• Gabu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.

    Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…

    So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?

    Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.

    And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?

    That would be incentivised, yes.

    • Professorozone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?

      • Gabu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.