• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    thinking that homeless illegal immigrants are the root cause of home shortage where a single corporation or a billionaire buys thousands of flats to rent them to people for exorbitant prices.

    in one way it works because if you kick out many homeless people out of the country, you can say that in one year you cut homelessness by half.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Thats currently already done with jail. The main problem is homeless people don’t pay their jail bills. In my state 15 years ago it was 30$ per day you had to pay to be incarcerated in jail, not prison.

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        Okay america is sounding more and more like a joke. You have to pay to be in a processing facility? When you have no choice. And you’ll be incarcerated there during trial so before you are proven guilty of anything.

  • nroth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    32 minutes ago

    Trump’s sucks, but just giving people money will make all of the housing $25000 more expensive on average over time. There are so many better things to do with that money, like better public transportation and schools. She just wants to throw it down a hole and make housing more expensive, in exchange for some short-term support.

    • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      It’s assistance not giving. I think it’s just a fund you can borrow from to get enough to start a mortgage.

      It would also only apply to people who can’t afford the mortgage.

      So it’s not going to impact house prices in the sense you say it would. Except slightly increasing demand to buy and thereby decreasing demand to rent.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Neither choice is great. One is evil.

    That 25k quickly becomes “oh, everyone had 25k more so we can charge 25k more”.

    Don’t give rich house builders tax breaks, they’re the ones causing the problem by deliberately not building enough. You’re the fucking government. Build houses yourselves. Rent them through social housing programs.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      47 minutes ago

      The builders have made the 16 million empty homes in this country because they were just selling them to corporations. It’s not that they are not hiding enough, it’s that the rich have engulfed the entire pipe with their gluttonous mouths and there is nothing left for the rest of us.

      When will we finally slay the beasts that are killing us?

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      It’s not that they aren’t building enough. It’s that they are building big luxury homes because there is a bigger profit margin than making affordable homes.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      60 minutes ago

      25k is for first time home buyers, not everyone. You can’t have separate prices for first time buyers and the rest of the public, and a seller won’t know how you are financed until after the house is listed anyways.

      This absolutely will help, because if you’d just ask anyone trying to get a home, the down payment is the hardest part to satisfy.

      The only way a house cartel can form like this is for those that own the homes. The builders don’t own the homes, corporations do. Those corporations collude and price fix to create a cartel. Focus on that.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        The UK had a similar scheme for first time buyers and it’s often cited by economists as one of the biggest things fueling their housing crisis.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, that too.

        The precious “free markets” have had their crack at it, and have shown that they’re not to be trusted to either own or build them. Prices have soared and that’s 100% intentional on their part.

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 minutes ago

          It was never a free market because of antiquated zoning laws. At very least free market would have driven more dense residential construction because they would have made more return on their buck. We need to allow and even promote medium rise residential zoning in more home scarcity is an issue.

          Land owners be damned, the needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Most builders are already fully booked for work. The one’s that could work faster generally aren’t the ones you want building your house.

    • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I’ve started to come around on the 25k down payment assistance. It definitely has it’s problems, and there will absolutely be those who gouge because of it. But because it’s specifically down-payment assistance it will still help first time buyers get mortgages on houses they can afford the regular payments on, but don’t have the extra to set aside for a 10% down payment because rent is taking everything they could be setting aside for a down payment. And it’s limited to first time home buyers, with 2 years of on-time rent payments, and says “up to” 25k. Wouldn’t surprise me if it ends up being limited to 10% of the purchase price (which gets you more favorable loan terms).

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        My wife and I only own our home because her wealthy dad was willing to front about half of the down payment with an interest-free repayment to him alongside the mortgage. With 25k from the government we’d not have needed that, and we got an acre in California. 25k is huge.

        We’ve only ever had trouble with this mortgage once, and it was trouble we could have managed without help had we just tightened our belts for a while (just don’t go to the ER. Even if you have insurance. Even if you’re dying on the floor and an ex first responder demands you to for your safety: die instead. I am not joking, had it not been for familial help we’d be paying it off for the next 5 years and it would eat almost all of the little savings we’ve finally started managing to build up, so one more bump and we’d lose fucking everything), so it looks like all those “well sure you can afford rent that’s 1.5x the cost of the potential mortgage, but how do we know you can afford it on the job you’ve had for 8 years?” Pricks were wrooooooooooong

  • Marthirial@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    So the mass deportation would be of lawful alien residents, because undocumented residents cannot buy houses unless it is straight up cash, and even then would have a hard time getting insurance or utilities, you know, without a SSN, credit history or IDs. Unless they use a stolen SSN, which is very difficult and rare.

  • Farid@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    As usual, the blue choice is obviously much better than the red choice, but only in comparison to this bat shit crazy red choice. On it’s own, the blue choice is still rather bad.

    I’m starting to think that Republicans just exist to make the bad Democrat options look always better in comparison.

      • Zombie@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Your comment made me think of this spoken piece at the end of Anti-Police Aggro by Oi Polloi.

        “Revolution isn’t a thing that happens overnight. It’s not a thing that - the orgasmic storming of Buckingham Palace and everything’s all right in the morning, we’ve got a revolutionary society. We’ve got to realize that as things get harder - when we have a revolution, when we’re headed towards a revolution things’ll be harder still - and when we’ve obtained our revolution it doesn’t stop - it continues on and on and on and on - It continues on until WE are the moderates. Right? When we are the moderates that’s when we have a revolution. When ordinary people say “Anarchists? Ah, fuck - they’re a load of fuckin liberals - they don’t believe in revolution at all, ah, fuckin hell they’re useless, like, you know” - Yeah, that’s what I wanna see. That’s what I’m fuckin’ fighting for.”

  • Commiunism@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    I’m curious how many houses/apartments are unused in the US, acting as a speculative asset and if building more is even necessary.

    • Lyrl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      If enough more houses are built that prices stop increasing faster than inflation, housing will no longer be valuable as a speculative asset. Building more houses BOTH makes housing immediately available, and changes the market forces in a way that pushes out investors squatting on un-lived-in units.

    • Transient Punk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Building more is necessary if the available housing is not located where appropriate employment is located. Thus, the gross number of available homes isn’t a good metric to use for determining the actual need for new construction.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Of course there’s the best option which is an non-occupancy tax that goes up exponentially for each additional property you’re sitting on for speculation.

    That right there would be a hard counter to wallstreet hoovering in the housing market.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s like you’re not even considering the feelings of the millionaires and billionaires with 72 houses each and I for one just won’t stand for it.

      • Lyrl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        If a landlord who actually takes their job as servant to their tenants seriously gets some efficiency of scale - say enough units to justify a full time maintenance person who is available on call to support tenant issues - I don’t want to punish them for that. Surely we can develop metrics to identify predatory landlords that are more accurate than number of properties.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The worst idea is ever giving down payment assistance. Government subsidizing actual builders, sure, but free money to property owners just increases the price to meet supply and demand and goes right into their pocket. It actually increases home prices. Extremely stupid.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        42 minutes ago

        Nah, using tax dollars to increase property values in a housing crisis is counterproductive as fuck. It increases rents for everyone else as well. Better off attacking it from the supply side with a massive subsidized housing effort and just tanking the market. But that’s politically toxic.

    • buzz86us@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m all for it of they include vacant land… I wouldn’t mind having acreage, and getting one of them unfinished Amazon houses.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “Kill 3 kids and bulldoze the neighboring nature reserve (it won’t give us more chairs, but it’ll feel good)”

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      its called a nature reserve because its a piece of nature thats reserved to be used as a golf course in the future

  • DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This meme is extremely naive. For many American voters, the primary residence is their one major investment – and will severely punish any elected official that reduces housing prices. The result is neither party will do much on this issue.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I hope that you’re right, because in 20 years that will no longer be true, and maybe we’ll be able to make real progress on housing at that point.

      • Alenalda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        It’s only going to get worse in the coming years as weather gets more extreme and entire towns and city’s get swallowed up by the ocean.

  • basmatii@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    11 hours ago

    “destroy nature and ruins lives” vs “destroy nature, increase stock value, build three luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in.”

    • Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      37 minutes ago

      Is this more projection from the right? The idea of ‘luxury chairs that no one is allowed to live in’ very comfortably includes golf courses and expensive hotels. I haven’t seen either of these things with Kamalas name plastered on the side. Trump makes this a part of his core identity. Figure it out.