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.

    • Flyberius [comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok, so you want the government to be the landlord as you have more trust in a government monopoly than in a market.

      Yup. Basically. Although it is worth noting that the type of government we currently have, beholden to capital, is not trustworthy. Their priorities first and foremost are to serving corporate interests, which is probably why you trust them so little. Any power or public capital they are entrusted with gets pumped into private companies whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible for as little expenditure.

      Any government brave enough to outlaw private landlords is going to have much more socially oriented priorities and will be much more inclined to serve the public good rather than the almighty market.

    • tracyspcy@lemmy.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      depends on problem you are going to solve, if you want to provide people with affordable housing, then challenge your beliefs in almighty market.

    • panopticon [comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fair.

      If we, the workers, are the ones running that government monopoly and not an oligopoly of landlords and other speculators then yes, that would be more fair. It's also a vastly more efficient way to guarantee that everyone is housed, as history shows