• Koro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While that may be, companies should not be able to have a stronghold on what should be considered a basic human need. Housing is already in pretty short supply, and it’s worsened by the fact that these companies buy a considerable chunk of this short supply and then turn the purchased properties into rentals.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        “buying one home and turning it into 4 home reduces the amount of homes” and other fun takes.

        • Koro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Buying a house and renting it out to families that were wanting to buy it outright in the first place” FTFY

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I’m sorry, do 4 families generally get together and purchase a house as a collective?

        • deejay4am@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Buying one home and charging 4x as much for it” is the actual problem, but I suppose you have your head in the sand by default when the large boot of capitalism is on your neck.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Strong disagree. People having homes where they otherwise would not is a feature, not a bug.

            If you want prices down, you must increase supply

    • csfirecracker@lemmyf.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea being proposed here doesn’t outlaw renting, only corporate ownership of residential property. It means that the people you’re renting from are human beings who will eventually die and either be estate taxed or the house will be sold, rather than a corporation who owns your property until they go bankrupt or until the sun explodes.

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bingo. A lot of current problems get better by:

        A) 100% death tax on all money over 100,000,000.00 at time of death.

        B) Closing loopholes that allow hiding that kind of money in unnecessary corporate assets or non-charitable trusts.

        C) Cracking down on what qualifies as a charitable trust. Want to leave that money to trust that makes the world better, better have numbers to prove it or it gets disolved automatically into other more effective charities.

        D) Automatically splitting every corpportation the moment it crosses a reasonable value threshold.

    • Hextic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Fuck you you shouldn’t own a goddamn thing with that mentality.

      You bootlickers are the reason shit is bad and was always bad.