You want housing to be publically managed? Would you be willing to pay the significant tax that would be required to wholly maintain houses, water, sewer, electricity and Internet and landlord infrastructure?
We already do. Nearly every city in america has some form of a housing authority for the inpoverish and the application list for them extends for years because we dont invest more into them.
Paying rent is “the significant tax” you’re talking about except because landlords don’t care about their properties past maintaining the investment value (which rarely correlates with actual maintenance or actual value) housing isn’t improved and at times is barely up kept.
In a society where every building was owned by the people living or working inside it, yes there would be a small buffer not currently being used and yes that would likely have to be publicly managed. That would neither be difficult or expensive from a government perspective and it assuredly would be far cheaper to society as a whole than rent is.
This isn’t even considering that my rent goes to some rich asshole instead of a government employee maintaining my community as a 9-5. I’d much rather create a new well paying job per 1000 homes than buy the rich another vacation or yacht.
You’ve been deluded into thinking that public/government managed equals inefficient and expensive.
If anything public managed (or at least owned) housing would be cheaper, because of greed having been removed from the equation.
Allowing people and corps to stash basic services away is what’s expensive for the population because the leeches will always require the maximum fee the market allows them to invoice.
You want housing to be publically managed? Would you be willing to pay the significant tax that would be required to wholly maintain houses, water, sewer, electricity and Internet and landlord infrastructure?
We already do. Nearly every city in america has some form of a housing authority for the inpoverish and the application list for them extends for years because we dont invest more into them.
Paying rent is “the significant tax” you’re talking about except because landlords don’t care about their properties past maintaining the investment value (which rarely correlates with actual maintenance or actual value) housing isn’t improved and at times is barely up kept.
In a society where every building was owned by the people living or working inside it, yes there would be a small buffer not currently being used and yes that would likely have to be publicly managed. That would neither be difficult or expensive from a government perspective and it assuredly would be far cheaper to society as a whole than rent is.
This isn’t even considering that my rent goes to some rich asshole instead of a government employee maintaining my community as a 9-5. I’d much rather create a new well paying job per 1000 homes than buy the rich another vacation or yacht.
You’ve been deluded into thinking that public/government managed equals inefficient and expensive.
If anything public managed (or at least owned) housing would be cheaper, because of greed having been removed from the equation.
Allowing people and corps to stash basic services away is what’s expensive for the population because the leeches will always require the maximum fee the market allows them to invoice.