pay negative taxes, they can handle negative net gains.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

150%.

100% still let's them sit on it and raise property rates.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My one question with this is, what do you do for multi-unit apartments and such that aren't condos? Yes, it's corporate-owned. Yes, that has its own slime that needs to be cleaned up. But it's also a reasonable way to increase housing density (meaning more housing and, if done correctly, less reliance on cars). Housing rentals do have their place in the world, especially when people only plan on living somewhere for a few years (college students, military, medium-term jobs)

How do you free up the housing market from landlords and investors while not screwing things up for people who would actually be better off renting?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

simply decommodify housing, either by force or with aggressive taxation that makes it effectively poison to try to collect houses like these leeches do. once all the extra houses become poison, the government buys them for a reasonable price.

reasonable for the people, btw, not for the owners. then you provide affordable housing that pretty much acts as a rent, except instead of pouring money into the bank account of a random fuckwit you pay a little extra tax for it.

because it's super affordable and always available, losing your home is now no longer a big concern. imagine the kind of power this gives people in the workforce alone. let alone general public health and mental stability.

you could have it as rent-taxes as long as you stay, where you can move out whenever, move in to another government housing or maybe buy your own and move there. or you could have the option to rent-until-you-own, where you pay taxes to live in a house until you completely pay it off, and then it's yours, so long as you don't own another home. basically like mortgage/credit but without banks and much cheaper installments and overall price.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ehhh... Your first word was "simply" and that was followed by a 4-paragraph paradigm so different from what we have it's bound to open many more cans of worms. I'm not sure it'll be that simple

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I'm sorry, we were knee deep in a situation already completely different than what we have and then you asked what about the benefit of renting. this is only one step away from what we were saying before. we already established that taxes should make owning homes untenable. next step is the government buying those extra homes and making them available for rent.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I think this is maybe a tad extreme. There should definitely be diminishing returns for each additional single family home rented, but I propose something like an additional 20% per. So, 20% for the 2nd, 40% for the 3rd, 60% for the 4th, 80% for the 5th, etc. Nobody needs to own more than six single family properties.

My proposal, however, also includes that when we catch some asshat inevitably inventing shell corporations and LLC's attempting to evade this, as if we couldn't see that coming a mile off, we don't tax or fine them.

Instead, we put them in jail.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Can we add on the penalty being forced to hike across the Mojave buck naked with no shoes.