Rich like to collect shit and then hide it.
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
820 points (97.3% liked)
Today I Learned
25766 readers
466 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My simple solution ( although there is no simple answer to this complex question) is to put a 1% on the landlord for every empty home. After 2 years it goes doubles.
So if your a home owner with a second or even a third home you should be able to cover the cost or at least until you get someone in. But if you happen to own 50 plus over priced properties, you can either lower the price,or sell the house.
Properties should not be investment
IMHO, the answer is simple.
No corporation may own more than X single family or multifamily (up to 4 family per building) housing units, other than for occupation by its employees, for more than 120 days. Any housing units owned for more than 120 days are taxed at a rate of 50% of their fair market value per year.
Watch how fast companies like Zillow that tried to get rich fast by 'playing the housing market' dump houses on the market.
I'm invested in real estate, and I want this to happen even though it'll hurt me economically. Real estate is horrifically overvalued, and corporations owning huge numbers of single family homes / small multifamily homes are a big part of why.
I'm all for investing to make money. Some things should be considered public resources, not vehicles for investment. Land and health are among them.
Why should corporations be able to own housing at all? They don't live in them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I've said time and time again that "building more houses" is not the solution.
The problem is resource hoarding. Regulate the real estate monopolies. Stricter bans on AirBnBs and second vacation homes. Rent control properties. And renovate buildings that aren't up to code.
Outside of extremely dense cities, it's never, ever been a population issue. It's a class issue.
I’ve said time and time again that “building more houses” is not the solution.
I mean, it's also been said that a lot of these empty houses are in rural/suburban neighborhoods outside of dying industrial centers. We're effectively talking about "Ghost Towns", with no social services and a deteriorating domestic infrastructure, that people are deliberately abandoning.
And we're stacking that up against the homeless encampments that appear in large, dense, urban environments where social services are (relatively) robust and utilities operate at full capacity around the clock.
Picking people up from under the I-10 overpass and moving them to
doesn't address homelessness as a structural problem. It just shuttles people around the state aimlessly and hopes you can squirrel them away where your voters won't see them anymore.
At some point, you absolutely do need to build more apartment blocks and rail corridors and invest in local/state/federal public services again, such that you can gainfully employ (or at least comfortably retire) people with no future economic prospects. You can't just take folks out to shacks in the boonies and say "Homelessness Resolved!"
load more comments
(16 replies)
Massively increase property taxes. Exempt owner-occupants from those increases.
You want a second home, you're going to be paying the full, punitive tax rate on one of them.
It's also the huge amount of housing that's built that's not affordable. We have had 5 neighborhoods built within 4 miles of my house over the past 5 years. Nothing is below 500k starting price.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(20 replies)
No…. The immigrants stole them all
This article claims a lot of these are foreclosures and banks don’t want to be landlords
Massive property tax increase. Owner-occupants are exempted from that tax.
As soon as a bank initiates foreclosure proceedings, they owe the full, non-exempt tax rate. That stick gives them a strong incentive to work with their borrower.
load more comments
(4 replies)
landlords
the easy way to solve this is TO GIVE THE DAMNED HOUSES AWAY instead of retaining ownership of property that could house people. don't want to be landlords? give it the fuck away
load more comments
(5 replies)
As other two have said. The carrying costs for banks is just too low to incentivize liquidity in housing supply. Put them on the market and watch home prices and rent fall
It's completely written by AI, but ChatGPT makes a good point.
view more: next ›