• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    244
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.

    Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.

    https://ips-dc.org/report-billionaire-blowback-on-housing/

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      150
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn’t occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.

      At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they’re better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.

      “But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?” If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.

      “But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!” Doesn’t matter. If they’re vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.

      • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 month ago

        One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that’s where people go on holiday.

            • BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Don’t forget how many people own three homes in the first place. You might need their votes.

              Also, if one inherits their grandparents home and wants to give it their own children but must wait for 2-3 years, they might be forced to sell too.

              • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                The number of people who have three homes in this country I doubt is a huge number. And to be honest most of them are probably right-leaning anyway.

                • Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  I have been trying to get a good grasp on how many people own second homes, and there seems to be some real uncertainty about this. About 6% of homes in the US are not the first deed to a home a person, or couple, owns. However, upwards of 40% of people report owning a second home. We aren’t really sure what is going on here. Clearly 40% of the population do not own more than one home, and considering that the really wealthy often own 5+ houses, there is just no way. However that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some problems with the data collection on how many homes are owned by people on multiple deeds.

                  From what I have found seems the most thrown around estimate is somewhere around 7-8% of homes are owned by people who own other homes, and that group like makes up around 8-10% of the population. But who knows, there are many people who are on deeds, but don’t truly own the home, and them being on it is a security/convenience measure. Bleh.

              • chocrates@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Shit good point. Through multiple deaths I am a fractional owner of 3 properties, and I can’t afford to be a homeowner

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            If you can afford 3 houses, you can afford the extra tax on 2 or all 3 of them. And if you can’t, maybe you don’t need that many fucking houses…

          • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        Neither Republicans nor Democrats would do something like this. It would be siding with the people over the stockmarket/Billionaires.

      • cenzorrll@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I say the local government gets eminent domain on any properties that aren’t primary residences staying vacant more than a year and/or vacant >75% of the time over 5 years. Make it the owners responsibility to keep someone living under the roof. There will be enough loopholes that it won’t be their second home, by maybe by the third and any corporately owned ones they’ll start to sweat.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      So you’re saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.

      Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.

      • potustheplant@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        Inflation is a thing that exists. Saying that someone is bad simply because they want to update the value of their property is dumb. Also, let’s say granny wants to downisze. Should she sell her home for a value way below market and then be unable to buy a smaller home for herself?

        • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah yeah I didn’t count inflation but there’s no way in fuck that poor old granny is just under the thumb of inflation.

          The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.

          I think everyone should get fucked and the housing bubble burst harder than the 08 implosion, frankly. Who is holding the bag isn’t my problem, but the situation now where everyone fucking everyone else over isn’t sustainable and is disproportionately screwing over the lower class. It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys

          • potustheplant@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            30 days ago

            The point is that everyone wants to fuck everyone, but they are the victim because everyone else wants to fuck them. It’s greed from all angles, plain and simple.

            Not really, no. If you’re buying a house for yourself and after that you want to buy a bigger or smaller house, it’d be very dumb to sell waaaay under market when no one else will do that for you in return. You’d be either unable to find a home you can afford or you’d have to spend all of the money from a big house to buy a small apartment.

            I think you have a lot of resentment built up and that’s bad for both objectivity and your own health.

            It’s not my fault that granny was banking on screwing over the millenials to trade up to a beachfront property in the keys

            You’re getting worked up over a fictional person that owns a fictional house and wants to sell it for a fictional price. On top of that, you’re making up a lot of details to get even more upset. Relax dude.

      • KuroiKaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah this is honestly just an incredibly short-sighted and stupid take on the issues. Granny is in the same bucket with the young man in that they are both getting played by billionaires. Being mad at her is an incredible waste of energy compared to campaigning for fair taxes on corporation and billionaires. Anyone with less than 10 million net worth isn’t really your enemy. Stay focused on winning the class Warfare and not dividing regular people.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        If you can provide her with 1960s health care and living costs, she might be willing to sell you her house for 1960s real estate prices.

        Would you be replacing her hip for an authentic 1973 mint edition Jefferson Nickel?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Grandma is not the problem.

      You can’t go blaming the institutions for the high cost of living when it is very clearly this one anonymous old person who isn’t giving this other anonymous young person a sweetheart deal out of misplaced nostalgia.

      Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide.

      Okay, but a bunch of them are in the Rust Belt, where de-industrialization eviscerated the economy and caused a mass exodus to the Gulf Coast and the Mountain West in pursuit of lower wage service sector and sales employment.

      I suppose you’re going to claim that the wholesale restructuring of the manufacturing economy was the fault of a handful of 90s-era Wall Street bankers and Corporate Executives, rather than millions of Boomer-era suburbanites with pocket change in their retirement accounts 40 years ago?

      Likely. Fucking. Story. This is just bigotry against the 1% is what it is.

    • Gates9@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.

      • SGforce@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s hard when you work with a guy like I do. He’s 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he’s a coward so he’s very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He’ll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks and other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.

        It gets worse, but I’m about to go to bed and don’t want to think about that.

        That piece of fucking shit. Sorry about the rant. But guys like that ruin everything for everybody.

        • KuroiKaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Oh yeah Granny’s really in control. It’s definitely not the billionaires and oligarchs that run everything.

      • i_love_FFT@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Is one really real responsible or one’s choices of they were not aware of their consequences? (I personally do think so)

        But what if they had wrong information?

        And what if they were purposefully misinformed by a third party for that third party’s gain?

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          They should have researched things or at least not dismiss anyone who voices any skepticism. I had my free education wasted because no one wanted to take me seriously. At least I get to say I TOLD YOU SO. These people are more then just misinformed. They’re cult members who viciously protect their misinformation.

  • son_named_bort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Almost helped an old lady across the street, but then she said “I need about tree fitty” and that’s when I realized that this old lady was 10 stories tall and a crustacean from the Paleozoic Era.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Surprise surprise, you only inherit a bunch of debt because that generation lived by “you can’t take it with you”.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        As someone who’s dealing with the estate process right now, I don’t think anyone inherits debt. It’s paid out of the estate and nobody else is responsible for those debts.

        • SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s actually expensive, and the property is taxed as usual. If you don’t monetise the area you’re going to lose. It depends.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Not really, but there’s not much being left for the children of boomers to inherit.

          edit: And in the broader sense, yes. Millennial and younger are inheriting the debt from Bush II’s wars. We didn’t have any vote on that matter, but we’re the ones who are paying that off. 2.8 trillion. After the shitshow of a covid response, I never want to hear someone mention the 3000 dead.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I hear the opposite, boomer’s kids stand to inherit quite a bit. Anecdotally this seems true; granted I am an only child.

            My father is likely to leave me with a few hundred thousand of his retirement account (he doesn’t know what to spend it on, his union pension is more than enough for his needs) and I’ll inherit both his house as well as my grandmothers house, which is now my uncle’s house. My mom’s house will be sold and split between my half brother and my cousin who my mother raised.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            30 days ago

            Child of a boomer here and honestly, the socioeconomic strata i grew up in? I never expected anything

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I don’t believe so. I was explicitly told by my lawyer not to pay any estate debts with my own money.

            I believe there are a few niche scenarios where somebody else can be responsible for the debt (eg joint account, co-signed loan), but in general, you should never pay somebody else’s estate debts.

          • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            They can come knocking all they want, but you are not legally required as an heir to pay that debt. Surely there are a few exceptions like mortgage payments (if u wanna keep the house), but personal debts like credit cards? Not your problem.

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          29 days ago

          That is arguing semantics. When people inherit things it is their understanding that it is theirs. If my grandma left me the house but owed 1 million in unpaid debt, you effectively inherit the debt. Regardless of the fact that you could opt out of inheriting it.

          People often go into personal debt to retain inheritance.

          On a separate note inheritance/estate tax is robbery by the federal government.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            29 days ago

            That is incorrect. If your grandmother left you the house, as in she put your name on the deed as transfer on death, it is not part of the estate and you would get it outright. It would not be affected by the debt.

            If you’re saying there’s a million dollars remaining on the mortgage on the property, of course she can’t just give it to you, it’s still collateral for that mortgage. It’s not hers to give.

            If it was paid off, but part of the estate and subject to the rules of inheritance, then it would be affected by other non-mortgage debt.

            US Federal estate tax does not count until it’s above $13.99 million per individual. In this example, unless it is a huge property, it would not be subject to inheritance tax.

            I think I cut off of $13.99 million is more than adequate and only taxes those who can afford it.

            I’m in the process of directly inheriting something like 200k in various savings and retirement accounts along with a half million dollar life insurance payout, and there are zero taxes on any of that.

            I’m also taking over the deed on a house with $300k mortgage remaining - of course I have to keep paying that mortgage. That’s not inheriting debt. I could turn around and sell the property immediately and get paid the difference between the remaining mortgage balance and sale price.

          • Bgugi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            29 days ago

            All taxation is theft.

            Inheritance/estate tax is one of the more ethical ones, though.

  • clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ngl, $950K for a house sounds like a steal. Can’t buy a tear-down starter home around here for that cheap…

  • bier@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    30 days ago

    Yeah let’s blame grondma it’s absolutely her fault we had inflation and rising house prices in the last 50 years. She did it all by herself!

    • breecher@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      30 days ago

      This inter-generational strife nonsense is the greatest deflection the oligarchs have come up with to make people forget who their real enemies are.

      • bier@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Exactly if we need to blame anyone, its fucking Wall Street and investment firms. Those are the people jacking up prices and reducing quality, they are also responsible for the entire outsourcing to China etc.

        • breecher@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          You can claim that all oligarchs are boomers (and that would not be close to true, a lot of the techbro oligarchs are a lot younger), but not all boomers are oligarchs. OP is inferring all boomers are oligarchs, so it is the textbook definition of intergenerational strife deflection.

          • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Overall gen x got shafted. But about a dozen of them won monopoly irl. We all pay rent to the landowners.

          • breecher@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Again, pretty irrelevant, considering oligarchs constitute a fraction of a fraction of a generation (and their wealth and oligarch status will be inherited by their gen a or z offspring anyway).