106 points

There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…

Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.

That’s what would fix it. Tax them out of the housing market slowly and.prices will go down as they get out of the business.

permalink
report
reply
51 points
*

Indeed. Nothing about this addresses rental markets and general extreme cost of living. Rather, it finds new ways to prop up severely overvalued housing markets.

Housing costs are so high because it’s become an investment over a necessary place for a human to live. A correction is severely needed and long overdue, but the government works hard to keep values artificially high from zoning laws at the bottom to preventing corrections at the top.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

That and most people just do the standard deductions.

So tax breaks mostly help the wealthy in mansions.

It’s like how conservatives want to move income tax to sales tax. The wealthiest make a lot more than they spend. And when they spend it’s usually thru some shady shit where they don’t pay sales tax. Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

It’s way of dressing up expenses to fit our criminally low corporate tax structure.

It’s a special kind of fucked up that the government is paid for by the poor to serve the interests of the wealthy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.

My parents did this kind of stuff. :/

Gas, restaurants, cars, insurance, etc. Probably so much stuff I don’t even know about. The company pays for it and they pocket the wages they pay themselves. All this while the people that work for them work part time with no benefits, and predictably have unstable financial situations.

But my parents view themselves as financially responsible and their workers as financially irresponsible. They worked hard to build their company but the rewards far exceed their work relative to their workers.

idk what I’m trying to say. I’m ashamed of the way my parents became successful but at the end of the day they played the game how it was meant to be played. Our society is fucked up on every level.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Wouldn’t a tax hike only get passed through to the renter?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

Not really, because the rental market does not behave like commodities do. Generally, you have to live within a reasonable distance of employment. For this and other reasons, renters are much more vulnerable and tend to get exploited far beyond the cost of the service.

Basically, if tenants had any more money to exploit, they would already take it. Rents are maximally high wherever possible to extract maximum money from people who need a place to live.

Consider the common joke that I pay this much in rent every month but the bank says I can’t afford a house where the mortgage would be substantially less.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Agreed, and this would be solved by sufficiently high land value tax - if wasn’t profitable to be a landlord nobody would do it and the price of land would decline sharply. Henry George saw all of this coming a long time ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.

They could try to pass it on to consumers, but smaller landlords wouldn’t have to pay it.

Making the biggest get out of the game first

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

They will just split the units owned on more companies then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

At the very least, they should raise real estate taxes on empty units. This will penalize people for owning several vacation homes, as well as incentivize landlords to lower rates in order to fill the unit.

Difficult to enforce, but send a few people to jail for real estate tax fraud and the rest will fall in line.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Never talks of raising taxes on landlords and empty units tho.

Canada passed this law in 2022 addressing that:

Underused Housing Tax

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Need a Land value tax and the ability to build medium/high density housing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Or you know, just build more houses?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We’ve got 15 million vacant homes in the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The issue with this figure is that it comes from the Census Bureau, and their definition is broad and simple that it doesn’t into account for example. Here’s the definition they use:

Vacant Housing Units. A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place. Vacant units are excluded if they are exposed to the elements, that is, if the roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Also excluded are quarters being used entirely for nonresidential purposes, such as a store or an office, or quarters used for the storage of business supplies or inventory, machinery, or agricultural products. Vacant sleeping rooms in lodging houses, transient accommodations, barracks, and other quarters not defined as housing units are not included in the statistics in this report. (See section on “Housing Unit.”)

https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf

As you can see this definition doesn’t really take into account a lot of genuine factors. For example, a lot of units are in really poor condition and require renovations in order to be livable again, but they’re counted as vacant because they still have their exteriors in place. Same goes units. They’re also counting units that are not entirely completed, units that are occupied but just temporarily like vacation homes, and mobile homes. We do have a lot of vacant units in this country, but it’s not as much as this figure would lead you to believe. In reality, we need new units, we need a lot of them, and we need them ASAP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…

Because governments want housing prices to stay sky high. The canadian prime minister openly said he doesn’t want housing prices to drop because too many people are using their houses as a retirement strategy. That’s why there are so many government programs that support buying a house but none that support renting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, the first time I learned about our current vice president, she was trying to allegedly give renters similar tax breaks in California.

I don’t know what happened to that, but I was an immediate fan. Seeing as it never happened, smeh… Not sure what to think. But it’s a very popular idea amongst those of us who can’t afford to buy (most people in California.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

My piece of total shit landlord just took 4 months to fix my bathroom then raised rent an absurd amount. I’m enraged.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

I mean he had to pay for the repairs somehow /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

This is something I’m currently struggling with. I rent a house and the roof is leaking in two different rooms. Problem is that last time I had the landlord do any repairs he increased my rent by $300 a month. I know that having a leaky roof is damaging his property, but it’s only a minor inconvenience for me at the moment.

I’m not about to spend an extra $6,000+ a year just to preserve his property when I can keep it from bothering me with a tack, some string, and a pitcher for the water to go into.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

What are you going to do about it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

I’ve never understood the need for a downpayment to purchase. If you can make the monthly payments that’s all that should matter.

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

Its to keep us uppity poors on the down low

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

In theory I guess it protects against the costs of dealing with defaults or having people walk away from underwater mortgages. But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

But on the other hand, all of that stuff could be insured against.

Thats exactly what PMI (Private mortgage insurance) covers. However if the insurance company doesn’t think you’re a good risk, then you might not be able to get that either. I have never looked at what criteria they use to grant or deny PMI. I’ve also never known anyone personally denied PMI.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Exactly. The entry is a hurdle for many when that money could be used for repairs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

The downpayment requirements are much looser now then they used to be. Pretty much anyone in the US can get as low as 3 to 3.5% down, which means the down payment can easily be less than all the other home buying expenses (closing cost, inspection, title insurance, loan origination, moving, transfer taxes, …). You also typically have a month before you need to make your first principle repayment, which helps offset the down payment.

Veterans, active service members, and people buying in qualified rural areas can get 0 down mortgages.

Depending on where you live, there might be further assistance available. Around here, the county offers (means tested) down-payment assistance loans that cover 100% the minimum down payment, and has an interest rate that is at least 2% lower than that of the main loan. They also wave all transfer taxes for all first time buyers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It’s risk mitigation for the banks. You don’t have to put 20% down, but generally you’ll have to pay an additional insurance (PMI) if you don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It is called credit risk lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Why don’t they just buy homes? Are they stupid?

permalink
report
reply
16 points

The sarcasm was lost on someone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The sarcasm might have been lost on the author. One can never be too sure these days. :-)

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That or they just didn’t think it was an appropriate joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points

Build. Social. Housing.

Its not a difficult concept. The “market” is not going to build anything that lowers the price. The market is not going to build anything fast enough. The market is absolutely not going to give a flying fuck about building to create communities.

permalink
report
reply
-15 points

The market will built it normally, the government doesn’t allow them to.

If you really want to incentive building then you need a land value tax.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points

That’s stupid, we already tried social housing and it didn’t work. The market is the one and only thing that can reverse the situation, and it has done so before too, we just need to put in place the right incentives

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Other countries made it work… i wonder how lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Which countries? Unaffordable housing is a problem worldwide

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Not in my back yard! Think of all the poor and homeless. Crime rate always goes up around them! This is a nice neighborhood!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Where I live the people in the towns with 5 million dollar home think those of us in the 1 million dollar homes are a criminal element that will invade their town.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

LookingdownRiffraff.jpg

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The meritocratic, capitalist way, would be to to put a property tax on it and to increase that tax, until

  • rents increase so much that people can’t afford to live in cities anymore
  • cities lose essential employees
  • society shuts down
  • THEN property loses value
  • then it can be bought cheaply again
  • and also rented for a low price, because the tax on the low value property is also low

Let’s go people!

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 10K

    Posts

  • 199K

    Comments