cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162

Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.

  • ATQ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    And do the construction workers build housing for free? Or do they deserve to be paid?

    • Wookie@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who even said they don’t deserve to be paid? Also, construction workers are typically paid by the construction company or contractor.

      Landlords should not exist

      • ATQ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not even sure why I’d respond to someone as intellectually dishonest as you. But if you want to live in a shelter, your shelter has to be paid for. If you can’t pay for the full construction costs yourself then you have to get a loan and the bank gets paid. If you can’t get a loan, then you have to pay someone that can get a loan and that person gets paid. This isn’t a hard concept.

        If you’d like to argue that the state should provide a minimum shelter for every individual, then that’s a interesting conversation that we can have. But a simple “landlords shouldn’t exist” is an unbelievably ignorant position held only by children and morons. Because even if a “the state provides shelter” scenario it’s the state that is your landlord.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But if you want to live in a shelter, your shelter has to be paid for.

          no, because housing is a human right, and the fact that you want to live in a society where someone has commodified your right to survive to this degree, is as pathetic as it is terrifying.

          • ATQ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you don’t think that housing has to be paid for, via any number of reasonable means, then you’re explicitly arguing that you deserve the labor of others. That’s called stealing. And slavery.

            If you want to have a reasonable conversation, tell us how you think the workers that produce the materials and build the housing should be paid. The only pathetic thing is when people refuse to answer this question.

            • bedrooms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s called stealing. And slavery.

              Why did you choose to resort to false equivalence? You sounded like you had a point worth discussing until you pulled out this trick.

              • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Regardless of housing being a human right, the space used has to exist, materials have to be used to make or upkeep the structure, and it has to be prevented from decaying to the point it can no longer be habitable.

                Building and upkeeping these spaces requires expenditure of resources (building materials, time, work effort). Where is that supposed to come from? Whatever source for these resources exists has to get them from somewhere, and if you don’t expect to have to help upkeep their ability to provide these resources over time, someone else would have to.

                There’s no way to magic these resources out of thin air. Even without the grim specter of Capitalism, the wood and nails have to come from somewhere, and someone has to put it together. Someone has to keep it from falling apart.

                Any further discussion boils down to: Do you accept the responsibility of contributing your fair share, or do you expect someone else to subsidize your fair share in some way to make up for what you can’t or won’t contribute?

                I’m not making any judgement one way or the other, just saying that there is no social/political system in which you can make something out of nothing. Some people are going to over simplify that, but it’s a valid question. Where are these things supposed to come from when someone can’t provide it for themselves? Who should be made responsible?

                I don’t have the answers, but calling the expectation that others provide it for you “stealing or slavery” isn’t an absolutely absurd leap.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And who’s paying the construction company or contractor?

        Like, if you want to advocate for the abolition of private property ownership, that’s fine, and it’s a model that has actually worked halfway decently in some countries (though the lifetime leases aren’t necessarily that functionally different than ownership). But just own up to what you’re actually proposing and state that you think the government should own all property.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The construction workers got paid within a short time of the house being built. The developer got most of the money, and the bank continues to collect on the property for decades. The value of most of the US’s housing stock was paid for years ago, and now we are all just paying for financial shell games to enrich the already rich.