cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/41774241
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
802 points (97.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
39459 readers
9016 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is enough housing. It sits unoccupied and sometimes disrepair.
Yes, though also some are in such economically depressed areas that you can barely get a job.
We also need to organize for clean public transit; in the meantime, there's often plenty in bustling areas, as well.
Lots of empty apartments are in luxury buildings right in the best parts of big cities.
Fully furnished too, just empty tax shelters to be traded back and forth by billionaires and their kids when they need cash.
We need to convince the desk staff and security in this buildings to help people squat in them indefinitely.
Knowing how poorly these employers tend to compensate the staff, they may be happy to accept roommates in the accommodations.
Which is a concern, but can largely be mitigated by encouraging work-from-home jobs. If people are able to reliably WFH, (and COVID proved that many jobs can be done entirely from home), then the local job market doesn’t tend to matter as much.
But a lot of them are in densely populated suburbs or cities, driven out by the artificially inflated rental costs. The owners would rather have a few units empty than lower the rent.
That is not the consequence of enough housing. It's from wealth hoarding.
- Crack down on price fixing
- Don't let corporations run AirBNBs or similar
- Don't let corporations own any rental building under approximately 10 units.
- Don't let rental buildings have more than a low percentage of empty units for turn around. They have to lower the rent then. If it goes to $200/month, then so be it.
There are so many things to try, but Trickle Down Housing never works.
Don’t let corporations own single family homes. Drastically increase the tax rate for more than 3 houses by any single person. A landlords income is not producing anything useful, it’s stealing income from people actually providing society with something useful.
Drastically increase the tax rate for more than 3 houses by any single person.
I would say that it should start building the tax after one house and go drastic like you said on the 3rd.
Ratcheting taxes for unoccupied houses and apartment units. Allow a grace period of one year, to allow for flips. But after that, every home you own after the first is considered unoccupied if it is vacant for more than three months of the year. And taxes on vacant homes become increasingly expensive as you own more and more of them.
Like the first vacant house you own may be near a normal tax rate, the second makes both more expensive, the third makes all three super expensive, etc… And these tax penalties should get expensive fast. Like up to (or even over) 100% if you’re sitting on more than like five or six properties. Then take the proceeds of these higher taxes, and put them towards first time homebuyer assistance programs. I’d even go so far as to say that renting a single family home shouldn’t totally eliminate the tax, only reduce it. This would solve the three largest issues with the housing market right now.
First, it solves the “sitting on vacant houses to drive up the price of rent” problem. Actively force landlords to keep their apartments and houses full, driving down the price of rent. If the unit is occupied, the tax is lower. And again, even the most expensive landlords should only be able to feasibly own three or four extra properties before the taxes get prohibitively expensive, even after being mitigated by occupation.
Second, it solves the “buying a dozen houses and only selling one of them” problem. Corporations do this to be able to game the market and drive up prices on the few they do sell. But by making it prohibitively expensive to sit on vacant houses, you preemptively wreck any kinds of profits they would make by sitting on them.
Third, it would allow for more low interest loans for first time home buyers, and could even be used to offset the potential downpayment costs.
But of course, this will basically never be implemented, because the lawmakers are all bribed by the corporations that own thousands of vacant homes.
load more comments
(4 replies)
hell yeah, rentals should be made prohibitively expensive to keep empty, if the city don't have the demand to rent it? Then you should sell it at a price people will buy in a short enough time.
Best I can do is fed interest rate cuts.
Don’t let corporations own any rental building over approximately 10 units
Wouldn't corpos be the ones to buy larger buildings (e.g. over 10 units)? It's tough for typical individual investors to be able to buy a 100-unit building.
It's SFH that they shouldn't be buying.
I meant under 10 units, you're right. I fixed it. I'm down with a cold and I knew it wasn't quite right, but my brain couldn't fix it, lol.
Edit: That has to be in conjunction with them not being able to have airbnbs though too. Cuz that's just a hotel.
A lack of housing is not the problem most places. The problem is that housing shifted from being a place for people to live to a way for people to acquire "passive income". Hell, the very design of housing changed in a noticeable way: houses shifted from being homes to being feature laden investment vehicles.
Damn that backpack looking spacious af
I'm not really buying the no housing thing now. The thing is, it turned into a commodity. If you just build more, then those with all the money (because that gap is pretty damn vast nowadays) will just buy and hold and rent them
Wait till air comes next, or some stupid ass shit.
IMO: do what Vienna is doing: state provided apartments and flats, competing with everyone else. Try price fixing now, corpos. If Vienna did not have this, it would be at the same level as other european metropolises.
Edit: typo
Not a shitpost
Which makes it the ultimate shitpost.
Oh and the sidebar
Anything and everything goes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Building it isn't the problem. My Republican shithole burb just bulldozed the last of our open space, to build 600 single family units starting in the "low one millions." Can't afford that? No problem. They're also building 2000 condos, starting in "the mid 500s."
Starting to see the real problem?
We have plenty of housing. The problem is its all tied up with money hoarders. There are several times the number of empty houses than there are homeless. If we got rid hedge fund scumbags ability to horde everything including single family dwellings it would go a long way toward fixing this inequity.
Residential housing shouldn't be owned by corporations. It should be built by them and then sold to individuals.
A co-op could handle it without much problem.
Yeah, anything that prevents the financialisation of residential housing floats my boat. In Iceland we have big corpos selling each other houses at over market price to increase the average m^2 price in an area. It's pretty bonkers.
In the US, money laundering accomplishes essentially the same thing.
Haha
I was just watching a YT travelogue of a US guy in his 50s (Gen X) who was travelling the world frugally with a backpack because he can't afford rent in the US. He had some investments and spent less travelling then working and living in the US, so his investments have grown in the 3 yrs he's done this.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuNKV0CMgcVUiJNdA-JNlJA
Plent of US retirees in Cambodia for the same reaon, can't afford the US anymore.
2030 is more like ⚰️
2030: a tent
2050: a cardboard box
After the embarrassment of the last ten years, and the ongoing embarrassment until the fat orange child rapist dies, then I'd say getting a backpack and leaving the Nazied States of America is probably the best move.
In Europe we have already achieved the backpack level. We are winning. 💪
The consequences of letting companies buy up residential homes.
Another cyberpunk come true scenario that involves absolutely no cool cybernetics
Obviously fake and misrepresented. The paint isn't peeling off that van.
How about taxing owners of unoccupied homes?
There's plenty of housing, it's just not profitable to let people live there, so obviously it's better to just leave it all empty.
The backwards thing is, it probably actually is profitable, but we can’t see beyond the next quarter. We don’t understand that you can invest in your people.
I might have kids if I had the space for it. You know, future taxpayers.
....you cross-posted from "Neoliberal" and tried to pass it off as a shitpost? For fucks sake. They're not even trying anymore. At least we don't have to look at a pedophile in this particular political post. Are the mods ever going to do something about this shit?
view more: next ›