Ask Lemmy

Not ethical, yes pos

One aspect not mentioned is that sometimes, second homes are in places that have a good supply of houses available. This makes them cheaper, and easier to afford. It also has more potential to grow in value down the road. If that's the case, no issue. If not, it's complicated.

To be honest, the mix of it is, I understand the concept of your hardwork going to essentially a pension for yourself. Which is what historically reliable invests typically amount too, but I also see removing access to liviable land and the houses on them as unethical in a world where people don't have housing.

I would prefer more modest investments like loans to cooperatives, government bonds, and mural funds over it and instead choose to take the surplus value to create things like community land trusts or housing coops to make where you live more safe and sustainable.

There is also the choice to invest in micro generation of energy, community or personal gardens, home effeciciny, and making your home handicap friendly (which is a huge help as we age). Of course paying off debts can also be a great place to invest in to lower your liability.

Just my plans and thoughts.

Why would you give a shit what anyone thinks? Charge a fair price, give them what they paid for. Don't be bloodsucker leach and follow your conscience.

I believe business should be limited in ownership of single family homes for sure.

Whenever this comes up I find people are incapable of grasping the scale of the issue.

Owning a second home isn't unethical. I think a rental market in an economy is healthy. This can be provided by individuals or companies.

The issue is supply and demand. The houses cost that much because people will pay it. Why? Well there isn't enough for everyone. If renting was banned housing numbers would drop. It would short term help some people buy a house but more people would be out on their arse than magically in a house they own. The issue is then increased in the next generation. Banning renting is not the answer.

Why is there a supply and demand issue? Because people with wealth want to keep it that way. If someone lives in a house and intends to say in it until they die it doesn't matter if their house is would 0 or value of an entire country. People buying and selling for a profit in the future is the issue not renting. That profit is only their with supply and demand issues getting worse so no new houses can be built. This means zoning laws, no higher density when a city gets 100x more people and no building on greenery meaning the city can't go up or out (going up is much, much better). No new cities are built. Then for demand issues population must go up at all costs, so immigration is a must. These same people have businesses usually so this is good because it can also keep wages down by getting people in from the third world and keeping house prices high and wages low.

Then there is the issue of debt and intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Which really fucks with an economy and society at large when you think about it.

The solutions are this. The world and countries are finite, population would ideally go down. There is demand for high density buildings. Build it, knock down entire areas and rebuild. Build a new city, build more public transport to nearby towns that can be commutable. Just build! The young start off in debt and give money to corporations or the older generations that have no debt and everything they need for life. The youth need things so give it to them. Even low government loans or even better money. You need 20% deposit get a cash transfer from the government at say 25 worth 20% of an average house national wide. That will sort out the problem.

There is so so much money held up in mortgages and rent that if houses prices collapsed a lot more people would have a lot more discretionary income to spend and that would grow the economy.

Every restaurant and store that fails fails because of rent. Owning a property you're not living out of or doing business in should be illegal.

There are three aspects of the economy. Labour, capital, and landowner. Of the three only landowner contributes nothing.

We have this nightmare in the UK. I'm very fortunate to have a small house just about paying mortgage on a tiny wage, but not really big enough to rent a room. I feel bad for people in their 40s (even couples) who can't afford a starter home because all the properties are locked up in a rental market.

I think owning anything more than your primary home as a residential unit is unethical.

No. Unless it's like a family situation where it requires it I think it's unethical. People live in tents in the park in my city because housing is scarce and wildly expensive. It's not right to be able to hoard property.

I don't think so. People need homes, but not all people can buy homes. If you can afford to maintain the property to a reasonable level without completely gouging your tenants, I think you're providing a valuable service to your fellow citizens.

We don't get along, but my landlord is an old lady who bought 2-3 blocks of apartments after her husband left her a bunch of oil money. She keeps up the grounds (for the most part) and my rent has been pegged to inflation since I moved in. If people like her didn't exist, people like me would be stuck renting from a big property company.