this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
268 points (99.6% liked)

politics

25130 readers
2020 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I also didn’t say eliminate private ownership of real estate. People own cars and they depreciate.

Cars naturally depreciate for multiple reasons but it's largely because the cost of maintenance for old cars goes up as the parts wear down. In addition, cars are dealt in the US by a form of cartel that artificially inflates the price of new cars.

Land remains land, and to a large extent, a well-built house is still a well-built house. That is why it appreciates in value.

It could be solved as simply as a 100% capital gains tax on land value (not property value, because that includes buildings) or introduce a land value tax value so high that you can pay for a universal basic income, making it impossible to profit from simply owning land.

Capital gains aren't realized until a property is sold. That's not "simply owning land". It's fucking selling it. Land value taxes sound meh, fine, to me as an idea. But having them so high that you can "pay for a universal basic income" is fully ridiculous. You're talking about taxing grandma and grandpa out of their house and probably destroying their net worth, but somehow always find a way to shed a tear for poor blackrock and their investors who "only" own 60-70k houses.

https://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/investors-majority-homes-some-calif-counties-20780941.php

It ain't just blackrock, buddy oh pal, there are plenty of corporate real estate investors and there would be plenty more than 60-70k houses to seize from them.

Separately, owner occupants are not a major contributor to the housing crisis, and taxing them will not net the government anywhere near the funds needed to have a UBI.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You’re talking about taxing grandma and grandpa out of their house and probably destroying their net worth You're oh so close to understanding the real problem happening.

It is literally impossible for us to both preserve grandma and grandpa's current home value AND have affordable housing at the same time.

Anything we do to lower prices will destroy their net worth, and without lower prices we can't have affordable housing.

Grandma and Grandpa own at least 65% of ALL residential properties, it could be more because that statistic only includes primary residences so it's quite possible that after including cottages and lake houses, second homes that they rent out, and with their investments in real estate trusts through Blackrock, Grandma and Grandpa actually own 75-85% of all residential properties.

The last estimate for Corporation owned homes in the US was on the order of 2-3% by the way.

Which number is bigger? 65% or 3%?

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It is literally impossible for us to both preserve grandma and grandpa’s current home value AND have affordable housing at the same time.

It literally isn't. You rezone areas for multifamily units, you build newer, denser structures in populated areas, you setup public transit so that commute distances can allow for more sprawl, etc etc etc. I'm also not talking about preserving their home value either. I'm talking about allowing them to continue to live there rather than taxing them into the old folks home.

You just want to self-flaggelate because you're an owner occupant, and this exchange is extremely boring and not even very related to the original topic. You just like to argue and be contrarian, and looking at your name again I feel like we've already done this before and this is just the line of bullshit you always want to pull out regardless of actual topic.

Edit: I mean what in the name of fuck does any of this have to do with grocery prices?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I literally quoted you saying "probably destroying their net worth" as an argument against it, so yes you are talking about preserving their home value.

We cannot build our way out of this situation. It's literally impossible, builders will not build while prices are actively dropping. They don't even like doing it when prices are flat like we're seeing in some places now.

And why the fuck should grandma and grandpa be allowed to stay in a 5 bedroom home that they bought to raise children in 50 years ago but has been empty other than 2 occupants for the last 30? That is the worst kind of greed and waste. Fuck them, they should downsize and free up that place for a family.

The fact that you don't understand how housing prices affect grocery prices is part of the reason why you aren't qualified to be discussing this. Housing prices affect everything very directly.

Grocery prices are made up of 3 primary components, real estate cost for the store, labour costs for the workers, and the cost of the underlying goods from wholesalers. The cost of labour is made up of real estate cost for the worker, food costs, and transportation costs (the three biggest factors anyways). The cost of the underlying goods from wholesalers is made up of the real estate cost for the warehouses, labour, transportation, and the underlying costs for the grocery items. The cost of the grocery items (lets just say it's from a farm for now to make it simply) is made up of.... real estate costs for the property, labour, and the farming inputs (tractors, fertilizer, seeds, fuel, etc)

Do you see how many times "real estate costs" show up in that breakdown? When housing prices go up, the price of everything goes up quite significantly.

Think of it this way, how much money would someone need to make to keep the same quality of life if their rent cost went down 80%? For a lot of workers, earning say $60,000 and spending $3000 a month on rent, if their rent went down to $600, they would only need to earn $31,200 a year to keep the same quality of life, that's a 48% reduction in potential labour costs.

So now your grocery store is saving 80% on their property rent, 48% on labour, and the same things are happening downstream as well so their goods cost goes down too.

Except now we've created a loop. The same quality of life isn't accurate, because now that housing is cheaper, your groceries got cheaper too, so you either have a better quality of life, or you could take even less money.

All value created goes somewhere. Right now, a large majority of it is accruing to landowners. Until that changes, these problems will continue.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

I ain't reading all of that, especially not when the first thing you did in this reply is take a phrase out of a sentence and tried to pretend that was the entire thought when it clearly wasn't.

How are you going to get grocery prices down? Through georgism and ubi? Lord knows we cannot tax rich people who have all of the money nor look at any systemic factors because we're 🙈🙉🙊 when it comes to them.

You're just a crank. Go crank it on someone else's finite time.