this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
586 points (98.0% liked)
memes
22074 readers
4323 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Banning large corporations from owning residential rental property would fix a great number of problems simultaneously. Give them X amount of time to divest and watch affordable housing flood the market.
In the Netherlands they raised tax on owning houses that you don't live in yourself, a lot of affordable houses flooded the market. Which was great for everyone wanting to buy a house, but meant there were less homes available to rent. So while some people had it easier to find a house, others had it harder. The lessen basically everyone knows already: if there are not enough houses to live in, you need to build more houses. I totally agree with you, but if after that change there still aren't enough homes the problem will remain.
Wouldn't that have also drove rent down? Oh or would that also have also limited the supply of rental units and then the rent would increase?
Yes, less homes available for rent increased their price. Regular supply and demand - total demand over both categories didn't change, while supply shifted from one to the other.
They could add a governmental loan program similar to Singapore. Basically, the state would buy the houses and rent them out.
Of course this would be too expensive.
We used to have this (local governments building houses and renting them out), privatisation forced these organizations to only cater to the lowest incomes. Which honestsly is really great for them, the problem i described before is mainly one of the younger middle-class (finished education but not yet in a position to buy a home). Iirc Denmark and Austria have social housing for a much larger group. But it does seem to come down to money: is the upperclass willing to subsidise housing of the classes below them.
In Austria it depends on the city and/or state.
I've lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including The Netherlands.
The Netherlands is extremely Neoliberal and has been for decades now - politicians there would NEVER have the government own more stuff, no matter how much good that could do for the population in general.
Didn't the US literally do exactly that last week? Maybe I read the bill wrong.
There's a lot of loopholes. I think I read that it doesn't affect Blackrock at all. It will affect Blackstone, but there are enough loopholes for them too.
My favorite part of that bill was allowing mobile homes to be built without the "mobile" part (the permanent chassis). So you can buy a shitty manufactured home and then be completely under the power of the trailer park that rents you your parking spot.
So, iMobile homes, basically.