• iAmTheTot
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    No one should get a second home until everyone’s had their first.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Some people are more capable of getting and repaying loans than others. Some people are more competent at home repair and maintenance than others. We should allow small rental organizations to facilitate living in an area for less than a 10 year period.

      We don’t want to end up like China where everybody has a home but nobody lives in them because they’re all in different districts than where people live and work.

      But yes, I agree homelessness can be almost completely erradicated if we move some funding allocation around.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      i’d probably go second… it’s useful to have a housing surplus that’s financed by private entities so that you can have a house while working for your first house

      but anything more than providing shelter with some small reward to encourage civic responsibility (ie building houses rather than owning stock) is complete idiocy