What could go wrong?

We need non-profit public housing that is suitable for middle-class families.
Non-profit doesn't mean "free" or that money is being lost, just that the goal is to provide housing at cost rather than profit-seeking. Subsidies and such would still be available for low-income households as needed.

On one hand, yes this would hurt a lot of people and corporations. On the other hand, we're already hurting, so fuck it.

Just ban being a landlord guys. Tax owning land that you're not using out of existence. Rent/leases are simple vectors of wealth transferal - they move money from the poor to the rich. Everyone should own their own flat/house. Every business should own the space they work out of.
There is no good reason housing should be an investment vehicle akin to a stock or a bond.

We're well past things leading to economic crisis, and it sure wasn't caused by affordable housing.
HeLpiNg pEoPLe iS tOo ExpeNsiVe
Fuck. You.
- This would lead to collapse eventually as no one could afford upkeep on rental housing. Making everyone who rents homes lose money would be very bad for you economy if done overnight.

Why couldn't the US have guaranteed government housing available to any citizen that needs it? A $100 a month apartment to cure homelessness shouldn't be a funny joke ... it should be questioned with "why should it even cost money"?
- Government housing tied to the cost of 1 weeks minimum wage. So simple, so elegant.
  
  The government actually helping people without lining the pockets of the capital class? That's commie talk
- Because then Trump gets elected, state housing gets neglected and people start dying.
  
  They need the extra asbestos for fireproofing. It's going to be hard work bringing back all the harmful chemicals of yesteryear.
  
  Democrats never directly helping people (without lining the pockets of billionaires) is exactly why Trump was elected. FDR was the last President that actually fought for the working class and he was so popular he was elected 3 times.

My take?
corporations aren't allowed to own land or houses other than the office space and production facilities.
people can only own the buildings they live in (with proof of living there at least X% of the year)
The state takes over all houses and land that become unused by these laws
The state rents out their property as 'rent to own', or as housing for the homeless
- That's basically China with extra steps. How are you going to deal with your companies siphoning money out of your economy by buying foreign real estate?
  
  Of course, it's basically a communist idea from even before the Russian revolution.
  To answer your question: since corporations aren't allowed to own more than the buildings they work with, they could not buy foreign real estate - except for facilities or offices they really use.
  I don't think I know all the answers, it was just a interesting idea I read a while ago.
  As far as I know it was never implemented, so weather it would work out or not is just speculation.
  
  Corporations should be owned jointly in equal parts by the people who work there. Most live local and won’t want to do that.
- Ah the 'state' So donald trump should take over all housing....
  No wait, the nation of people who elected donald trump, who's imaginary new government(which will be so much more awesome) that state should do it!
  You need your revolution first friends, im waiting. It's your time to shine and you're still lurking in the dark quoting theory.
  
  I don't live in the USA, so my trust in my government is at least a little bit higher.
  I agree that the government under trump is... not suitable for such a socialist concept. One can only hope that a better one will rise from the ashes.
  That being said, in general, control by the state is better for the people, even though it's less effective. Taking 'greed' out of the equation for the housing market would do wonders.
- Bububutttbut who gets the Waterfront property?!?!?
  
  I saw a new development going up on the river and thought that. Next thought was how delightful it will be to watch the river consume it in my life time. Nature hates vanity.
- This doesn't solve the problem, which is the lack of new supply. The real solution is to deregulate zoning
  
  I think zoning laws are necessary, but they're way too strict in some/a lot of places. Like, I don't want a loud, polluting factory next to my home, but why are there places where all you can build are single-family homes?

For me personally I’d like a 50-60 square meter apartment for no more than 2x my annual income. And I’d like to be able to get a loan with a monthly down payment equal to whatever I’ve been paying in rent for the last couple of years.
I can pay 12500 NOK a month in rent, but for some reason the bank can’t trust me to pay the same amount if I were to buy an apartment? Fuck that.
- That was a scam they put in place after 2008 when they were being punished for scamming us. (while scamming us for bailouts for the previous scam) It takes a lot of government regulation to keep the banks from stealing, good thing thats gone now!
  
  Turn every company into a worker owned co-op and then it becomes 100x harder for companies to do shady immoral stuff
- Banks used to trust people and that has led to GFC. So most governments now have legal frameworks to ensure that banks don't trust you anymore. I don't think you want another GFC.
  
  Surely there can be a middle ground.
  I hate that I’ve been paying close to 150k NOK a year in rent for the last ten years but for some reason I can’t be trusted with a loan unless I make a lot more and save up something like 300k.
  Except for the fact that I have a place to live it feels like I’m throwing money out the window.

Then this is my take:
no taxes on first home
some tax on second home
taxes on any home past the second grow exponentially, doubling for each additional home
order of the homes is always from less expensive to most expensive
same is valid for companies
for companies owned by other companies, all the houses owned are considered as belonging to the mother (root) company, so there's no "creating matrioskas to that each own a single house"
Obviously offices and factories are not habitable space and therefore not counted in this system.
- Housing shouldn't be an investment asset, especially in a for profit system, or you'll just make BlackRock again.
  
  I think that’s what s/he was trying to resolve with the doubling of tax on each additional property. It would become cost prohibitive very quickly to have multiple properties.
  
  It shouldn't be an investment asset.
  Homebuilding is still a business though. You still need someone to risk their money, assemble the materials and crew, complete the project and find a buyer for it.
  If there's no demand for a product no one will build it. There's always going to be demand for a mythical product that can't be built. Like cheap housing.
  I just spent $2,000 on a handful of wood, shingles, and siding to patch my house up. like 1/10th of a single wide trailer. That's just the materials i'll be providing the labor which would normally cost $30-$60 hour.
  So it shouldn't be an investment asset, someone still has to invest in it being built, so that a homeowner may live there.
- Property taxes can also be used in this manner, you don't need national legislation to use your city/town council. You have a lot of power at a local level to solve your local problems, its hard to get peopel organized for it. You tax undesirable housing to subsidize housing your desire. I know my problems here in Maine are different than those in California as far as real estate.
  A national plan and blueprint would be nice, but i still think this is a problem with local governments that can't be solved as each location has its own needs and problems.
  There's no market incentive for building small homes or efficent towns. Think about how much money we spent to get people to use EV's same needs to happen for housing, you need incentives for buyers and producers to take the great leap.
- They need to offer low interest rates for construction loans, for first time home buyers only. That would solve the housing crisis. Anything else would make inflation worse, or wouldn't address the housing supply issues.
- Problem: universities and other entities which require many buildings. How does this play into it? Do you count the entire campus as a single property?

It should be locked at 50 cents per square foot. So a studio apt would be like $500 a month. Its close enough to what prices were in recent memory before the insane jumps in rent cost the last decade.

It would only be an economic crisis for land owners who seek rent. Really housing shouldn’t be something that people profit from.
- Some people want to rent (e.g., young people, people with mobile jobs, or people who just aren’t ready to be tied down to one place).
  And I don’t have a problem with a small-time property owner renting out a house at a fair rate. In theory it’s a win-win: the renter gets a place to stay, the landlord builds equity in their property.
  The issue we have is two-fold:
  Companies buying up massive amounts of property (not just a house or two, but thousands) and turning entire neighborhoods into rent zones, driving out any competition and availability of housing to buy, thereby driving up prices.
  Price collusion amongst these companies, driving up rent far above fair rates, using these software services that share going rates across markets. That reduces consumer choice.
  Barring a really interesting solution, like a Land Value Tax or something, my proposal to remediate this housing problem is rather straight-forward and simple:
  Prohibit these software companies from sharing rental rates info to customers. Landlords just need to figure it out in their own markets the old fashioned way.
  Prohibit corporations from buying housing with the intention to rent it. Force these corporations to sell their housing and get out of the landlord business.
  Allow individuals to hold property for renting out, but cap number of properties a person or household can own for the express intention of renting out to five at any given time. That allows a person to build up a nice little savings nest, and provide a rental property to someone who wants to rent, but doesn’t allow anyone to dominate a housing market. Look for those massive profits elsewhere - start a business that creates and provides value.
  Anyway, one can dream, I guess.
  
  You can have non profit driven rentals though…? Why does rent need to be profit driving?
  
  People don't "want to rent". They want shelter. It's just that renting is the easiest way to get that.
  
  Some people WANT to have short-term commitments to their housing location. That is currently accomplished through rent. That's an important distinction you are missing while trying to preserve elements of familiarity with the way the world currently works.
  
  Landlords are parasites. Period.
  
  How do you mean "your proposal"?
  Do you mean this post on Lemmy? Cause I'd vote for someone running for public office with that as their platform pertaining to the housing situation/crisis
  
  Wow finally someone else with a level-headed take. Careful though, that kind of thinking doesn't do well here
- I mean, 0 new apartments would be built
  
  You've discovered the problem with organising an economic system around profit
  
  Existing apartments would be removed from the market too. $100 per month costs the owner more than keeping the apartment empty, because tenants are a risk.
  If people thought that such a law was going to be permanent, or if there were fees for leaving apartments empty, then many (most?) apartments would be permanently destroyed - either converted to something else (condos, commercial space, etc) or just demolished so that the land could be used some other way.
  
  Until someone needs a home and they build it
  
  Why? Its not like apartments are built by private industry. Not any lasting ones at least.
- Home values themselves would tank.
  I imagine there would be far fewer people willing to pay thousands of dollars for a mortgage when rent is only $100 and maintenance is someone else's problem. Hell, home maintenance and repairs alone are well more than that.
  
  Then maybe we could adjust our zoning laws and take better advantage of the land available. Houses aren't very effective use of land.
- It would only be an economic crisis for land owners
  They could sell their properties amd just invest in stocks, a little tricker to manage, but its still profitable.
- It would be a crisis for anyone who wants to rent, because they won't be able to anymore.
  No one's going to rent out an apartment if they'd have to do it at a huge loss. So as soon as this went into effect, all rentals would vanish and everyone who can't afford to buy a house would be homeless.
- It would be a crisis for renters. Land owners by definition already have a place to stay, but the second you implement price controls you're going to see the rental market go into convulsions. The correct solution is to Just Tax Land.
  
  The correct solution is ~~to Just Tax Land~~ socialized housing.
  There you go
  
  We had rent control apartments for most of the 20th century and the market was just fine.
  
  Well sure, people would stop renting in protest, and you’d have to tax unoccupied spaces at high rates to compensate.
  It would crash the real estate market, which arguably needs to die since availability is artificially scarce due to wealthy hoarders.
  
  There would literally be no rentals except maybe shitty murder sex room hotel rooms.

We should live in Tardises

THATS UNIRONICALLY BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT
- While I like the thought, still terribly bad in my opinion. Presidents should never have a say in any of that. That's where we have fooled most of America. Legislation can make such a law and then the president can execute it by arresting those who do not follow the law that was made.
  The president is a local cop and international diplomat. Locally they should do nothing that is not previously written by Congress and Passed the Senate and then signed (or not signed) by them or previous office holders.
  International diplomat means they also cannot declare war and cannot make trade rules. They are a spokesperson.
  If I were President I would follow the constitution and the amendments made thereafter. I would never want to be president, but if I ran I would focus my campaign on educating the populous on what the job is supposed to be, and who the members in their communities/cities/county/state are that they should be pushing for to do great things for them.
  I would cheer for them to elect legislatives who will write thorough adaptable bills that can help their constituents and keep a platform along the lines of "Presidents don't make laws, Vote for good people who will write good legislation for your community, and please don't make me have to perform a job that hurts our people. America's governing is decided by your representatives"
  
  if i were president i would do a billion executive orders and try to resign from the UN security council because we clearly don't deserve that veto power
  
  I think you underestimated how much power "executing the law" gives you. And no matter what you believe, it can be immoral to not exercise this power sometimes.
  Sure you can educate the populous and hope good people are elected, but you can't guarantee things always go how you hoped. What if the Congress passes some truly reprehensible law? One you deeply disagree with? e.g. genocide, apartheid, weapons for the oppressor, tax break for the rich, what have you. Would you still hold on to your beliefs and execute the law faithfully? Should you?

pretty sure this would lead to some sort of economic crisis
And? We’ve already tried it the other way around, and we’ve really got nothing to lose at this point by trying OOP’s idea out.

Economic crisis? That would be terrible! It's a good thing we never have any economic crises under the current system!
- Surely not one that would cause the US to drop 10% of its stock market value in 4 months.
  
  Honestly I was just thinking of the past 200 years of US history that has mostly just been a sequence of economic crises with occasional breaks.

you could honestly make every apartment cost 100 dollars and no one would actually get affected
Those who own the land and go ape shit over their value don't even take advantage of it and sell it off, more often they just die and have their kids inherit it, and the landlords who benefit from every type of inflation in real estate
of course this assumes every housing unit is owned and managed by the government, and these themselves are incredibly successful even if they only have 10% of the real estate market
- The money that exits the economy through large landlords (not small landlords) is essentially wasted, I bet the economy would actually grow if we had proper gov. Housing that allowed people to actually spend their monthly wages on literally anything else
- What if you made every apartment cost $100 AND promised to protect Americans from trans Mexican rapists stealin' their jorbs?
  
  you forgot /s

What could go right? If apartments cost $100, everyone would own one and there would be no speculative market in them — no rental market at all probably.
- If housing was truly abundant, we would still have landlords. The key difference is they would actually have to compete as a service provider instead of as mere land hoarders. "Landlord" would be an honest job for once.
  Landlords like to say that many people prefer to rent because then they don't have to worry about maintenance, doing home repairs, etc. But most people rent simply because they can't afford to purchase a home themselves. Instead of helping people avoid maintenance, landlords in practice do everything possible to avoid spending a penny on any kind of maintenance. They're able to be so stingy because people need somewhere to live. With most rentals, you're simply paying for access to housing, the quality of the service is an afterthought. Very few people have the luxury of rejecting a potential apartment or rental home simply because the landlord has a reputation of poor responsiveness to maintenance requests.
  With abundant housing, landlords would be more like hotels operators in vacation destinations. No one would stay at a resort hotel if the rooms were falling apart and full of mold. It's a luxury purchase that people can go without, so they can afford to demand quality. With abundant housing, rental housing becomes a luxury good.
  For example, let's say anyone who wanted could buy a home with an affordable mortgage. Maybe the government subsidizes the mass production of housing units. Just flood the market with new homes and condos. Make it so there are 1.5 housing units for every 1 household. Or imagine some federal program to double the number of housing units in the US. And then offer low down payment and subsidized mortgages so basically anyone can get one.
  In order to compete with that, landlords would have to offer a high quality of customer service. They would have to appeal to those who actually would prefer to rent. They would have to attract those who honestly just hate doing maintenance and don't want to futz around with it. Those who wanted to not have to do home maintenance could rent, and they would seek out landlords who actually properly maintained their units. With dirt cheap housing available, any landlord that didn't provide excellent customer service would quickly be driven out of business. Instead of being in the land speculation business, they would be in the customer service business. "Landlord" would actually be a real job for a change.
  
  The problem isn't landlords it's land_barons_ rich fucks and corps treating housing as a business working the bottom line.
  Not the first gen home buyer getting a 2 FAM or 3 FAM and renting out the spare unit. Not even when they get enough to buy a single and keep the multi as thier first step into making generational wealth.
  Its the fuckers that buy up housing to rent at above market and do nothing they don't legally have to maintain them.
  Oh and they leave them empty for months on end instead of lowering rent to get the units all filled out.
  Lots of new apartments are being built in my state but 90% is "luxury" crap that's just going to keep raising rent.
- 15 years ago I rented an apartment, in the US, for $250 a month.
- This policy is called rent control and it doesn't work. New York has it and rent is still astronomical. All you would do is eliminate any incentive to build new housing, which is the actual source of the problem
  
  “It doesn’t work” because profits. If you are in socialized housing there is no need for profit. It’s also kinda absurd to think that, were rent fixed, that there would not be a sea change in how housing and regulations surrounding housing works. It’s myopic to simply say “fixed rent costs = landlords stopping maintaining property” or some such. It would have to be comprehensive, not a sudden, poorly thought out decree like trump would do.

If you can't beat 'em, DEPORT 'EM TO HELL!
- That sounds like a violation of the separation of church and state!
  
  funnily one could argue there is quite a bit of separation between Hell and the state depending on who you ask.
- Always a winner's first move! Disqualify, Deport, Dismiss. /s

The floor moves to vote in the "Send gansey boy (a.k.a @dickthree) to hell" bill.
Respond with a yay or a nay.
- FUCK IT WE BALL(yay)

The President has that power now, because of the ╣¥th Amendment.
- Ah yes, the MISSINGNO amendment. (Or at least that's how your comment loaded for me)
  
  ü»≡!

Like the stock market losing trillions? That kind of economic crisis?
- The entirety of the U.S. could be housed for maybe $3 trillion dollars. Since Trump took office the market has taken an $11 trillion dollar loss. We could have housed everyone with free rent/mortgage and made them nice, put Americans to work boosting the economy (making those refurbished/new homes) and also taking away the expenditures on said rent/mortgage making it so more money will be spent elsewhere to boost the economy and balance out the not spending to landlords/corporations who own them. To think of that in another manner. In 2 months, the market lost 44% of the U.S.'s GDP.
  More than twice the GDP of any other country in the world except China, was lost in 2 months.
  
  You, and others like you, are the reason I love lemmy. I can make an off the cuff snipe at idiocy, and if I don't feel like pulling in exact numbers someone will come in behind me with data like this.
  Thank you, neighbor.

No one who owns a home would vote for them. It's not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else's homes, but by a lot less.
- Eh, I'd go for it. This whole country thing isn't about my personal gain, but making life better for everyone.
- Housing should not be an investment. They didn't lose anything except speculated value which comes at the cost of locking others out from the ability to own their own home. In fact, those morons who care so much about "muh investment" are also costing themselves through higher property taxes and ridiculous house prices they'd have to face if they ever have to move.
  There are quite a few people who say they wouldn't be able to afford the house they have now if they had to finance it at today's prices and interest rates. How can they realize the capital gains on such an "investment" if they don't own more than one home? They still have to live somewhere.
  
  When housing is not an investment, you have far less incentive to improve or maintain the land you are on because you don’t own it and whatever you do may be met with hostility.
  I think the problem isn’t with home ownership, it’s with unaffordability perpetuated by private equity and how our culture doesn’t see property ownership as a human right but instead as a privilege.
  If we made residential property ownership illegal for businesses and limited individual property ownership to say, 5 properties, we’d all be better off. Rich people should be free to own places but they shouldn’t be able to profit off of it so much they choke out the middle class and play fucking monopoly with everyone’s lives.
- I get why they would lose money, but in my head it's still like you still have a home still so why should they care.
  
  Lots of people buy homes as an investment, its not only large corporations that do this, and if someone bought a home expecting that when they sell it they will get most of their money back, or even a profit on it, they would really be harmed by a government guaranteeing effectively free housing for all. If you want such a world to exist, it can't be done instantly for sure
- you leave individuals who own up to, say, 3 houses alone and start massively taxing anything further. 4+ house voting bloc can suck a dick. corporations will be forced to rent at obscenely low rates to the point that they will be stupid not to sell. they have a minimum tenant percentage to make sure they're not hoarding, and have mandatory government evaluation for any sale. fail to do any of this for 60 days and your properties now belong to the people.
- You need to consider that people need somewhere to live. So, if your only house doubles in value, you generally can't make use of this fact to get more goods and/or services, since every other house has likely also doubled in value. The only way you can get to these gains is if you're willing to trade down in some way. For example, you could move to a rural area, where housing is cheaper, or you could move into a smaller home. If you're unwilling to do any those things, your house becoming more valuable is not that useful. (Unless of course the increase in value is due to the land your house is on getting better in some way. This only concerns cases were your house gets more valuable due to increasing scarcity). In fact, since property taxes exists, you might end up getting priced out of your own house.
  
  Tells this to the millions of voters that thought "tarif every country, specially or allies" would be a great economic plan.
- Everyone now owns wherever they are living. Current owner residents get reimbursed via taxes for their current equity over a period of time. People and government win, corporations take losses on investments and probably come out ahead anyway.
  Obviously an oversimplified idea, but I think we should be asking "How can we make this happen?" more often than dismissing outright.
  
  Taxes don't come out of thin air. What you're proposing is effectively: spend $300k on a house, lose $300k, then lose another $300k from your taxes.
  That's why you shouldn't over simplify dumb ideas.
- Oh I'm sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s
  
  This is effectively the same as the government paying some of the cost of making houses. Meaning that if they make more houses, they get 'paid' by the government, by paying less taxes. They pocket the savings because that is what the government gave to incentivize them making more homes.
- No no, if they force my loan to be 100$ they're just going to increase interest 10,000 to get to that 300k lol

my second order would be sending you to hell
Well, buddy...

If I were President, I wouldn't try to rule my country like a (particularly stupid) King. I would ask Congress to convene a task force comprised of economic experts, and then to propose, debate, amend, and hopefully pass a piece of legislation that addresses housing costs while having the consent of a majority of elected representatives. And if Congress said no, I would suggest that the citizens vote in new Congresspeople who will actually take the actions they desire.
Also I would ban any stupid kids from voicing any "if I were in charge" opinions, on penalty of time-out and having their phones taken away.

No good person can become the president of a rigged as fuck system
- No good person can become president when 78 people vote for donald trump, and 40 million decided not to vote because the outcome did not matter.
  No good person can ever get elected with the never ending promotion of Apathy as supreme leader of the resistence.
  COMMUNIST REVOLUTION WEN?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
  obligatory

Nothing actually. That would work fine. If it was handled in good faith.

Well I guess he could gather an army and open the portal to earth from hell?

Wouldn't dropping a bomb be easier?
- what would that help?
  
  It would help the owner of the bomb factory get more money.
  
  Same results, fewer steps?
  It's not like this hasn't been tried & studied before, and this information isn't readily found. Pretty sure reviews of observational work or any introductory economics textbook tells the predictable effects of rent controls. Even socialist economists have compared rent control to slightly better than dropping a bomb.
  While I'm no expert, discussions around here look like a bunch of armchair critics agreeing with each other's dogma on gut feels & wishful thinking without reaching out for anything objective to substantiate their opinions. No sign of anyone cracking open a credible book on the subject, checking some scholarly articles, getting information from someone with a relevant degree, or sitting through a class on it & paying attention. Chamber echoic.
  Random, late-night gunfire might do wonders to keep property values low: maybe do that?

This guy's giving me Robespierre vibes.

Perhaps he means cost $100 a day? I mean you rent apartments, aren’t they called condos if you buy them?
- OK so we don't say condo at all where I'm from so I had to look it up - but it seems like condominium is a type of ownership, and you would still buy an "apartment" that's in a "condo"?
  Source is unfortunately a reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskACanadian/comments/1b3wlso/why_do_north_americans_distinguish_between_an/