Comradeship // Freechat

2822 readers

78 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

How to approach second house ownership? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by CurseAvoider@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

was reading a thread on twitter about this. i know it's a topic that comes up every so often on communist spaces too, how do we approach house ownership - i don't mean a house to live in, I mean owning a second home that they won't live in?

I might come into a second home through inheritance at some point (hoping my parents still live long though lol). getting through a first home is probably going to be a mess bc of how i live in it with my siblings and here you get a mortgage until you die, because it makes more sense for taxes. Usually when kids inherit a home, they sell it because they're already living somewhere else and the next owner inherits the mortgage + a new one. oh well it's still far off lol, we'll see when we get there.

but if you come into inheriting a second home... what is the best solution? sell it to someone who will rent it out instead of you?

i know usually these discussions revolve around no ethical consumption in capitalism but they never seem to reach a final answer.

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 months ago

im from a post socialist state and my grandparents technically had two properties, their state rented apartment and their small farm..

my opinion is that individual circumstances arent as important as the system itself.. if u have 2 properties or no property, it doesnt change the reality of the system...

if u want, u can keep the house... it does not change much.. my grandparents lived in a system were everybody received housing, their farm did not matter..

having a second property does not count as being capitalistic unless u rent it for profit...

if u want, u can sell it for a small price so that people in need can move in, not those planning to become landlords.

even better, u could donate it (?) to a group home type organization for those who are mentally disabled or foster kids aging out of the system... idk how that works but thats what i would do

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you want to find a compromise between your morality and having to live under capitalism, then there's 3 possible avenues, from easiest to most effort:

a) Keep it. As long as you aren't landlording it's fine. You might need it in the future for yourself or your children. You live under capitalism, you need to survive according to capitalism's rules.

b) Sell it at a low price to someone/a family that needs it as a first home

c) Rent it to someone, but without renting it. Basically, let them stay there as long as they take care of the utility bills, taxes, maintenance, etc. You could even arrange something a bit more formal with a local charity organization that helps people in need.

[–] busesftw@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know it might sound like a stretch, but there are possibilities/situations where the third solution you opted for becomes oppressive. As there is no way for the person to move out of that house in a capitalist society, they end up working there as bonded labour. I’m sure there are ways out of it through some sort of communitarian model which guarantees equality

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I've heard of arrangements like this in my country. They have a legal framework however. And usually they allow the home-dweller to pay an extra fee on top (like regular rent), which goes towards buying the house at a pre-agreed price. So at the end, they end up buying the house but paying for it in doses.

I can see how it could be abused by either party though. The home-owner could take advantage of the home-dweller, and the home-dweller could avoid paying the full fees agreed, ending up screwing the home-owner who is liable for things like property tax and minimum maintenance laws. It definitely would take effort and trust to make it work.

Having a contract drawn up for this sort of thing would be ideal, but that depends on the legal framework where OP's inherited house would be.

[–] thefreepenguinalt@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 months ago

give it to me /j