this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
1214 points (98.3% liked)

Political Memes

5601 readers
3575 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That on top of a tax that is highly progressive after x number of properties, regardless of occupancies.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was thinking more non-occupancy just meaning "that you don't live in yourself", so that would mean filling your rentals with tenants doesn't save you from the tax.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ah, then we are on the same page. I thought you were referring to:

According to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 15.1 million vacant homes nationwide in 2022. These vacant homes, which include rentals, represent 10.5% of the country’s total housing inventory. -source

which is just another fucking gut punch.

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If a landlord who actually takes their job as servant to their tenants seriously gets some efficiency of scale - say enough units to justify a full time maintenance person who is available on call to support tenant issues - I don't want to punish them for that. Surely we can develop metrics to identify predatory landlords that are more accurate than number of properties.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

Nah, number of properties is a pretty fucking good metric.

Being a "bad" landlord isn't the issue, the issue is taking properties off the housing market for rent collection, and driving up prices for everyone else in the process.

There are more empty units in this country than unhoused people to fill them, this housing crisis is one built entirely out of artificial scarcity created by letting speculators buy up supply basically for the purpose of scalping them to poor people who can't say no to the product.

It's the same kind of "market efficiency" that has ballooned medical costs, who can afford to compare costs on a kidney transplant? Nobody. Who can afford to shop around and wait on houses? Unless you're very lucky in today's economy, also nobody.

Housing does not abide the same market rules as designer T-shirts. Necessity goods will inherently have a hostage effect on the customers where you could in theory charge any price and just make the disinfortuned eat shit for it.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

When "landlords" own 10k+ properties, it's 100% a numbers game.