this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
38 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7483 readers
4 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Since the housing market looks like a crowd of people just signing mortgages as fast as possible just to then turn around and charge that mortgage plus a little bit.

I shouldn't pay someone's mortgage like seriously this is just adding an unnecessary problem to the real problem of "living somewhere"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

There should be no rent - housing is a human right, and there is enough to go around, people shouldn't be allowed to own more than they could reasonably use.

[–] blindsight@beehaw.org 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The piece I don't understand from this idea is: who will pay for the investment in building the housing, then?

Communal co-op housing is likely a better model, but it only works with government-subsidized low-interest-rate loans. Without those programs, who's going to put down the $500K it takes to build the home in the first place?

Until our capitalist system changes, I don't know how to square that circle.

[–] frog@beehaw.org 12 points 6 months ago

Social housing is where it's at! Local government builds the houses, and maintains ownership of them, but rents them out at what is essentially a relatively nominal figure that covers maintenance, admin costs, etc. Everybody that needs a home is guaranteed to get one, and the tenancy is guaranteed to last as long as they need it.

There are many European countries where social housing works very, very well, without those countries not having capitalism. It just requires governments that can be held to account when they don't provide enough housing. This is why social housing floundered in the UK compared to other European countries: a rigged voting system meant it became harder to evict the pro-landlord Conservative party.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 6 months ago

Housing is a human right, so give everyone UBI and offer social housing for a fixed proportion of that UBI that leaves enough for a very basic life (as in "homemade bread and water and enough to replace the cheapest of furniture when it breaks" basic, not "can't go on holiday to somewhere warm this year" basic)

If you want something better and have the skills to get it then you can earn it and supplement your UBI, but nobody goes hungry or without a house. With free college tuition, you can even spend your days studying instead of working so you don't starve, so it's not like there's an argument against it there.

I can't think of anything fairer... If you wanna own more than you need, go for it, but in doing so don't make people literally homeless