If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%
That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market
How is it not helpful to society to allow others to live in your house? And it’s not landlords who are looking for tenants, it’s the other way round.
The problem is being a landlord as a job. The problem is rich people buying up housing (or land and building on it) they don’t use, in order to rent for profit.
It’s about everyone who has no house. All the people who have no alternative, apart from renting from some rich people.
If someone “allowed” others to live in his house, without demanding half their salary, you wouldn’t see me complaining.
And the reason that buying or building a house is so expensive, is explicitly because rich people clamber over each other, to make the best investment of their lives: Housing.
People have a right to invest.
We’re saying that maybe, just maybe, basic human necessities shouldn’t be the object of speculation.
Agreed but we shouldn’t prevent people from buying or selling houses.
Nobody’s saying that.
We should however prevent the hoarding of residential buildings
How many houses are permitted before it’s considered hoarding?
Housing can be affordable or an investment, not both.
People can invest elsewhere, in markets not necessary for survival.
But I don’t want to lose value on my house
The only purpose for value of your home is for selling it in order to purchase a different home. If the cost of the home you’ll be purchasing also goes down your not actually losing on anything except for a made up number, and your property taxes go down as well.
No? The purpose of the value of my home is that it gives me my net worth.
The purpose of any home is to provide you with shelter and a place to live, not increase your imaginary high score.
Imaginary? If money is imaginary, try living without it.
That’s like saying people with major medical issues “are looking for” insurance salespeople to fix their medical issues. They “need” insurance because the system is fucked, not because insurance will make them better. Likewise, no one “looks for” a landlord, they look for housing they can afford.
Yes but housing is much more expensive than healthcare. The government can’t afford to provide it for free.
You mean the taxpayers can’t afford it, and you’re wrong. Trillionaires exist, we could afford anything we want to if we had people in charge willing to tax them fairly.
Regardless, the potential cost difference doesn’t negate my previous point, no one has ever “looked for a landlord”.
That’s not an individual country’s decision to take. People look for housing and landlords provide a valuable service to society.
What isn’t? How to tax it’s citizens? Pretty sure individual countries are the only ones making that decision.
Almost, people need housing and landlords can exploit that need. Renters provide a valuable service to landlords. How about this analogy: people need food, but that doesn’t mean every single company that sells food is good for society, or even good for the individual people they sell to. Many are the opposite, at least in the US. Look I’m not arguing for banning buying more than one property, though I’m not against it, all I’m saying is that your claim that people “look for” landlords is absurd.
No. Countries make that decision based on the international tax rates. If your tax rates are too high, companies will move to other countries.
Selling food is God’s work.
That makes sense, God must be the one poisoning all our meat and produce since Trump defunded the FDA. ✊↔️
Poison isn’t food
No, what the government actually can’t afford is to have homeless people overutilizing public services (ambulances, police, hospitals, and jails) because they don’t have stable housing. It’s way, wayyy cheaper to provide people free housing than let them be homeless, Finland has proved this with basic arithmetic, our culture is just really into performative cruelty for some reason.
Why don’t they do it then? I don’t think global culture is cruel.
There’s a reason “rent seeking” is a derogatory term.
Investing in precious metals would fall into your definition and I don’t see how it’s harmful to society
You don’t rent out precious metals, you sell them.