1064
Rent is Robbery (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So there should be no land ownership? The government should just build housing for people on land they own, I mean have. Like communism then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's the ideal solution, but not the only solution.

    So there should be no land ownership

    There already isn't, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.

    Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a "usefulness" score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn't have increased taxes. Empty houses aren't useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don't think that's a very productive topic...

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

    That would be incentivised, yes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That's the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren't currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent