ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

  • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is a solution for landlords that we’ve known about for a long time.

    And its doesn’t involve the a massive, powerful state controlling where people can live.

    Its a 100% tax on the value of land. It would stop the landowning class from unfairly stealing huge amounts of money from the poor in the form of rent. It could fund the government (allowing us to decrease taxes that hurt labor, like an income tax), or be redistributed as UBI.

    Seriously, if you are at all interested in potential solutions to the housing crises and wealth inequality, please, please, google Land Value Tax and Georgism.

    • parapsyker@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      I live in a city where property values have increased by an order of magnitude over about 40 years.

      Yes, we have a lot of speculators and wealthy landowners who need to be taxed out of existence.

      But we also have a problem where seniors on fixed incomes who have owned their homes for 30 - 50 years cannot afford their property taxes because the land their homes are sitting on has exploded in value.

      • homura1650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        There is a solution to this: homestead exemption. A lot of states already implement implement this with their normal property tax. If a property is your primary residence, then the tax you pay on it cannot increase by more than x% a year. Some states also give preferential tax treatment to senior’s primary residence. Their is no reason we couldn’t implement these same breaks on a LVT.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So they wouldn’t be able to afford their taxes with a LVT, but they can’t afford their taxes under the current property tax regime (in which land value is also a factor). I don’t see how this is an argument against LVT.

        But, zooming out, is it beneficial to society to have empty-nesters, and elderly single people, living in 3- or 4-bedroom houses when there’s a critical housing shortage for young families? Is it even good for them to live in a big house, when a nearby, smaller dwelling that’s cheaper, and easier to clean and keep up? The problem in the United States is that those smaller dwelling units don’t exist at all in most neighborhoods, and about the only option is to move to an “independent living” facility on the edge of town, away from family an neighbors, for $3,000 a month.

        It could be a win-win: Elderly owners of high-value land could realize the cash value that’s currently locked up in their houses, while the city could benefit by intensified development of that same land, increasing nearby land values even more. We need to change the zoning code to allow building that missing-middle housing in the same neighborhoods, but if we did that, a land-value tax would help incentivize its construction.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      What does this mean? It sounds like paying rent to the government using different words. A better solution I see is limiting the amount and type of property an individual can own before taxes are raised significantly or more severe steps are taken.

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

        Why not pay rent to the government? Without a profit incentive, the value of housing would go down and the money you’re paying in rent to the government would go on to fund public services rather than private equity firms, bank executives and shareholders

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I think most people’s goal is to one day own property so they can stop paying rent.

          Paying rent to government is better than paying it to my horrible multitrillionaire landlord who has like 3 or 4 apartments or something and is using the income to focus on his music instead of working, but eventually I’d like to not pay rent to anyone, at all.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Landlords would just raise rent and claim the taxes as an expense. If they couldn’t claim it as expenses they’ll just increase rent even more.

      • Amadou_WhatIWant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So because other landlords will be trying to raise money to pay the land value tax, they will be more desperate for renters, and will offer a lower price. So if your landlord tried to raise the rent, you would have a lot of cheaper options to leave to. It would make landlords compete against each other.

        See here for theory and empirics, including an example from Denmark

    • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      USA government is far too greedy and won’t ever do it.

      Especially if it helps old people or people living off of ‘benefits’.