this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
701 points (98.2% liked)
Not The Onion
19138 readers
1855 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did you mean 2200? I had a 1200sqft apartment before and that definitely couldn't fit a family
We don't need to fight over little figures like this. Let's just multiply op's figures by 5. And then we can tax a lot after that, multiply that by 10 and tax more than what it's worth after that.
Problem isn't someone living in 2 bedroom per person, it's when they have multiple mansions. Or multiple "investment properties", and some of them are just empty because it's still profitable
Oh no, someone is being reasonable on the internet!? ;) that's a good idea though. Also, rent seeking properties should be taxed higher.
They'll probably just forward that down to the renters. We need the renters to have an option to buy instead of rent if they want. So that some people can't buy up all properties and then jack up prices of both renting and buying houses.
Again, I think it's ok if you have 1 more house or maybe 2 houses you rent out, but anything more than that taxed heavily. Or a non-personal entity owning multiple properties should be taxed so high they can't keep it up. But it is worrying that even the slightly well-off people with 1 property start increasing rent. But having enough available and not having someone hord all of them means they can't keep some empty and still make profits, so many of those houses will be available for rent for cheaper.
Like, if we have 100 people with 100 properties they rent out, means all of them want their property occupied. But 5 people with 20 property each can double the rent and have 40% property unoccupied and still make profits.
Good points. Maybe that last could be part of the equation. Like a logarithmicly escalating rate for unoccupied rentals.