this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
1042 points (91.5% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
1099 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
1042
Rent is Robbery (lemmy.ml)
submitted 11 months ago by Grayox@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying "owning" land shouldn't be a viable way to acquire profit. It's a really basic statement, and it's not a new idea either.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months 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.