if each US citizen was only allowed to own five residential units or one apartment building?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
i suspect the price of real estate would drop significantly if rich people can't jack up demand like they currently do. i suspect less rich people who aren't poor would be able to more easily become a landlord and own more property. 

it would be a utopia and there would be no more war or suffering! ok scratch this last one. 
#2
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
I suspect prices would drop if air bnb was banned
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Rich people don't jack up demand. They pay politicians to restrict the supply through housing regulations.
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,611
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I dont see why not. Housing is rather shitty in USA. It cant possibly be worse. People who choose to be homeless actually save thousands of dollars a month. But many are homeless because they cant pay the high rent.
#5
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,233
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
I'm not sure how the rich distort the housing market, I guess it's through the high demand of materials and workforce. 

All the same, there is plenty of experience worldwide about how to make more affordable housing. I don’t know how it is in the US, but in other countries the only solution to build low cost houses is by delivering them unfinished so the poor can finish them according to their needs. It also helps the tax exemptions to reduce the house prices.

If you limit the amount of properties a person can buy you're limiting the work demand, then the poor people that work in construction will have less income. Putting limits to the economy is a lefty policy that I don’t suggest at all. 
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I don't know why poor people (worth less than $300 mullion) even want to live.
#7
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
As a formerly poor person I can tell you. It is okay to live while you are poor, you just need to take care of your body so you can seduce rich man. If your ability to lead men into your traps is compromised, than maybe consider alternatives to living. 

I get some women want to work, but I see no reason to. Men exist to serve us by doing labor for out benefit so we can live a hedonistic lifestyle. 
#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Isn't it more a case of affording to buy.

Because I assume that in a capitalist society, all U.S. citizens are allowed to own said property.

So unless your referring to a socialist utopia, the current  status quo would remain in the U.S.

And of course in a true socialist utopia, ownership and value would be irrelevant.
Topic's author
#9
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
the richest one percent of americans own more than sixteen times as much as the bottom fifty percent of americans. so, it's more than just a simple case of supply and demand, as if that's all there is to it. with that much buying power, the rich jack up prices, and become landlords able to leach wealth off the backs of the working class. 
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,611
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
The poor people can still sleep outside. 

Plus, with trickle down economy, there is a good chance that the rich will invest in cheaper houses for poor. 

It might take 2000 years, but it will happen for sure.
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Society is such that people become rich and poor.

And attempts to realign society always fail.

Because in your utopia, you would just replace one ruling class with another.

You cannot enforce equality. 

Enforcing equality is a contradiction in terms.

And let's face it...The passive introduction of equality is also a non-starter.
Topic's author
#12
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
you act like it's an either or. so because we can't eliminate inequality or enact a fair standard, we should do nothing? every sucessful country has a social safety net... there are no successful libertarian countries. it's just a question of what policies we use to at least try to make things a little better for everyone. maybe we should just build more housing for poor people, but no one has given a decent reason why my proposal is bad either. 
Topic's author
#13
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
"I'm not sure how the rich distort the housing market, I guess it's through the high demand of materials and workforce. "

as i told the other poster, the richest one percent have sixteen as much wealth as the bottom fifty percent. that's a huge imbalance. the rich can just jack up demand and leach rent off the backs of the working class. 

"If you limit the amount of properties a person can buy you're limiting the work demand, then the poor people that work in construction will have less income. Putting limits to the economy is a lefty policy that I don’t suggest at all. "

that's a weak criticism of my proposal. nothing is perfect, if the only problem is that we dont pay construction workers as much, that's pretty minor, if the trade off is that housing more affordable for everyone. it looks like you have no decent criticisms, so you are scraping for whatever criticism you can think of, instead of looking at my proposal objectively.

on your point that we should just build more housing for poor. i'm open to that idea. but i think my idea is still decent. i could drop my idea completely, if we did a smart affordable housing thing... but with that said, i think my proposal warrants exainnation and ya'll ain't giving any good reasons to be against it. 

i can sympathize with the broad idea that when we start tinkering with policy like that, there can be a lot of unintended consequences... but i just dont see those details clear enough, if that's true.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree mostly with your sentiments about equality. But the very hard part is deciding what is the standard for "equality"  Not everyone wants the same things. Not everyone wishes to work 60 hours a week, Not everyone wishes to work no hours in a week. By setting a standard for "equality" you necessarily impose distress to people on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

I do believe as a society we should help those who have fallen victim to poor fate (born with bad genes, natural disasters, etc..)... but the very hard task is separating "unlucky" people from the "lazy" people (people who wish others to provide for them because they choose to not provide for themselves.) 

I know we try to do this with work requirements for welfare, but there has to be a strong line drawn between the objectively disabled/survivors of disasters and those who would enslave society to provide for them due to a choice of laziness.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
on your point that we should just build more housing for poor. i'm open to that idea.
And going further, the problem isn't that there are too many rich people owning property, it is that there are not enough rich people owning and maintaining property. Owning, developing, and maintaining property is a learned skill, and people who are very good at doing this will have more property that people will want. A big problem, especially in California, is that property owners regularly bribe politicians through campaign finance and other means to create laws prohibiting new construction because the original property owners want to limit the amount of rich people they have to compete with. Allowing more construction will add more rich people managing properties and competing to make sure the properties are well maintained and developed.

Many cities experimented with public housing, gifting property to the poor, but the end result across the board, was that poor people for various reasons tend to be very unskilled with maintaining property. As a result, public housing tends to decline into ruin over time as it's not managed by the most talented and able people. So simply redistributing property is a proven failed solution. Adding more rich people would be a much more workable solution which would add more valuable property for people who choose to rent and not worry about the maintenance of the property.

Another analogy would be addressing the wealth gap between employers and waged workers. Your solution would be to essentially eliminate waged workers and have everyone be self-employed. Not everyone has the skill set to do this, so it is an unworkable plan. Landowners and employers provide a valuable service managing resources competently in exchange for the fee of wages and rent for those who are not able, or choose to not to deal with the responsibilities of property or self-employment.
#16
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,233
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
I don't know exactly where you got this proposal, but a while ago I saw in the news that Andorra was prohibiting the foreigners from buying real state properties because of the high speculation that rose the housing prices in that country. If this is where you got this proposal, I've got to tell you that this ban is just temporal until the andorran government determines the new taxes for foreigners that buy or rent properties in Andorra. 

The experience says that real state speculation is the main reason for the home prices rise, specially when some owners leave on purpose entire housing buildings empty just to increase artificially the rental prices. That's why several cities have applied high taxes to empty buildings, and in some cases these buildings are liable to be expropriated if they are left empty more than a year. But even so, it's impossible to stop the rental prices rise, specially in central areas where the supply is short and the demand high. As I said, if you put constraints to the market, you are going to spoil the economy because this is the typical recipe of socialist governments. Socialism has never worked in any part of the world, so please forget about it. 
#17
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,233
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
As a result, public housing tends to decline into ruin over time as it's not managed by the most talented and able people. 
I've read long time ago that the new york city was going to let the private companies manage their public housing buildings because, as you said, poor people don’t take care of what they are given. 

Another strategy to build more affordable housing is let real state companies build more built-up area as long as they include social housing in their projects.

All in all, the only way to reduce the housing prices is by building more houses, because the more supply you have, the more competition there is and the lower the prices. 
#18
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@n8nrgim
the richest one percent of americans own more than sixteen times as much as the bottom fifty percent of americans.
It's almost as if they have a hegemonic regulatory organization that restricts competition.

so, it's more than just a simple case of supply and demand, as if that's all there is to it. with that much buying power, the rich jack up prices,
How can they jack up prices in a competitive market? As consumers, how can they jack up prices if they're just "1%"?

and become landlords able to leach wealth off the backs of the working class. 
Uh-oh.


#19
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Isn't it more a case of affording to buy.

Because I assume that in a capitalist society, all U.S. citizens are allowed to own said property.

So unless your referring to a socialist utopia, the current  status quo would remain in the U.S.

And of course in a true socialist utopia, ownership and value would be irrelevant.
The U.S. isn't Capitalist and ownership and value's being irrelevant in any social system is irrational--hence, Socialism is irrational.

Society is such that people become rich and poor.

And attempts to realign society always fail.

Because in your utopia, you would just replace one ruling class with another.

You cannot enforce equality. 

Enforcing equality is a contradiction in terms.

And let's face it...The passive introduction of equality is also a non-starter.
Well stated.

#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@n8nrgim
every sucessful country has a social safety net...
Define "success."

there are no successful libertarian countries.
There are and have been NO Libertarian countries.

it's just a question of what policies we use to at least try to make things a little better for everyone.
But isn't it "unequal" to create policy to accommodate one demographic at the expense of another?

maybe we should just build more housing for poor people, but no one has given a decent reason why my proposal is bad either. 
You bring the supplies, and I'll bring the tools, and let's start to build.

#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
I not sure that I act.

I just proffer opinions based upon how societies are structured and how societies work.

Which basically all boils down to how people are structured and how they work.

The species has been around for 300000 years or so and as an organism it's basic operating programme is still very much the same as it was.

Intellectual capability has obviously developed, but intellectually capability still cannot override basic instinct.

The basic instinct of survival necessitates selfishness, and in modern societies  selfishness and selflessness are dictated by financial wealth.

And so 300000 years later the survival of the fittest manifests as rich and poor, and not so much as life and death.

Inherent capability always was and still is a variable human quality, and unselfishness never was and is still not instinctive.

Though care for others outside of family groupings has become a learned and established social principle, but based upon affordability rather than evolved altruism.




Topic's author
#22
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Athias
aren't most third world economies free markets? how's that working out for em? 
Topic's author
#23
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
"every sucessful country has a social safety net...
Define "success.""

every developed economy in the world has a social safety net. you are getting hung up on defining success, when it's clear that if this covers every developed country, then that must be successful. 

#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
aren't most third world economies free markets?
Unlikely.

Most 3rd world countries don't have very strong private property laws

  1. Weak Legal Systems: 3rd world nations typically have underdeveloped legal systems that struggle to enforce property rights effectively. This can lead to disputes over land and property ownership.
  2. Corruption: Corruption within legal and governmental institutions in 3rd world countries undermine property rights by allowing powerful individuals or entities to encroach on the property rights of others with impunity.
  3. Unclear Land Tenure: Land tenure systems may be informal or unclear, leading to disputes over land ownership and use.
  4. Lack of Access: Vulnerable populations, such as indigenous communities or rural farmers, have limited access to legal mechanisms to protect their property rights.
  5. State Control: Most developing countries have historically had a strong presence of state-owned enterprises and significant government intervention in key industries such as energy, telecommunications, and banking.
  6. Economic Liberalization: Over the past few decades, many developing countries have pursued economic liberalization policies, including privatization of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalization, and deregulation, with the aim of increasing economic freedom and attracting foreign investment, but not to the extent of a free market.

#25
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
@n8nrgim
->
@n8nrgim
aren't most third world economies free markets?
Unlikely.

Most 3rd world countries don't have very strong private property laws

  1. Weak Legal Systems: 3rd world nations typically have underdeveloped legal systems that struggle to enforce property rights effectively. This can lead to disputes over land and property ownership.
  2. Corruption: Corruption within legal and governmental institutions in 3rd world countries undermine property rights by allowing powerful individuals or entities to encroach on the property rights of others with impunity.
  3. Unclear Land Tenure: Land tenure systems may be informal or unclear, leading to disputes over land ownership and use.
  4. Lack of Access: Vulnerable populations, such as indigenous communities or rural farmers, have limited access to legal mechanisms to protect their property rights.
  5. State Control: Most developing countries have historically had a strong presence of state-owned enterprises and significant government intervention in key industries such as energy, telecommunications, and banking.
  6. Economic Liberalization: Over the past few decades, many developing countries have pursued economic liberalization policies, including privatization of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalization, and deregulation, with the aim of increasing economic freedom and attracting foreign investment, but not to the extent of a free market.
Well stated.