So you’re saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.
Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.
Comment on Grandma is on her own
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Gates9@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.
EdgeOfDistraction@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Nah, I’m happy to bag on anyone that benefits from a system and then pulls the ladder up behind them.
SGforce@lemmy.ca 6 hours ago
It’s hard when you work with a guy like I do. He’s 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he’s a coward so he’s very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He’ll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks, other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.
It gets worse, but I’m about to go to bed and don’t want to think about that.
That piece of fucking shit.
mugthol@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 hours ago
It seems like that is more of an asshole problem than an age problem
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 7 hours ago
I’ve said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn’t occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.
At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they’re better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.
“But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?” If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
“But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!” Doesn’t matter. If they’re vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that’s where people go on holiday.
basiclemmon98@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 hours ago
This part applies. It’s not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it’s the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage… Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 3 hours ago
Most people aren’t homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 minute ago
If you can afford 3 houses, you can afford the extra tax on 2 or all 3 of them. And if you can’t, maybe you don’t need hat many fucking houses…
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 32 minutes ago
Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up
thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.