• BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Why the baby steps? Just ban the ownership of property you don’t personally live in. You can landlord an apartment building, if you live in one of the units. No corporate ownership of land.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      If you use Medicare, they can take your house after you die. You could sell it to your kids, or a friend, and they could allow you to live in it. But with your rule, they would have to move in with you. They would not be allowed to own their own home and yours simultaneously. Your rule just fucked over the elderly and family inheritance.

      It would similarly fuck over parents who want to buy a home and issue a private mortgage to their kids. Your rule just fucked over families.

      Your rule just prevented lenders from being able to issue mortgages: as a corporation, they cannot recover the property if the borrower refuses to make payments.

      On the other hand, your rule doesn’t go nearly far enough: “landlords” aren’t the problem. “Renting” is the problem. You envisioned apartment complexes remaining as rented properties. I don’t. No more than 4 housing units on a single deeded property would qualify for the owner occupant credit.

      Under my plan, apartment complexes don’t qualify unless the units are separately deeded properties. Maybe an occupant buys up four contiguous units and converts them into a quadplex where 3 of the 4 units can be rented, but most apartments complexes will simply become condominiums, and the occupants will be voting members of the condo association.

      Adjusting the non-occupant tax rate to target a high owner-occupancy rate achieves the objective without undue inhibition of inoffensive activities.