Gregory's Server@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.
|
Top-level
4 comments
@Daojoan @violetmadder @shamogan @storyworker I noted from the very beginning that being grateful for an opportunity to rent is a perfectly legitimate survival mechanism under capitalism, and that I was not criticizing this response at all. You can scroll back up through this thread to read that. My goal is not to abolish landlords by forcing them to sell; my goal is the abolition of landlords through the decommodification of housing. @HeavenlyPossum @Daojoan @violetmadder @storyworker |
@HeavenlyPossum @Daojoan @storyworker @violetmadder and so I believe what @storyworker was expressing is that they are glad they have renting as an alternative to owning, and as someone who does not want to own, they we're asking if you removed all the landlords, how would they get access to housing, if not thorugh renting. Which is a valid question, in my opinion.