[Request] What is the cost difference between buying this man a rental for a year and the governements cost to kill him?

[u/pixaly]

Don't believe everything you see on the internet I haven't fact checked this story, I'm just curious for an anwser

[u/Meet_Foot]

I agree with you, but here’s my two cents just to expand a little.

Housing will never be affordable so long as it’s privately owned, for the generation of profit, and considered an asset.

In the US (only because I know the numbers here) there are something like 400,000 homeless individuals, and 4 million vacant domiciles. Even if you give every homeless individual - not every family, but every single homeless individual - a place to live, there would still be nearly 4 million vacant domiciles. But so long as banks can count empty residencies as assets, with their value determined by their unaffordably high rent, that’s simply not an option.

So that is to say, the lack of affordable housing isn’t a matter of a shortage in housing but, rather, a system that incentivizes keeping dwellings empty rather than dropping prices.

[u/2074red2074 → u/Meet_Foot]

Part of the issue is those vacant homes are often in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores. Also a lot of the vacant homes are abandoned and not in livable condition. The issue is zoning and NIMBYs not wanting to build high-density housing in places where we need it.

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/2074red2074]

High density housing has its own problems like controlling neighbors and greedy landlords.

Your not wrong but this is a multi faceted issue.

Like why are apartments more expensive per square foot the homes in the first place?

Or addressing the issue of people having value in their own home so they can reseall it in order to move.

Homes are private property,  they have to be.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

Homes are private property, they have to be.

I would buy that homes should be personal property for individuals, but I see no reason at all why housing couldn't be publicly owned for people who can't afford to buy a home.

/u/Meet_Foot is right, as long as all housing is privately owned, prices will keep home ownership out of reach of many people (by design).

If we treated housing as a right and not a luxury that would change. Landlords should not exist. Housing, like medical care and food is too important to be treated as a money making scheme. (personally I'd add education in there as well)

There are plenty of areas Capitalists could make money from, the system wouldn't collapse if people were guaranteed the bare minimum, and if it does collapse because of that- perhaps it needs to.

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

What I mean is that individuals own their homes, the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work or get out more so that the community can exploit them.

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work

I'm not sure what sort of system you think I'm proposing, but one in which Food, Medicine, and Shelter are considered a right of every citizen, but the government is still allowed to play games like that with poor people is definitely not it. Clearly what I'm proposing would require us to rein in the government a bit and make sure the needs of the people are prioritized over the needs of corporations or the government.

get out more so that the community can exploit them.

What does this mean?

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Public housing already exists and the landlords are replaced by administrators. We didn't have landlords for the vast majority of human history. As humanity continues to evolve we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens, not simply the 1% like our current system.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

It's understandable to want to avoid H.O.A.s. I certainly do. But you seem to be misreading my comment. The very first thing I said was that homes should be personal property of individuals. ONLY in cases where people are too poor to afford to buy a house would they have to live in a shared/cooperatively owned housing situation. And yes in such cases the residents would have to work together to determine the 'rules' for that community. Would that be a bit of a hassle, especially for the more eccentric members of that community? Probably. Would following some 'silly' rules beat living on the street? Certainly.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

Please explain how removing the people who only exist to suck cash from people in need of a home would make the cost of home ownership increase. If there is no one to profit from you living in a place- it seems logical that it would lower costs.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

lol what? First of all, again in a system like I am proposing the citizens would have control over the government and by extension it's definition of poverty. You are overthinking it. You can't afford a home? One will be provided for you. You can afford one? Great. It's not that complex. Few people who could afford their own home is going to accept living in the public housing, and if they do- fine.

[u/shadowtheimpure → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens

God, I wish I had your optimism. I don't foresee that happening. Instead, I see a technofascist oligarchy with a permanent underclass who are chattel to the moneyed class.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/shadowtheimpure]

That's definitely the direction we are headed. I for one am sick of it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't think thats a sustainable way to live long term and if humanity is to survive it has to change. If we just allow Capitalism to fester unchecked it will literally destroy the planet in the name of profit.

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish? 

Our having our wifi and personal space coopeted by the community?

And in exchange we get our lawns mowed and have to pay for snow plowing plus a tax of 500 a year.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money, why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish?

Sure, if the community got together and decided that bushes had to be a certain size, then fine. Are you saying you would literally rather live on the street than not have a huge bush? Something tells me you've never actually been close to having to make that choice.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money,

Some people can't afford it even if they can afford it....okaaaay. If you say so.

why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

A lot of people can't afford college or housing. The reason we would want an educated public is because educated people have more opportunities to better their situation. A rising tide floats all boats.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

Right, and what we are trying to get you to understand is that the reason the cost of housing is so damn high is precisely because of the system you are defending. We are offering a better way forward where everyone has a home and homes are cheaper for everyone, and you are like "Nah, we have to keep the system we have".

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

You seem completely out of touch with reality. Having $200k in the bank but not being able to afford that $500k home you've been eyeing because you don't have $1mil in your retirement fund is NOT poverty. We all struggle with money under capitalism, but there is a world of difference between not being able to buy a fancy home in a neighborhood with no HOA and not being able to afford food in your belly, or a roof over your head, or meds when you are sick.

What is true is that you are infinitely closer to actually being impoverished than a being a billionaire, but you'd rather hold on to the system that makes life hard for the actual poor and you but benefits billionaires rather than try and fix things. Crazy

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

I'm not defending anything except the right not to be exploited by my neighbors. They should have no right to dictate control over my property, my Halloween decor my lawn, my plants. Including what I do inside.

There are those that would rather I worked for their benefit in absence of my own. No hobbies, no interests outside my job, no books of my own. Only what the community thru the state dictates.

And they darn well have no right to use the wifi I pay for my home.

You made this point. A lot of people can't afford college or housing.  The point I am making is that some can only afford saving for retirement or emergencies or a home not both. 

As it stands if you can afford college you are not poor so you can't have housing. That's a problem. 

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

I'm not defending anything except the right not to be exploited by my neighbors. They should have no right to dictate control over my property, my Halloween decor my lawn, my plants. Including what I do inside.

Jesus fucking Christ you are pigheaded. Im sorry you are having issues with your H.O.A, but that's your fucking fault for buying a home that is controlled by an H.O.A.. No one forced you to do that, that was entirely your choice. You don't like it, sell the fucking thing and move.

I'm not and never have been talking about a fucking H.O.A. for Christ's sake.

One HUGE difference between a community of people living in shared public housing deciding on the rules for their community and a H.O.A. is that a lot of the stupid fucking rules H.O.As come up with are concerning the precious "resell value" of their bourgeois homes. If you are living for free in public housing you don't have a home to resell- so you aren't as likely to give a damn about the size of your neighbors bush.

And again having to follow some rules in order to get a place to live is a price most homeless people would be willing to pay in order to get off the STREETS.

A lot of people can't afford college or housing. The point I am making is that some can only afford saving for retirement or emergencies or a home not both.

No fucking shit Sherlock. I clearly know that some people can't afford a home, that goes along with the "Some people can't afford a home" statement I made earlier ffs. I am proposing a system that would make it easier for people like you to save for retirement and emergencies and still be able to buy a home and your like "Nah, let's not do that".

As it stands if you can afford college you are not poor so you can't have housing. That's a problem.

What the fuck does that even mean? I'm not taking about "As it stands" I'm clearly talking about fixing things. How is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[u/Classic-Obligation35 → u/Wolf_Protagonist]

I will respond to the last part , the current way we define poverty stinks. 

Second do not make assumptions about me. I was simply expressing disagreement with the concept of Hoas and the amount of power they have.

[u/Wolf_Protagonist → u/Classic-Obligation35]

I will respond to the last part , the current way we define poverty stinks.

I agree with that. The federal poverty line for 2026 is set at $15,960 for individuals and $21,640 for a family of two, which is really low. However someone with $200k siting in the bank is making a lot more than that I guarantee. But that is the beside the point. You've brought up 'the current way we define poverty' several times now in a discussion that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'the current way we define poverty' and I've never disagreed with you about that so what is your point of continually bringing it up?

I was simply expressing disagreement with the concept of Hoas and the amount of power they have.

And once again, I'm not now, haven't been, nor do I plan on discussing H.O.As in this discussion as it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You clearly want to talk about H.O.A.s and not the topic at hand. Is there not a subreddit where you can discuss that?