Experts said that wealthy investors with second or third properties are pricing out first-time homebuyers and reducing the overall housing supply in the real estate market.
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
Not everyone wants to own and not everyone that doesn’t want to own wants to rent an apartment and it’s not the government’s place to own single family houses for rent (all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though).
Edit: Downvote all you want, I know tons of people that don’t want to have to deal with the maintenance responsibilities that come with a house, they still have a family and don’t want to live in an apartment, would you rather force them to own the place they live in?
It is most certainly the government’s business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.
Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a “housing crisis”.
Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.
Yeah, as I said, they should have a crown corporation for rental properties above a certain number of doors, but single family housing (which actually make cities worse) aren’t their responsibility.
Also, when exactly did the State own half the homes in the country?
The level of maintenance per unit and the density issues caused by single family housing means they’re a luxury item and not a necessity, the government should be there to make sure everyone has acceptable living conditions (a private bedroom for everyone, a kitchen, bathroom and livingroom per household…) not to provide them enough space to have a home theater room or a bedroom used as a walk-in.
Both provide people the ability to have homes without direct ownership nor dealing with the hassle of ownership nor the uncertainty of renting.
It has the benefits of owning. Control over rent prices, ability of modifying living space (including putting up pictures) and benefits of renting (allowing easy relocation, delegate maintenance responsibility).
Housing cooperatives and CLTs have the benefits of both without the drawbacks of either. It also treats housing as a human right as opposed to an “investment”.
There are housing cooperatives for students, the most temporary population and the least wanting to maintain a property.
Capitalism is literally moving us back into feudalism. Everything is for sale. Even democracy, it seems. Perhaps fascism would be more profitable? Market is bullish on fascism!
I’d like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.
I’ll wait.
Some more scenarios:
If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won’t be a good “investment”.
If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.
I’d like to see this demonstrated as false.
Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.
If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you’d’ve increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible:
[N+0], Everyone wants one home
[N+I], At least one person wants an investment property
If there are more than enough houses then an investment house would be a bad investment since no one would need to rent it and/or no one would want to buy it with a good profit margin. Instead, they’re buying houses that people want, which is driving up home prices and letting them set high rents.
I’ll repost a comment I made before again here:
context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203
Not everyone wants to own and not everyone that doesn’t want to own wants to rent an apartment and it’s not the government’s place to own single family houses for rent (all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though).
Edit: Downvote all you want, I know tons of people that don’t want to have to deal with the maintenance responsibilities that come with a house, they still have a family and don’t want to live in an apartment, would you rather force them to own the place they live in?
It is most certainly the government’s business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.
Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a “housing crisis”.
Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.
Yeah, as I said, they should have a crown corporation for rental properties above a certain number of doors, but single family housing (which actually make cities worse) aren’t their responsibility.
Also, when exactly did the State own half the homes in the country?
Why the arbitrary distinction? What’s so special about the number 1 here?
The level of maintenance per unit and the density issues caused by single family housing means they’re a luxury item and not a necessity, the government should be there to make sure everyone has acceptable living conditions (a private bedroom for everyone, a kitchen, bathroom and livingroom per household…) not to provide them enough space to have a home theater room or a bedroom used as a walk-in.
There are two solutions.
Both provide people the ability to have homes without direct ownership nor dealing with the hassle of ownership nor the uncertainty of renting.
It has the benefits of owning. Control over rent prices, ability of modifying living space (including putting up pictures) and benefits of renting (allowing easy relocation, delegate maintenance responsibility).
Housing cooperatives and CLTs have the benefits of both without the drawbacks of either. It also treats housing as a human right as opposed to an “investment”.
There are housing cooperatives for students, the most temporary population and the least wanting to maintain a property.
https://www.nasco.coop/
You can be a part of this movement too by donating or investing in such projects. I urge you to do so.
They work, and work well. There just needs be mass injection of funds into them.
Capitalism is literally moving us back into feudalism. Everything is for sale. Even democracy, it seems. Perhaps fascism would be more profitable? Market is bullish on fascism!
This is only true if there’s the same number of houses as people. There are way more houses than people.
Trash analogy
It is not an analogy. That’s just math.
I’d like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.
I’ll wait.
Some more scenarios:
If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won’t be a good “investment”.
If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.
I’d like to see this demonstrated as false.
Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.
If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you’d’ve increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property
If there are more than enough houses then an investment house would be a bad investment since no one would need to rent it and/or no one would want to buy it with a good profit margin. Instead, they’re buying houses that people want, which is driving up home prices and letting them set high rents.
There are 8 billion houses? Do you count mud huts into that?
8 billion? in Canada? Source?