@violetmadder @storyworker @shamogan @Daojoan

Yes, I agree. All I’ve tried to convey is that “not wanting to purchase and own a home under capitalism” is not the same as “not wanting a permanent home in the abstract,” and the latter doesn’t somehow justify rentierism.

For example, if you’re not physically capable of maintaining a house and rent instead, you’re paying a landlord rents and probably a salary to hire a worker to perform maintenance. This is not something a landlord is necessary for; the landlord is still just inserted into a transaction between you and a maintenance worker.

There’s a whole universe of mechanisms by which people could live without permanent homes and still not rely on rentier landlords.

@HeavenlyPossum @Daojoan @storyworker @violetmadder
To bring this around to the original post, which calls for a "poison-pill tax" to force non-occupant owned homes to sell to at lower prices, there is a group being forgotten in this strategy: the current renters of these homes. Many of these renters would still not be the ones able to afford (or willing) to buy those homes. So if this policy we're to be followed without also investing in alternative housing options, such as co-ops, we would see a displacement of current residents renting in that area to those who have the will and means to buy.