this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
836 points (97.4% liked)

Today I Learned

25785 readers
1205 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I run a condo building and there’s about half a dozen apartments in the building that have been sitting vacant for as long as I’ve been here for about 5 years now. The owners don’t even live in the country. Just apartments sitting there unused for years

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

they are an investment.

here in boston, chinese people buy up apartments for their children to go to college, years ahead of time. several vacant buildings near my own place. even if their kid doesn't go to school here, it's still an asset that appreciates. chinese landlord that lives half a globe away doesn't care about renting it out either. it's just a place to park their money.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As long as we refuse to decouple housing from a tool of speculation, we will not address affordable housing.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

most people's wealth is tied up in housing. so if you decouple that you will make most americans much poorer

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think it's fine to use it as a speculation tool if you are living there. If not, then it should be a massive tax liability. Pressure people buying empty homes to either rent them to someone for cheap, live in them, or sell them.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

this is precisely what NIMBYism is. People living in their own homes, who want to force up the value by preventing new homes from being constructed.

it's also the reason for the crisis. without that attitude and all the zoning restrictions, our housing market would be much more cheap and flexible. but when you have towns that only permit like 50 new houses a a year, and the population is growing at 3x that, you have a serious problem

[–] devedeset@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

The flip side is when your state mandates allowing 4-6 homes on regular SFH plots and then your property value goes up because you can now build more housing

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think the concept of a tax penalty with some relief for having a tenant that isn't being gouged sounds nice.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hell, just requiring HAVING a tenant would be great for starters because of how many empty homes there are. If you've got the empty homes, and a tax penalty for them being empty, suddenly they'd have to compete for tenants. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

[–] incompetent@programming.dev 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What we need is a mandated and enforced vacancy tax nationwide. Make it high enough to fix the housing crisis.


*Edited to add: according to the Wikipedia article I linked, Canada and the USA have cities that have implemented vacancy taxes. We need to do like France and Ireland and make it nationwide.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Exactly this. Any sort of "is the tenant not being overcharged" check would be extra complexity that's not strictly necessary anyway. Once more properties become available on the market (because their owners want to pay less property tax), rents naturally start going down. Just need the vacancy tax to be high enough. If it's a tiny tax, it doesn't make a change.

[–] Pika@rekabu.ru 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Most homeowners only own the home they live in. For what it's worth, housing prices don't matter if you don't intend to buy or sell.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I think much more money is tied up in funds that indirectly own the houses. Common folk likely have some of their 401k tied up, knowingly or unknowingly.

Housing prices shouldn't matter, except you can borrow against the valuation, making the hypothetical cost real. Also real estate taxes and insurance.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

yes, they very much do. most people aren't selling their 401K anytime soon if they aren't in their 60s.

but the value of that asset very much impacts their sense of financially security and their spending habits. a drop in the stock market doesn't impact people day to day, but it very much causes them to belt tighten.

i was only able to go to college because of the appreciation on my parents house. they never had the income to pay for college, but since our hose went from 200K to 400K they were able to get me into college. a lot of people have only been able to build financial security by leveraging the value of their home for loans.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So your parents borrowed against the value of their home to put you through college. They could have also taken out parent plus loans to do the same thing. Why is this an argument for letting home prices soar?

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

you can't take out loans if you have no collateral to back up the loan.

the could not have taken out the loan without the housing value ti back up the loan.

do you not understand how loans work? you can't just get 50K from the bank without collateral.

the point is most americans have banked their entire lives on the value of their home. if you sudden deprecation everyone's home by 25% the economy will go into a depression.

it's not an argument for or against it. it's the reality of the situation.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yes you can take out parent plus loans without collateral. That's their entire reason for existing.

I think you should be a resident with records of living in the country before being allowed to buy. Letting the Chinese wealthy buy up all our land is stupid and short sighted