• trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where is the advantage if you have to pay more taxes for it? If you look at public projects, do you think housing will stay within budget?

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d rather pay five percent of my income in taxes and not have to walk by homeless people because they have somewhere to live and not have to worry about being homeless if I lose my job or eventually retire and have to worry about constantly increasing rent or property taxes on a fixed income than pay around a third of my income in rent so Brad and Karen can go on another vacation to the Bahamas this year.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How does that add up? If you pay 33% to Brad and Karen, where does the civil servants get the building sites, construction workers and materials for 5%, ignoring the extra space needed for the formerly homeless?

          Do landlords have more than 500% profit margins?

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m basing this off of real world data taken from socialist projects. Rent in the USSR was 5 percent of income for example.

            They do not have 500 percent margins because capitalism is incredibly inefficient and they’re only one small actor making money from the situation in a broader ecosystem of developers, construction companies, etc.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you go for standardized housing with an abundance of construction sites then you also get your 5% rent within capitalism.

              The problem is not the landlords but the voters and buyers. The landlords will offer 5% housing if the demand is there, together with construction sites.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                but the voters

                The US is objectively an oligarchy based on many longitudinal studies. The problem is the oligarchy, which contains property owners.

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

                  If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords. All it does is reducing the number of participants which worsens the situation.

                  Renters can decide elections. Unionize and negotiate with the parties how many construction sites they will create. Then vote accordingly. Then rent will go down.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

                    No, it has nothing to do with how landlords are parasites, it is just explaining that it isnt the voters fault that parasitism is allowed.

                    If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords.

                    It helps to oppose the landlord class and abolish the idea of rent.

                    Renters can decide elections.

                    The US is empirically not a democracy. Is this going in one ear and out the other?