• Squizzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not banning landlords I’m banning vulture funds, pension funds, agencies, conglomerates, multinationals etc. from owning homes.

    This makes for less competition in buying homes for those people, allowing for prices to stay realistic. So you can buy two houses if you want, though I’d tax the shit out of you for the second and subsequent houses.

    Also if you weren’t competing with corporations rents would be lower, but you could buy a house and sell again in five years when you move on.

    • lemming934@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not banning landlords I’m banning vulture funds, pension funds, agencies, conglomerates, multinationals etc. from owning homes.

      I guess i missunderstood you. As far as I’ve seen, vacancies are quite low in places where housing is scarce. Investment properties are usually rented out.

      would be lower, but you could buy a house and sell again in five years when you move on.

      Closing costs are very high. It would be difficult to make housing cheap enough that the benifits to owning a home outweighs these costs. Also, you would need to sell the house quick, so that you don’t pay for two houses at a time. But if housing was no longer scarce, it would be hard to sell the house quick.

      I cant imaging a future where it makes sense for everyone to own their own home. We should always consider renters when making public policy, even though they have little political power.