924
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Rottcodd@lemmy.world 240 points 2 years ago

Bezos isn't going to miss a chance to dick people over. Because apparently he's not rich enough yet.

Imagine what the world would be like if we treated sociopathy as the vividly destructive mental illness it so obviously is, rather than rewarding sociopaths with wealth and power.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 72 points 2 years ago

What is his goal? More zeroes on a spreadsheet? Does he take satisfaction in being evil?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 82 points 2 years ago

It's likely the same as corporations.

Once they get so much money, they focus on quarterly profits. Then you compare percentage change from last quarter/month.

So he just doesn't think about the billions he has banked.

Or the multimillions he makes a year

It's a small percentage of change, and making 90 million after 100 million can be viewed as losing money this way, which makes these fucking psychopaths believe they need to be even shittier to make more money.

He's not looking at his wealth, but at the rate he's accumulating it, even though he literally can't spend what he has now if he tried.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 years ago

I could spend it on creating positive change in the world, but nah; better for the corporations to have it I’m sure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] snooggums@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago

Having the most wealth which leads to the most power is clearly his goal.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 200 points 2 years ago

Can we finally focus on real estate reform now?

This latest housing crisis has made it abundantly clear that allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to own single family homes is destructive to society as a whole.

The priority should be owner occupied homes. People need housing security. If even the middle class with career jobs can't afford a modest house in their peak working years, the system is broken.

We can attack this runaway housing inflation by doing the following:

  1. Ban companies (including hedge funds, etc) from owning condos and houses. Apartment complexes are still fair game, because society needs high occupancy buildings which require more capital to build and run.

  2. Limit individual ownership to 3 (as an example, number doesn't matter) dwellings. This will curb the rampant "buy for short term rental, parlay into next purchase for short term rental" scheme. We still need rental properties, and small local landowners should be the priority.

  3. Heavy penalties for selling in under 2 (as an example) years. This will also curb the short term rentals due to added risk, as well as curbing the flippers relisting at 30%+ (and I've seen 100%) markups after 3 months.

Each of these wouldn't be outright bans which would potentially too big of a disruption. But in phases, using increasing tax penalties as the stick.

We need to stop treating homes as a commodity. They are a basic essential.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 62 points 2 years ago

I still don't understand how this hasn't been a bigger priority in government. I wouldn't expect Republicans to care about it at all, but it feels like nobody is giving it any attention at the State or National level. These out-of-control rents and housing prices are insane. I've got a relatively ok salary and I'm barely staying on top of things, but I don't know how the hell anybody else is still holding it together.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago

Lobbying and self interest.

These reforms may result in housing prices decreasing or holding steady. Which is a plus for anyone entering or laterally moving to occupy. It's a negative for people using housing as an investment.

It's not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would "hurt" them personally.

Same with WFH endangering commercial real estate. Lobbies and personal interest. Plenty of business owners in politics.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

It’s not a stretch to assume that a lot of politicians are in the multiple land ownership territory. And thus, would “hurt” them personally.

More to the point, it will cost them any support among suburban homeowners, which is how we got here in the first place. That's a massive bloc of voters and very few homeowners don't see their homes as an investment

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

Yes, the "fuck you, I got mine" is the core American voter demographic, unfortunately.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Argongas@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago

I would add a progressively higher tax rate for each property beyond 2-3.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Most definitely. When I said limit to 3, I meant exceeding the limit would incur progressively higher taxes.

We need to eliminate large holdings. They help no one but the investors, at the cost of everyone else.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] nature_man@lemmy.world 131 points 2 years ago

Probably a controversial opinion but companies should not be able to own residential real estate at all, the reason most people cant get a house is because big companies are buying them up with limitless sums of money so they can rent them out infinitely, its not a free market when the big company will pay 20% over your entire life savings just to make sure you don't own anything.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Not just limitless sums, companies are borrowing at very low interest rates and skyrocketing real estate prices with free money. Consequelty also causing mass inflation. So you're paying for them owning houses.

[-] AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago

Absolutely nothing controversial about the truth. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite of controversial, at least in this case.

[-] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Controversial would be, "if the government won't stop corporations from buying up single family homes, we should do it ourselves by any means necessary." That's controversial.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 114 points 2 years ago

residential property should not be able to be bought by corporations, there is no benefit in allowing that to happen at all

[-] Aleric@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

It's sure beneficial for the rich fucks behind these companies. Everyone else gets fucked.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 110 points 2 years ago

100% tax over a billion dollars.

Yeah all the $40k/yr MAGAts gonna haaaaaate that

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Coldgoron@lemmy.world 73 points 2 years ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mojo@lemm.ee 62 points 2 years ago

Literally straight up evil

[-] Modva@lemmy.world 60 points 2 years ago

It will not stop. The government won't step in, because they are all in on it. Their money comes first, above all else. The way they treat me homeless people today is how you will be treated tomorrow.

There is only one way to stop the runaway cancer of greed, and it's not by writing angry notes.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Vej@lemm.ee 51 points 2 years ago

How the fuck does anyone even afford to buy a house now? Billionaires keep buying them all out just to rent them out, to buy more houses. It's almost as bad as me trying to use a hula hoop.

[-] just_change_it@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's not just billionaires buying up all the housing, it's anyone who can afford the investment. Real estate makes interest in value year over year with minimal upkeep costs AND it generates revenue every year from rentals. If you manage to secure permits to convert it to multifamily you instantly split your house into two parts with nearly the same individual value, almost doubling the value on the spot at the cost of adding a couple of walls and doors and maybe a kitchen.

Real Estate as a source of investment and revenue goes contrary to the idea of accessible housing for everybody. If it's a lucrative investment with greater low risk returns than any other low risk investment type, why would anyone take more risk?

My landlord is 45 and owns 4 properties with a total of about a dozen units. He bought a small business with the income and retired from his job at a defense contractor. His total wealth is under 10m and he started with probably little more than 50k ~25 years ago. Low interest loans have done wonderfully for anyone turning a small amount of cash into a big amount, assuming you bought in the right place with the intent to rent out to middle class workers.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 years ago

Not to mention REITs, or real estate investment trusts. Entire corporations dedicated solely to buying up property for share holders.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] GutsBerserk@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago

This right here is the modern slavery and politicians are condoning this predatory behaviour.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

The richer the rich get, the less the rest of us look like the middle and lower classes and the more we look like peasants. Serfs.

The more wealth inequality widens that gap, the more modern capitalism starts to look like techno-feudalism.

And that's really what they want without saying it, isn't it? They don't want us to own anything of our own...work their fields and factories, pay them to live in housing they own, and convert all other possessions into subscription services, all in an effort to create a system where the rest of us only exist as a source of labor and wealth for them, where even what they pay their serfs comes right back to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago

Why should anyone own a home when they can rent them from the capital class?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Neofeudalism. Having fun yet?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hoomod@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago

You're not rich if you own a home. You're rich when you own everybody else's home

[-] firewyre@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago

Fuck this fucking fucker

[-] Yoz@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

Lol a big fuck you to all middle class and that includes you too Ryan. Carrying an iPhone and driving a Mercedes on a loan doesn't make you rich if you still have to be in the office mon-fri and slave 9-5.

[-] spriteblood@kbin.social 37 points 2 years ago

So is this guy, like, the Devil? Every headline I see with him is like "Emperor Palpatine is buying single family homes" where I just assume it's for some nefarious purpose that's gonna benefit his regime and dick over a looooot of people.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

He wants quarters for his wage slaves, duh.

[-] Chef@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago

Waiting for Amazon to pay their employees in “digiscrip” that they can only use at Amazon-owned businesses.

Pay your rent on your AmazonHousing account.

Buy groceries from AmazonFresh.

Health insurance from AmazonHealth.

Welcome back to the coal mining towns of yore.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

so sick of this neofeudal bullshit

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago

Boy, he's really trickling it down on all those families' heads...

[-] spiderkle@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Subscribe to life on Amazon Prime. One reason less to buy stuff from them this holiday season.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LdyMeow@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 years ago

This feels very aboringdystopia

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

Burn it to the ground. I would rather burn my whole neighborhood down than have Bezos own it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] halferect@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Well this isn't creepy as fuck.....

[-] ChillCapybara@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 2 years ago

Yeah it’s the human condition. Power corrupts. It always does. It would corrupt me. It would corrupt you. What’s it like to live real life in god mode? I know what you do when the cheats get turned on, because I’ve done the same. But what happens when there is no option to restart the game? Or to play something else? You return to the game. It’s all you have. You become determined to make it progressively worse because you’re average. You have no imagination. You suck. You’re not a leader. You’re a regular dude for the most part and not cut out for this shit. You fuck it up. If we’re in a simulation, it’s the worst kind. One controlled by the simulated.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 years ago

Meanwhile the republicans want to remove the estate tax

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
924 points (98.7% liked)

News

36018 readers
2039 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS