An Eviction Crisis Is Coming — We Need to Treat Housing as a Right

[PaulinVA]

One thing I think should be done, is anyone’s primary residence should be complete free of being taxable. That would go a long way to making home ownership more affordable. Second homes and so forth should be the only things subject to a property tax.

Property taxes are the main source of funding for public schools. How would you fund the schools?

 

[Sarcelle]

Even with the extra 600 boost a week and regular unemployment, I still made more, much more, with my previous employment. I would love to be back at work and earning my old salary. Not only for the money but because I thoroughly enjoyed my job. Thanks to the pandemic I got laid off.

 

[Sarcelle]

In Hawaii they use income tax, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[RhodesianSon]

I hope you can return to work soon.

I operate a service shop for coal hauling trucks/trailers. I struggled to find good help before all this. It’s only gotten harder.

 

[Sarcelle]

Thank you.

I also hope you find good workers.

Hard times all around.

 

[RhodesianSon]

They’d have to find another base. Preferably one that is state wide and then money can be equally allocated to each district instead of giving wealthier neighborhoods more money than ones that need it.

 

[PaulinVA]

They’d have to find another base. Preferably one that is state wide and then money can be equally allocated to each district instead of giving wealthier neighborhoods more money than ones that need it

Taxes are taxes. The money has to come to from somewhere. Actually, one could argue that your idea would tax non-home owners more than they are being taxed presently.

But, I do agree with the idea of a more level allocation of money across regions. But, when that happens, the parents in the wealthier districts just organize and provide things that taxes don’t provide.

 

[F_Marturana]

The payroll loans were only for 8 weeks. After that they could lay off.

I know people who have been laid off right when the 8 week period was over.

And the 1200 per person. College kids are not eligible. My son, who we declare didn’t get anything. We didn’t get anything for him, even though he’s a dependent.

Oh, they gave over 1 billion dollars to dead people.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I know quite a few 20 somethings who believe a version of this. In fact, I’d say a large number are fine with socialism.

Of course there are 20somethings who think Marxism is cool. The “journalist” who wrote this looks to be about that age.

However, those types aren’t the norm in today’s society. If most young people had a chance to own private property, like their own house or car or what have you, they’d do so. They wouldn’t want to share whatever they managed to get with 10 broke deadbeats.

People will always be drawn to whatever works for their personal situation. If you are short on money and have an uncertain job situation, then free housing looks like a great idea. I know plenty of 40somethings who would have been on board with that at age 25, but now at 40 with a wife and kids and perhaps a house that they worked very hard to buy and fix up, don’t support it any more.

All these people who hate on private property and push the idea of collectivism should go watch a movie like Satantango and get back to us.

 

[dscath]

The payroll loans were only for 8 weeks. After that they could lay off.

I know people who have been laid off right when the 8 week period was over.

And the 1200 per person. College kids are not eligible. My son, who we declare didn’t get anything. We didn’t get anything for him, even though he’s a dependent.

Yep. This is the issue. Yet, issues on social media sites are usually obscured by political ideology or “conventional wisdom” (which is neither particularly conventional or wise).

Instead time is spend demonizing media or individuals who dare even raise the issue.

Shooting the messenger never seems to do much good, but it’s easier I guess.

 

[RhodesianSon]

the parents in the wealthier districts just organize and provide things that taxes don’t provide.

And that’s fine, they can provide those things out of their own pocket.

Actually, one could argue that your idea would tax non-home owners more than they are being taxed presently.

Which would be more equitable in my opinion. Particularly if we exempted people over retirement age from paying the school tax as they are no longer going to have children in the schools in most cases.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Here in the UK 8 people are claiming unemployment benefits per job opening. I imagine the statistics are similar in the US.

I’m not surprised to hear that you are a business owner, or that you are using your narrow experience to make sweeping statements about the economy. You could probably find accurate statistics for how many vacancies there actually are per unemployed persons. Even when the economy isn’t in a recession (which it is now), it is expected that there will be less vacancies than unemployed persons.

EDIT: From this it seems that there were about 5 unemployed persons per vacancy in the US in May. Not as bad as the 2008 recession, but still awful.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The excess homes of landlords should be confiscated off of them and the tenants should be allowed to live in them without having to worry about making the rent. Until that time, landlords should be disrupted in any attempt to evict tenants or extort rent from them. Protestors have been blocking landlords from entering courthouses in some places.

Sure. And when the existing stock wears out (which it does) then homelessness will increase. Bad idea.

No, but there is correlation between how you get your means to survive and how susceptible you are to homelessness or coronavirus

Actually there isn’t. The correlation for homelessness is mainly with mental illness or drug addiction, or both

Some have nothing to sell but their labour-power,

I know people who are wealthy but have never had anything to “sell” other than their labor, and that in a factory.

One thing I think should be done, is anyone’s primary residence should be complete free of being taxable. That would go a long way to making home ownership more affordable. Second homes and so forth should be the only things subject to a property tax.

The big correlation is between prices and interest rates, which have an inverse relationship. I don’t doubt real property taxes are high in some places, but in many they’re not really significant.

Of course there are 20somethings who think Marxism is cool.

Paraphrasing Solzhenitsyn “Capitalism is where capital is cheap and labor dear, unlike Marxism where it’s the other way around.”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Sure. And when the existing stock wears out (which it does) then homelessness will increase. Bad idea.

Which is why the profit motive needs to be abolished as a phenomenon, along with money entirely. Production and distribution could be carried out according to need, rather than according to whatever provides the best means of expanding capital. Homelessness is never an issue that capitalism will be able to solve, partly because there will never be a market for things purely because they are needed.

Actually there isn’t. The correlation for homelessness is mainly with mental illness or drug addiction, or both.

Which does have a correlation with poverty and low income, so what’s your point? People who get evicted are absolutely those who earn less, who need to work for their money, and who do not own property.

 

[PaulinVA]

However, those types aren’t the norm in today’s society. If most young people had a chance to own private property, like their own house or car or what have you, they’d do so. They wouldn’t want to share whatever they managed to get with 10 broke deadbeats.

Well, it remains to be seen if those that are debt ridden will change their tunes when they actually own something. Plus, I’ve found that, with a little prodding, the altruistic socialists can’t really explain how it would work in reality.

Which would be more equitable in my opinion. Particularly if we exempted people over retirement age from paying the school tax as they are no longer going to have children in the schools in most cases.

At first I was going to make some snarky comment about we’re all in this together, but on second thought I might be persuaded to agree with you.

You get older, the kids go, you’re finally able to save for retirement (or retire) and it seems like every time you make a little money “the government” wants a lot of it.

Little personal rant there.

 

[PaulinVA]

Which is why the profit motive needs to be abolished as a phenomenon, along with money entirely. Production and distribution could be carried out according to need, rather than according to whatever provides the best means of expanding capital. Homelessness is never an issue that capitalism will be able to solve, partly because there will never be a market for things purely because they are needed.

Sounds a lot like, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”.

 

[StudentMI]

Which is why the profit motive needs to be abolished as a phenomenon, along with money entirely. Production and distribution could be carried out according to need, rather than according to whatever provides the best means of expanding capital.

Are you familiar with the economic calculation debate?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Are you familiar with the economic calculation debate?

I am, but I do not think it is an issue for communism or one that relates to communism. The idea that markets allocate goods “rationally” is obviously a fiction anyway.

 

[StudentMI]

What type of communism are you proposing? Anarchist, marxian, etc?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

There aren’t various types of communism to be thought up and then consciously implemented according to a blueprint. There is the possibility for socialised production and the transcendence of the individual appropriation of the products of labour that exists latently in the capitalist mode of production, and it is this that needs to be seized by the communist movement. Marx’s work offers the best critique of capital and vision as to what a future society without capital would look like, mainly because he recognised that previous point. He criticises capital on its own premises and then works towards communism from there, he doesn’t just imagine a utopia and then agitate for it to be implemented.

Sorry if that seemed a little convoluted, I just didn’t accept the premise of the question. I am a Marxist, essentially.