• BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Rental has its place, there have been plenty of occasions in my life where rental suited me better than ownership. Regulation and enforcement of said regulations would do a lot to protect people in this situation.

      • JoYo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Dude from Ukraine was telling me that most people own condos. He was weirded out that the vast majority of people in the US don’t have a vested interest into their neighborhood simply because they believe they won’t live there for long.

        • noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Did he mention that a lot of the real estate that people own in most post-Soviet countries is inherited when (grand)parents die, this being first if not the only step towards the market for most people?

          None of the people I know from Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus bought their first apartments on their own through hard work or anything: it’s mostly apartments where your grandma died, apartments that you’re either massively helped with or outright gifted by parents when yuu have a significant other to move in with (so both families join funds, most coming from selling some dead relative’s apartment) or on a wedding day (a rarer occasion), or some mix of that.

          Without any help or gifts, you’re lucky to be able to get a mortgage that you can pay off before you’re 60 (at least).

          The real estate prices outside the US and the EU may seem nicer, but salaries and expenses sure don’t.

          Everybody is screwed, everywhere.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Rent apartments. Own houses.

        *Since some people really need every combination addressed: Rent/own apartments. Own houses.

        • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          How do you handle situations where people want to live temporarily in houses? An example would be a traveling nurse that doesn’t want to be in an apartment building.

          • Bocky@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            May people prefer to rent houses over owning one. Many of them I speak to tell me they want nothing to do with house maintenance and upkeep and they prefer to rent so that they don’t have to think or worry about any of the repairs. They like being able to just call the property manager when the hot water stops working or when their kiddo accidentally breaks a window.

            • BritishJ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              When the kids breaks a window, they still have to pay. They just don’t have to source it, which means they might not be getting the best deal.

              Plus, most landlords leave things till the last minute or make it such hard work for the tenant to report it, they don’t bother.

              The maintenance is built into the rent, so they’re already paying for it, just not getting the best deal and losing the option to do it how they want.

              • Bocky@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Everything you are saying is true, and even with those facts noted, some people still prefer the convenience of renting and some like the carefree aspect of not having to be responsible for the upkeep.

              • Bocky@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Why do you care so much how someone else chooses to live their life? Some people want to rent and it’s no one else’s business to make them do any different.

                If you want to own a house and a buy a maintenance contract go for it.

                I personally wouldn’t wish dealing with a home warranty company claim on my worst enemy. They are all scams geared to deny claims.

            • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I understand your sentiment, but it took all of a half second to think of one scenario that would cause problems in the proposed system.

              As frustrating as it is to hold off on a good-intentioned change, it is far more detrimental to charge headlong without considering the consequences. The systems that are in place now are there for a reason. Some of those reasons are greed and corruption, but others are because of they fulfill people’s needs. It would be stupid to build a new system to address the greed side without addressing the need side.

              • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                But if you can’t summarize the solution to a complex societal problem with a history to it into a single simple sentence that can be used as a punchy “hot take”, clearly you just don’t want a solution! /s

                Way too many people in the world who are more willing to believe that things suck because everyone’s too stupid to try the “obvious” solution, instead of the fact that most societal issues are icebergs of complication and causes.

        • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Houses are pretty terrible for a multitude of factors:

          • urban sprawl
          • congestion
          • pollution
          • high cost public works
          • low income for public bodies doing those works
          • environmental erosion
          • flood protection

          We should be building apartments that everyone can own, live and be happy in. It shouldn’t be reserved for home owners.

            • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Literally the first image in that page is a picture of Singapores public housing, and a claim that they have the highest home ownership rates in the world.

              It’s nearly as if public housing can work?

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Public housing can work but not without addressing poverty. Using Singapore, which has the death penalty for drug use isn’t comparable.

                Otherwise it only makes it worse by concentrating poverty into a ghetto.

                • daltotron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Using Singapore, which has the death penalty for drug use isn’t comparable.

                  I need you to draw a clear through line to why that’s related to public housing policy in any given country.

                  I’m also gonna like, cite the soviet bloc style apartments, or china’s rapid urbanization in around the same time period that the US decided to make public housing be a thing. I know for the soviet lunchboxes, you had your standard complaints of, oh, long wait lists, subpar build quality, yadda yadda, and then of course towards the beginning of the program you had a large issue with people who had previously been unindustrialized farmers basically just not knowing how to live in an apartment, shit like having your pigs stay indoors and stuff like that. I think similar issues were/are probably a part of chinese publicly subsidized housing complexes. I think barcelona’s superblocks are also publicly subsidized but I don’t know to what extent, and they seem to be working out pretty good. Now those are all places that provide publicly subsidized housing and have provided it to those who were pretty impoverished at the time. They also had/have (again idk barcelona don’t even know why I brought it up) work programs and shit, which we used to have in america, so that might contribute to your point more, but I still think, you know, it is bad to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The projects were majorly flawed, but they are probably preferable to the whole like. rust belt suburban crime shit. I dunno, realistically it doesn’t really matter what context an apartheid ghetto scenario is happening in, because it’s going to have basically the same consequences on everyone involved.

                  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I need you to draw a clear through line to why that’s related to public housing policy in any given country.

                    Drug use is rampant among the poor because it provides escape for some and profit for others. But it is destructive to communities creating greater poverty.

                    Singapore has draconian crime laws where you will be whipped for graffiti and executed for drug use. It creates a safer culture but at what cost?

          • TheDarkKnight@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Houses are pretty great for a few factors

            • Not sharing a wall with a neighbor
            • being able to be louder in general
            • Not being woken up by neighbors
            • Not getting your home infested with bugs because of having a nasty neighbor
            • No loud honking at night
            • Not having your door accidentally knocked on to ask if your apartment neighbor is home when they’re not answering their door
            • Parking in your own garage
            • Having a yard for your dog/kids to play in

            Apartments fucking suck in so many ways. I get that they’re pretty handy in City Skylines where everyone bases their urban planning experience from but there is a reason people prefer to live in house and it’s because it gives you separation from other people in a way apartments cannot.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Rental property should be publicly owned. Landlords shouldn’t be a thing.

        I can see there being exceptions if you say own a property but have to move swiftly elsewhere and can’t/don’t wish to sell it, in such a case letting it out makes sense.

        • InputZero@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          No, no exceptions. Once there are exceptions people will abuse them. Even if you inherited your parents property if you already have one you should have to pay extra taxes on it from the day they die until the day you sell it, period. Any person, family, business, or corporation should only own one property, zero exceptions.

          Edit: /S. Thought that was obvious

          • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah that’s not far off from some folks’ actual unironic opinions so the /s is unfortunately not obvious, lol. The Poe’s Law situation isn’t even hypothetical in this one.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      People who own second and third homes aren’t even the issue. It’s mega corps that literally own tens of thousands of homes each. A better way to go about it is to just progressively tax people more per home. That second home gets taxed at the same rate but any home after is taxed way way way more. If someone can still afford it then that’s fine, just more tax money coming in. That and don’t let corps own rental properties.

        • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not sure if you actually meant logarithmic or exponential. An exponential tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot more in tax, while a logarithmic tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot less in tax. See x2 versus log2(x) (or any logarithm base, really). The exponential (x2) would start slow and then increase fast, and the logarithmic one would start increasing fast and then go into increasing slowly.

          https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7l1turktmc

      • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        In Texas, your property tax is already somewhat two tiered. Your first home is taxed as a homestead and you get an exemption on part of the property tax. If you own a second, third, etc you have to pay the full amount and the annual increases are not capped. Im not 100% sure on the specifics as I don’t own more than 1 though.

        • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Your not homestead house will be ~$2,000 higher in taxes than if it were not homestead. Exemption is up to $100k I believe, so I’m going off roughly 2% of exemption for additional taxes.

            • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              At some point the taxes would be so high that nobody could afford to rent and the owners would lose money forcing them to sell. Which is fine. Just gotta make the taxes higher for more than x houses.