Why shouldn't the State simply own all housing and provide it as a utility to the community.
What is functionally gained by having a landlord class act as middle-men.
Why shouldn't the State simply own all housing and provide it as a utility to the community
The fact that the state is horrible at this task, have you ever seen government projects? Commie blocks? They'll give you a tiny box in a crime filled megabuilding and call it a day. Believe it or not anon humans like options.
Added challenge: do so without just "muh gommunism or however the fentanyl is injected."
So what you're saying is that you want the government to forbid you from buying a house
He owns the land, that why he deserves it. You should work more and complain less, parasite.
don't want to live next to nignogs? TOO BAD LITTLE MAN
Kind of impossible since you are describing one of the fundamental tenets of communism
I think it's to get investment from private sector and for them to take some of the associated risks
Not much need if you are provided a house for free
The USSR and post-Soviet states have one of the lowest levels of homelessnes in Europe and North America. Even China has a high home ownership rate.The Soviet house projects were just fine, you moronic mutt, the point of commie blocks was to provide cheap housing to all population, not high quality housing. The USSR already had high quality housing under Stalin, literally called Stalinka, and they had to shift from Stalinkas to Khruschschevkas because you don't house a wartorn country that had 80% rural population just several decades ago in expensive ass houses. Commie blocks were a perfect solution with limited resources available
If you can't argue against a position without merely saying it's part of something you disagree with, and that alone is why it's bad, then it's not an argument.
Imagine someone suggesting no one can be against immigration because fascists are against immigration. That would be a retarded opinion.
house for free
Who's paying for this?
People who dislike landlords live in a utopian fantasy.
Why would you not invoke real life concrete examples into your hypothetical discussion? We have literally tried this before, and it was always a failure. Even in non commie countries there is still government housing, and it's the worst thing possible.
Ever been on a public bus?
But goymunism is cringe DEI troon and fascism is favstian based therefore your argument is invalid
I mean the housing provided was dogshit with people living in barracks type housing for quite a while.
The USSR already had high quality housing under Stalin
Kek I'm sure there were some good houses but at the time of Stalin's death the situation was awful. Partly not his fault, partly due to him diverting shit to dumbass projects
Gee I wonder if the state is the one that owns it all
They're just spoiled children. Their parents didn't prepare them for the real world where you pay for things and predictably enough their #1 enemy is the guy who takes money monthly for the place they live in since this is going to be their highest economic aspiration ever.
So higher taxes?
Probably. I don't think Australian anon has made an actual financial plan for this.
I think I'm in love bros what should I do?
I can agree with egregious rents or whatever but housing doesn't come out of nowhere. Someone invested time and money into buying the land, construction, etc and they deserve to be compensated for their investment. That's how the world works.
provide it as a utility
Could I choose where I live? Typically some cities and areas will be more popular, so how would they choose who gets to live where?
the state doesn't see you as an individual. it does not care about your life or your rights as an individual. it is run by corrupt people who do not have your best interests at heart. you cannot be led by people who have no stake in your nor their immediate surroundings. it simply does not work.
what if we just outlawed landlords and made people own their own property tho
rent economy is an objective evil
I remember when I was 15 and thought like this, ah good times
What if you can't afford to buy a home?
The rent economy only exists because people want to rent. You would initiate a crisis if you forced them to buy.
Even in Soviet Russia you paid rent to the government for the housing.
Today also you pay "higher taxes", it just goes to Goldberg and Nosebaum in the form of rent or a mortgage instead of to the State.
State might forgo such deserved compensation for their own investment. Would be pretty funny otherwise
where's her penis
we subsidize the housing like in you are cunt
Wow what a beautiful woman all my mind thought about was sex and nothing about your post
true. i also believe that corporations in general should not be allowed to own any kind of residential housing, and I also believe that anyone who owns property should be required to live in that property for a significant portion of every year. you have to have a direct stake in your immediate surroundings and a motivation to improve it for yourself and your family, or things go to shit.
youre right
i SHOULD be given a state ordained GF
So basically nothing at all would change, except nobody but the state is allowed to own property
nobody wants to rent, we rent because we cant afford ownership
no one rented when houses could be bought after 2 or 3 years of saving
HOUSES ARE TO BE LIVED IN, NOT SPECULATED ON
Hilariously enough this is one reason why your housing costs are so high. You just keep giving the demand a sugar high with federal subsidies created with literal debt. If the state had never fucked with the housing market, mortgage interest would be 10% and houses would be 1/3 the price they are now.
be stricter and limit house prices/interest rates
BUT THATS X-ISM
yes, and?
You can't say that in a country where it's easy for a 500 credit score nigger to get a mortgage with 0-5% down dumbfuck
This is actually the bigger unknown issue. We made home buying too easy. That's why everyone loads up on mortgages.
and?
It always fucks up economic dynamics. How are those kinds of policies working out for California and New York? You lower cost by increasing supply not by trying to dictate the final market values.
you want the state to waste tax money buying houses?
you'd have nowhere to live if they bought them all
commercially available houses, not built on your own private land and funded by you, cant be sold at more than 1.5x the median income of the area/surrounding homeowners
people should save up 2 years and put 50% down
Rent in a private market is driven by a need to earn a return on investment in as short a time as possible. No one invests in real estate not to make a profit.
Were it controlled by the State, there wouldn't be the same forces at play that demand rents be pegged at the absolute highest prices. The State would be better suited to absorb the initial investment cost and recoup it in the long-run.
The government doesn't have enough money to buy up literally all the house and their lands, someone else already owns them. If they seize it by force they will be condemned. If they increase the tax to get enough money the people will be against it. If they get loans or sell 채권(dunno what it's called in English) it will be a long term burden for the government and the people. Making new land or expanding existing cities is limited. If they decide to give it out to only a few selected people, the policy will be accused of being biased and lobbyed and so on.
Even if we suppose the government somehow controls every housing now, it isn't any remotely better than having landlords. Infact the government just becomes a gigantic powerful landlord. New ministry and departments will be established to maintain, control and regulate every aspects of housings. You can't choose where you want to live; the government has bigger socioeconomic plans. You can't move out freely. Who knows what the government installs at your home. If you can't move out, it means your workplace must be near your house for commuting availability. Your tax will be heavily increased to compensate for the new massive housing departments. Do you want to live in this hyper-authoritarian dystopia?
How would it be decided who gets to live in what area? The areas with high rents are expensive because so many people want to live in that area. If the rent was cheaper and everyone could afford to live there, but there's ten thousand other people who want to live in a specific apartment, would it just be a lottery if I get it? If so, how would I go about choosing where I live, instead of just being assigned somewhere? For example, by paying more money to get the home that I want
The state, being a monopoly, would also be under no obligation to serve your needs since there is no competition. They decide what you get, when you get it, when things get fixed, if ever, and who lives next to you. i.e. you will get the utter worst bottom barrel living conditions and you will have no other options. This is a tired, known thing anon do grow up.
in theory, renting allows you to avoid holding onto a big asset like a house. If you think the housing prices in your area will go to shit in a short time and/or you only want to stay for a little while, it might make sense to rent. Also if interest rates are super high, you might want to wait. But in reality, housing supply is so restricted that the risk to the landlord is basically 0 and it’s usually better to buy.
have you ever seen government projects
Nuremburg?
Interstate?
Moon landings?
Internet?
Nuclear bomb?
Elimating smallpox?
Nuremburg
Oops, I was thinking of the Nurburgring race track. I mean the Autobahn.
based on the job you have, like doctor or someone of high importance that has to work nearby
no, no, the nuremburg clown trials were a good example.
doctor or someone of high importance
and who decides who gets to be a doctor or is of high importance? you're just setting yourself up for soviet-like corruption
That sounds even more cucked than just having to pay more money. What if I won the lottery but I didn't have an important job?