Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
I would be willing to bet most anything that if anyone here owned another property, they would not freely just donate it to the unhoused.
And that is entirely because passing judgement is very easy and requires no effort or financial loss.
“You shouldn’t judge landlords, because if you were a garbage piece of shit person then you’d be just like them, too.”
What a terrible fucking defense of this situation. Eat my ass.
While that's true, I'm not sure it's about passing judgement so much about critiquing the system that promotes that behavior, like corporate ownership and super rich sorts.
While I don't see the end to capitalism anytime soon, a good middle ground proposed is the end to corporate ownership of properties, since the main reason there are empty homes are land developers using them as a commodity for buying and selling. Ending the concept of summer homes and such would be nice, too, but at the ratio we're seeing it probably wouldn't even be necessary to fix homelessness if we ended the corporate thing.
You know, leaving your estate to your children is a very common thing to do, right?
if I was as wealthy as some of the celebrities you smart people keep sucking off, I would definitely be funneling my wealth to those who need it.
The problem is that we have a system that financially incentivizes owning property while not using it.
If there was e.g. a heavy tax on owning unused property, this would cause people to sell unused property, driving down prices which would allow many homeless people to actually be able to afford a mortgage.
Property is there to house people. Keeping it as investment without renting it out is abusing the system for personal monetary gain and a system that allows that is flawed and should be fixed.
the people who own all those properties tend to be the people who own the government.
And now we get back to the core of the problem.
and what are you going to do about it? exactly? because vast majority of the voting public wants it this way and benefits from it being this way.
Not a huge amount, maybe. I joined a party in my home country that's supposed to fix things like that. I voted for an underdog candidate in the internal leadership election who had very classical left talking points (among them a vacancy tax).
The party managed to get into government for the first time in a long time at the next election afterward, but as a junior partner to the conservatives. Now they do hardly anything out of fear that the conservatives blow up the coalition and instead do a coalition with the right wing extremist party.
So that's that for now.
Other than that I talk to people and tell them about stuff like that. Because while the majority of the voting public would benefit from e.g. a vacancy tax, the majority is not for a vacancy tax because they neither understand the tax nor why it is necessary. So I educate people and bring them around to the idea. I can't change the country, but I can change people around me. And if enough people do that, movements can form and things can change.
One such movement managed to ban nuclear power in my country in the 70s (famously, right after they finished the first nuclear powerplant, which then never got turned on).
IDK about the American tax system but here in Australia this argument gets trotted out a lot but it just doesn't hold water.
Why wouldn't an investor want to rent their property and make more money?
because the value of the property goes up more if it isn't rented. it's used as an asset to borrow against.
renting a property is work and risk. not renting it... is no work and no risk.
the issue is you are thinking like a poor person. not a rich person. rich people don't need more income... they need assets which they can borrow against. often they borrow against one building... to buy another, now they have two buildings they can borrow against... and as long as the value keeps going up they win.
just like stock. rich people don't sell their stock. they borrow against it. and it's tax-free that way. poor people sell their stock to make money.
it's also why rich people want the interest rates to be near zero. because it makes borrowing dirt cheap.
Can you cite statistics that show vacant properties increase in value more quickly? Im incredulous.
Renting a property is work and risk, but in exchange you receive rent income.
If you have a portfolio of properties, you're not about to leave that free money on the table.
The issue here is that youre thinking like an idiot.
The problem is the same in most places.
In Austria, where I am from, there's an average yearly appreciation of property value of 6% (average over the last 25 years, average inflation over the same time was around 3%). Yearly rent is on average 3% of the property value.
So investors have the choice of either taking 6% with no risk and no work or taking 9% but having to service the appartment, having the trouble of satisfying a renter and their legal rights and always having the risk of getting a renter who trashes the apartment and/or doesn't pay the rent.
And yes, legally a landlord can sue for damages, but if the renter has no money, then all the landlord has is the security deposit, which might be far less than required to cover the damages.
So if you are looking for a super-secure low-risk low-interest investment option, keeping a flat you own empty is a good choice.
A way to counteract this would be a vacancy tax that is as high as the property appreciation. That way, keeping a flat empty nets you 0% ROI, while renting it out nets you 9%. This would disincentivize harmful behaviour (hoarding empty property for investment) while not affecting the behavior we want (renting out property).
If you have multiple properties the risk of a single tennancies damages exceeding the deposit is manageable.
I don’t disagree. There’s definitely a problem with how it’s handled. It’s the people that are telling others to give it away that I’m on about.
You don't have to give it away. Just rent it out or sell it. If you have no need for a property, put it on the market so that someone else can use it.
It's a massive mistake that the system is setup so that you can profit from owning but not using a property, and this needs to be fixed systematically (specifically, via a heavy vacancy tax).
If you want to park your money somewhere and want some ROI we already have stuff for that (e.g. stocks). We don't need to abuse a limited and vital resource for that.
Good point and agreed. I misunderstood.
It's a common misconception in this type of discussion. You also get a lot of people who are like "but that would harm the people who own an empty property and can't find a renter". Well, nobody needs to own property they don't use, even if it's only because they can't use it, and not because they don't want to.
You can always sell property. Nobody is required to own anything.