this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1336 points (96.9% liked)

Political Memes

7628 readers
2795 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
1336
Landlords are scum... (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
214 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Your paradigm is in no way connected to the reality of how people are moving. New home construction is going up like crazy in the small cities and towns people move into. To expect a small area to absorb a 50% population increase with little new construction is just not realistic.

And to expect renting to just...end? That sounds like a crazy level of privileged bubble. A huge fraction of the population is not and never will be able to afford homeownership, and expecting the government to fund their home purchases would bankrupt any nation.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 5 points 1 week ago (9 children)

In my comment I explicitly stated that there is no need to stop new construction. I do not expect any area to absorb anything. I suggested construction will continue and "additionally" that some areas are being revitalized and will have different needs (rebuilding vs new homes). That's just true.

I'm not expecting renting to just end. I know people who do not want to own any kind of property and prefer short term rentals. It's not a sensible goal to force people into owning if they don't want to.

What does it mean to not be able to afford home ownership? Do you mean they not have enough money for housing in the first place, or do you mean they can just rent? If option one, they are considered homeless and the state should provide housing, if option two, then yes, rent to own should be a real thing. First time home buyers loans exist and the project should be expanded. These are not novel proposals that I just made up. People have been suggesting them for quite a while.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Yeah but expanding those programs on the order you're talking about is absurd levels of money. Not to mention the credit risks...unless you're suggesting the government act as guarantee, in which case we'll have a student loan scenario. Home prices will just rise to whatever they were before, plus the government grant.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
  1. the government has absurd levels of money
  2. it will literally earn the government money long term
  3. it's not like it'll happen overnight
  4. it's not a grant it's a loan. The loan would be for the entire amount. This is already basically in place in a different country.
  5. prices would not skyrocket because there would be virtually no rental market so if you wanted to sell you're selling to someone who is going to occupy. Homes will not be investments the way they are currently seen. This will be a way for people currently in a position to only rent to start getting equity so they can have better opportunities in the future. Selling to upgrade will be done because a) you started earning more b) because you had a period with no payments and therefore were able to save c) originally purchased below your means. There will be inflation, but generally no one will be moving into a home for 500k and selling 2-3 years later for a million. There won't be enough buyers once investors are mostly disincentivized/removed from the market
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

  1. Most governments do not, including the USA. Yes, they take in lots of taxes, but they spend even more. Governments frequently run at a deficit more often than not.

  2. How

  3. Irrelevant

  4. A loan to people with shaky credit with no penalties for defaulting is effectively a grant. See: PPP loans.

  5. None of this addresses the inflationary aspect of government money being pledged to support a purchase. If the government is promising to loan up to $500,000 then I know for sure I can sell it for $500,000. Why would I ever sell for $400,000? It creates a price floor.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You clearly just don't like the policy, but all of your points have responses.

  1. tax more. Literally everyone on the left agrees with that
  2. More money in the economy is more opportunity to tax. People that need this benefit will be most likely to actually spend their money on good and services. These programs will also give homes and stability to people so that they can get out of cycles that impede their upward mobility and cause them to continue to depend on benefits.
  3. it is not irrelevant because this would not be a check for billions being written overnight. There would be a roll out to ensure stability and work out issues with the market
  4. never said no penalties for defaulting and plenty of people with bad credit need housing and are being provided with it by the government anyways. Might as well not give that money to 3rd party landlords that drive up rents. Also, this is nothing like PPP, other than that the government is involved.
  5. the government would operate like any bank would. It would not allow a 500k loan for a house not worth 500k. You're not guaranteed a number. That should have been clear based on my above comment that mentioned potentially upgrading to a different house when your income increases. Houses aren't just more expensive because fha loans exist. And again, all of this would be in a market where investment properties aren't really a thing.

If you don't think the government should be involved in housing, you can just say that.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If your solution to such a complicated economic issue is "just tax more bro", then I'll just wait until you finish high school before trying to discuss grown-up things with you.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you think the solution to budgetary issues isn't to tax more when we're at a lower tax rate on corps and the rich than we have been in a long time then it's you that needs to do basic econ/government classes

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I'm saying that it's way, WAY more complicated than "just tax more".

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It literally isn't just "tax more". I explained that in the long term this would be a boon to the economy and taxes and that the program would have a gradual introduction which would allow for the program to begin paying for itself by the time it's fully implemented. I'm not sure if you're incapable or just unwilling to read, but there are solutions to the housing problem, and "people can't afford housing so let them be homeless" is not one of them.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I never fucking said that so please stop implying I did.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)