politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They need to change the property tax system to tax non occupant owners a much higher rate and lower the rates for owner occupants. Add a big penalty on top of that for vacant non occupant owned houses. Punish them for hoarding vacant houses to artificially inflate prices.
So the goal is to push up rents relative to ownership? Why is it that the solution to the problems of capitalism always seems to be shifting around how poor people give money to rich people?
Just flat out say no corporation is allowed to have ownership or controlling interest in any SFH. Period. No incentives. You have a few years to divest until the property is auctioned off.
It's not a perfect solution. Maybe not the best. But I'm so tired of pretending all we can do is basically nothing.
Capitalism is wonderful when everyone is on similar footing, but the natural result is to concentrate wealth which breaks the system. I don't hate capitalism, but we are too far into the late-stage broken part and we need a way to reset that ideally doesn't involve violent revolt. Eventually people get sick of living under the boot of a situation created by their ancestors and which they've received nothing beneficial from. Concentrated wealth and generational wealth needs to go away. People like Musk and Trump are only problems because they were born to more wealth than most people will ever know.
Get rid of that shit and redistribute their wealth to the people and that will fix so many of our problems.
I think we're in total agreement. The accumulation of wealth is natural under capitalism. And as long as wealth is not overly skewed, capitalism aligns somewhat well with the needs of humanity. But as the balance tips, the alignment drifts. People could argue about the exact point at which capitalism no longer serves the people, but I think many of us believe we are currently past that point. I believe we are.
It's not that capitalism is wrong, it's that it has become unbalanced and we need something to reset it. In the past that something has been revolution and violent upheaval. I hope we are able to find another way.
Its parasitic though (it truly benefits well only the few), and as you stated, needs constant resetting.
Not sure that you can call a system that needs constant 'resetting' as the right system to use.
the person with more resources tends to win and the prize for winning is more resources. combine that with corporations that are literally immortal and you have a system that pushes resources upward and then locks them in place once they get there. there has to be an artificial intervention to shake those resources loose and get them circulating again or the whole machine is gonna seize up and fail when we insist on producing what no one can afford to buy.
That would affect a lot of farmers. A farm is a business, and even smaller farmers (what's left of them, anyway; doing this isn't going to help) often own their land and buildings under a corporate structure owned entirely by themselves.
If it could be limited to corporate structure with more than a few shareholders, that could work.
A farm isn't a sfh
The house for the farm usually is, and it's covered by everything else.
Split the land the house is on to it's own lot and sell it then. Or knock it down/rezone it so it's not legal for living/renting.
You're handing your opponents a talking point against it before you even start.
"omg theres a small subset of America who might be mildly inconvenienced when we ensure housing is affordable for everyone." yep, a hell of a talking point.
Farmers. They're part of the working class, and they're important.
And an individual farmer live in multiple houses? Nope. One of those houses is a viable residence and the rest are typically rented out in my experience. The exact behavior were trying to discourage.
The proposal above doesn't make a distinction between first and second homes, only that a corporation owns it.
So your arguing in support of corporate farms being able to own homes? Not sure why anyone but the corporate farms would care about that.
Pretty much all of them are under a corporate structure, even when it's a single family.
Which is fucked up to begin with. Stop hiding personal assets behind corporate liability protections.
It's not only liability. It's taxes, accounting, or just keeping a clear delineation between the family's assets and the farm's in the event of a sale.
Oh, and while we're at it, this proposal would also forbid multi-family homes coming under a co-op model. That's just another kind of corporate structure.
Yeah I'm just an ordinary guy, you know? I don't have all the answers. I'm just saying we need to look further, consider more options. Maybe your modification is better or necessary. Maybe not. My point was we need to stop merely putting our finger on the scale to create incentives to make capitalism do better and just consider perhaps a solution lies, at least in part, outside that framework.
Well, that's part of what collaboration (in good faith!) is for. No one of us has all the answers, but we can put forward proposals, hash it out, and hopefully what comes out is workable for a broad selection of the working class. Farms, factory, and office workers alike.
Problem is, conservatives only need to poison the well a little bit to destroy the presumption of good faith. Any pointing out of issues that would affect one group disproportionately is treated with suspicion, and the whole thing falls apart.
The way our system is structured that even a good intention law like this, someone would find a loop hole around it. Lawyers lawyer.
I trust there are smarter people than me who could take this idea and improve on it. My plea is just to look beyond the confines of capitalism. I mean just take a peek and see if there is an answer there. Maybe not, but the people in places of power won't even look.
been saying this over and over for a while now
Make the 3rd home any entity owns taxed at 50% property tax rate. Make it prohibitively expensive to try and turn the American Dream into a subscription model.
This is not for us. This is for your children who will otherwise "own nothing and be happy".
Fuck the kids, I got mine! - Republicans
This already exists in in most every state. Property taxes for a primary residence are much lower than secondary homes.