this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
575 points (98.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

43588 readers
566 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you pay 1% for one house, someone with 2 houses should pay 2%, and a company with 2000 homes should pay 2000%

That would make it increasingly difficult for mega companies to buy up everything and torture the housing market

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Imagine going to another city to attend university. Can't just rent for a few years, gotta have initial capital to BUY an apartment first.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I hear this argument all the time. I reject it. There are alternatives.

A "Land Contract" functions very similar to a rental, but it is a purchase agreement. You are a buyer, not a tenant. If you walk away in the first 3-5 years, it functions exactly as a rental agreement, with the only exception being that the monthly payment was fixed for the duration instead of hiked annually.

If you stay longer than this initial 3-5 year period, the agreement automatically converts to a 30 year mortgage with the same payment.

So, you take out a "land contract" on your college apartment instead of a rental agreement. You can return it to the landlord after you graduate, or stay put and gain some equity for a few years.

Why would landlords offer such an arrangement? Simple: we're providing owner-occupancy exemptions to property tax hikes. If you live in the house you are paying taxes on, you are entitled to the exemption, and pay a low rate. But If you don't live there, we're going to send your property tax rate through the fucking roof. You're going to be begging your tenants to take a land contract instead of a rental agreement.

When we do this, small-time landlords who live in one of the units of a duplex, triplex, or quadplex will be able to rent out the other units while retaining the owner-occupancy credit. They are occupying the taxed parcel; the additional units are not separately taxes. Corporate landlords won't have the same capability. Corporations may be people, but they don't have a "residence". You'll be able to rent one of these onsite-landlord units, if you really want to rent.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Imagine houses that don't cost nine and a half fortunes, because they are not considered one of the most profitable ways to invest, for the richest people in the world.

Housing doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive, whether temporary or permanent residences.

It's not about temporary living in a place not existing, it's about forbidding the ways that rich people go about making housing scarce, and corner markets.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Publicly owned apartments you can rent. No need for a landlord who just takes money. That money could go to funding public services instead.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Or you know, actual upkeep of the property instead of doing absolutely nothing until it is literally falling apart like most landlords.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 1 points 15 hours ago

The black mould is structural

[–] VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago
[–] klankin@piefed.ca 2 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

With the current trend of 2/3rds of housing kept empty for speculation, you'd probably buy and sell a house for uni (and probably make a profit instead of spending like 200k).

And also university already requires a shit load of capital? That's kinda the whole point, so poor people are poor for a "reason".

Also it'd be simple for university residences to explode it quality and quantity without the insane competition of the landlord market.

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago

Nope, university is free.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Where are you getting the statistic of 2/3 of housing being kept empty for speculation? A quick look outside tells me that is utter bullshit.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

15 million or about 10% in 2024, I have no idea where they are getting that information from.

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-the-us/

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

If I wanted to give benefit of the doubt, maybe they mean that 2/3 of vacancies are caused by being held empty for speculation. Even that doesn't make snes to me, though. It's not like you are unable to sell properties that have tenants.