this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
866 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4536 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (11 children)

Don't protect "renters". The entire concept of "renting" needs to die in a fucking fire.

Instead, we need to jack up taxes on residential properties. Send them to the moon. $2000/yr? Fuck that: $2000/month.

But nobody actually pays these exorbitant rates, because we create an "Owner Occupancy Credit". The tax rate is only high if the owner doesn't live in the home.

What happens to renters? Do landlords jack up their prices to cover the increased property taxes? Or do they offer their tenants a private mortgage or a land contract, so they don't have to pay the hiked taxes?

When they can make more money as a lender than as a landlord, they aren't going to be renting anymore. Establish an owner occupancy credit, and "landlords" will be fighting tooth and nail to convert tenants into buyers.

(The actual tax rate should target an 85% owner occupancy rate. When more than 20% of the population is renting, the non-occupant tax rate is increased 1% per year. When less than 10% is renting, the non-occupant tax rate is dropped 1% per year. )

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

How would you handle apartment buildings?

Making them all Condo’s possible I suppose but, there’d be a lot of poorly maintained buildings no one would want to actually own part of

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Landlord has to live on-site. In what I fondly call "face-punching distance." And can only collect a monthly salary equal to 3x the median rental price of all of the units in that building. Any surplus profit after paying utilities, taxes, and maintenance cost (to maintenance people who either also live on site or are at least paid 3x the rent of a median unit), gets refunded to the tenants.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago

I would strongly discourage landlording of more than 3 units by extending the owner occupancy credit only to 1-4 unit properties. Apartment complexes could be divided into multi-unit condos, with the extra units able to be rented out by the owner.

[–] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago

The owner of the building lives in the building and leases apartments to tenants who live in the same building as the owner.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could all have an owner living in one of the units, making the whole property eligible for the owner occupant credit, while the other units remain available for rent.

Bringing this back to your comment, suppose instead of dividing a complex into individual units, we divided it into a "quadplex" condo. A single property consisting of 4 units. The owner of that property occupies the quadplex, making the quadplex-condo eligible for the owner-occupant credit. 3/4 of the apartments are still rentable.

there’d be a lot of poorly maintained buildings no one would want to actually own part of

Somebody is making money off of those poorly maintained apartment buildings now. Better that somebody be someone who is actually part of the community (and thus motivated to improve the property) than a hedge fund manager living on the other side of the country.

load more comments (7 replies)