No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
The idea is to make the wealthy sell some of their assets. Thus driving the price of those assets down. If people horde fewer houses, the market of buyers shrinks and prices fall.
Now a 2% tax on certain assets won't solve everything. But its a good start. There will need to be a number of loopholes closed and other taxes targeting the super wealthy, in order to make a real difference.
But who will they be selling to? I imagine it will be people who actually want to live in their homes, not just rent them out. Wouldn't that reduce the number of available homes people can rent?
Is my logic it would reduce the number of homes available for rent. More people would be able to own. Because more homes in the market would be available. But people would be buying them to live in them. We literally can’t build homes fast enough. Every time there’s a downturn in the market building of homes slows down. And that puts us even further behind.
My concern was that not everybody can afford to buy a house, but back in the day people on a receptionist income could buy a house, so if we go back to those days, house ownership would rise again. And as others made me realise, the stuff standing empty for investment would be sold to be used again and outsized homes could be sold to be repurposed as social housing or jousing outright.
That’s not a bad point. Many options exist to offload property though, including bulldozing a mansion on 10acres that no one is buying and turning it into a housing sub division
Good point! Yes, larger estates could be sold to be used for housing multiple people or indeed for building new housing. Thank you
Maybe. Mostly it'll drive down the rent, since the homes are worth less.
If it's a tax on wealth, what difference does it make if you own an asset or its value in cash?
By the way: sales may reduce the stock of properties for rent driving the prices up.
Not necessity. Since housing will be cheaper to buy, some will do that instead of rent. So the market of renters will be smaller, keeping rental prices in check.
In the Netherlands they tried that gamble and it didn't work well. The stock for rent decreased with more houses sold, the prices kept growing as usual, and effectively more people faced higher rentals.
Maybe fewer people faced higher rents since more bought instead. But that would depend on the details of a specific market.
As I said the tax itself won't fix everything. If rents get too high you need to adapt zoning to encourage more duplex and multifamily homes.
I think that the implication was that they would have to sell in order to come up with the cash to pay the tax?