991
Housing prices
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
991 points (98.8% liked)
Work Reform
17140 readers
2233 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I do have to agree with you. It's a demand issue, combined with the rate that it is being built.
I think it would be fully okay to have the cost of a house be multiplicative, based off how many you own after the second house. So, if you are looking to buy a third house, the price is actually double than what you would be expecting, and then your fourth house would be triple what you're expecting, etc.
The price of the house will be the cost the seller lists it as, and the seller gets the cost that they listed it as. However, anything over the cost it was listed, if you are affected by that multiplier, has that money go straight into the government.
The reason I say after the second house is because I do personally think it's fair for someone to want a vacation home somewhere, I just don't think it's fair for someone to have an interest into having a second, third, fourth, or sometimes even fifth vacation home. And there are many cases where you would want to own a second property such as if you run a self-employed job such as a computer repair specialist, you will probably own a shop, and having a office that's at twice the cost of what it normally would be is extremely cost prohibitive to someone wanting to get into the market.
I also firmly believe that there should be quite extortionate taxes for buildings that are labeled residential but have an owner who primarily rents it out for more than a quarter of the year. The whole Airbnb our property is technically zoned residential but are actually commercial loophole is absolutely ridiculous and a huge problem. If you aren't allowed to put a motel or a hotel there, you shouldn't be allowed to have an Airbnb there.
And all that extra money goes to building social housing.
That's trickier than it sounds. The places where people buy third homes are the same places where NIMBYs can stop development of poor people housing. Even though those rich people need servants and servants need quarters.
If we’re already living in a world where we can tax homes at 100%, 200%, etc. then we’re also living in a world where we can pretty easily tell NIMBYs to go fuck themselves.
Catch 22. As a politician you gotta please the people with money. The people buying homes taxed 200% have the money. Until we reach Star Trek levels of selfless post scarcity society that's not going to happen and by that point it won't be necessary.
I like how we’re making a scenario where things might actually go well and you’re still trying to find ways to lose.
I'm trying to find realistic solutions. And if we don't red team premortem then we are building to fail.