Politics Census: Lockdown Edition feat. Drumstick [Final results p.11]

Nationalise housing

Edit: strawberry float yeah, top of the page

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Karl_ wrote:You shouldn't be able to own a house you don't personally live in.

Who should be allowed to own them? I’m not disagreeing I’m not interested in your view. Is it that everyone should be able to own their own property or that the government and local authorities should provide more housing?

Sure, always happy to chat! I realise you got a few responses already but felt I should reply too!

I think everyone should have the right to live in a home, and that people who have settled in a home should have personal ownership of it.

I'm keen on seeing homes as the personal property of the people who live in them, rather than as a commodity in a market. I hope that if we started to treat housing that way it would have many noticeable positive effects on society. It could reduce homelessness and lift people out of poverty or precarity. It could also help people establish deeper roots in a neighbourhood, and therefore form closer ties to their local community.

I would like spare housing to be managed by the government. When people are done using their personal house, it should return to the government to be given to someone else.

This would allow the government to provide temporary accommodation for people who don't wish to live in one place long-term. This could even extend to people who just want to visit a place for a while, removing the need for holiday homes and the like.

Provisioning housing like that wouldn't be compatible with private renting. If you allow people to own lots of homes, which they aren't personally using, then there won't be enough for everyone to have one. If you treat property as an investment it creates a large group of people who can't afford one and so can't meet that basic need.

Knoyleo wrote:Nationalise housing

Edit: strawberry float yeah, top of the page

You idiot, that's strawberry floating mental.

I think it should be ok ultimately to own two homes as it's relatively easy to inherit a house, although I get that inheritance has its own issues.

Once I seize control I think it'd be good to see:

- Limits on ownership to two properties (maybe limits within a household too to prevent people from just putting property in their spouse or children's names - although this would come with its own headaches)
- The property you don't reside in having more prohibitive empty-house taxation than there currently is
- Rent control on the property you rent out (say, what you bring in via rent shouldn't turn a profit)
- Ability to sell excess property to a national stock at a higher than market rate

Ah, Cutty, we're not a million miles apart.

Coalition?

Karl_ wrote:I would like spare housing to be managed by the government. When people are done using their personal house, it should return to the government to be given to someone else.

Does the responsibility of upkeep fall on the home owner or the government? How does the government resolve competition for more desirable homes?

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I would like spare housing to be managed by the government. When people are done using their personal house, it should return to the government to be given to someone else.

Does the responsibility of upkeep fall on the home owner or the government?

I would say, similar to how the manage child benefit. The tenant pays for the work and invoices the government who will pay them a fixed % contribution depending on the actual cost, the more expensive it is, the greater % the government cover up to a maximum of say, 50% for the sake of argument.

OrangeRKN wrote:How does the government resolve competition for more desirable homes?

Clearly it would have to be run on a first come first serve basis.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I would like spare housing to be managed by the government. When people are done using their personal house, it should return to the government to be given to someone else.

Does the responsibility of upkeep fall on the home owner or the government? How does the government resolve competition for more desirable homes?

I think people should be responsible for maintaining their own personal property, unless they need help for some reason, in which case the state or community would provide that help.

I think it would be important that the state or community spends pretty significant resources making sure all houses in the stock are well-maintained and adequately provisioned. You couldn't have houses in the system that a reasonable person would hate to live in.

When assigning houses, ultimately I think you would simply assign based on that person's or family's needs, though I think there could still be some choice (maybe picking one from a small list of options). I hope we would eventually reach the point where all the houses are pretty nice, and there's enough capacity for individuals to have a fair amount of choice.

But ultimately people would have to accept having somewhat lesser individual agency as a consequence of the system providing for everyone.

Drumstick wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I would like spare housing to be managed by the government. When people are done using their personal house, it should return to the government to be given to someone else.

Does the responsibility of upkeep fall on the home owner or the government?

I would say, similar to how the manage child benefit. The tenant pays for the work and invoices the government who will pay them a fixed % contribution depending on the actual cost, the more expensive it is, the greater % the government cover up to a maximum of say, 50% for the sake of argument.

Why pay to fix a serious issue with the house if you can just move though?

Paying for non-vital house improvements also becomes less attractive if it's a sunk cost. At the moment if someone pays for an extension or a new kitchen, it's at least partly an investment on the value of the house. Take that away and it's money that will never be recouped. Currently someone could happily invest in improving their home knowing that should they need the money later in life, they could downsize in a move and free up some of the money they invested. That opportunity would be lost.

(I've not really thought this through fully bear in mind!)

Drumstick wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:How does the government resolve competition for more desirable homes?

Clearly it would have to be run on a first come first serve basis.

I could see this creating an unintended "information market" where the knowledge of when the more desirable homes will become available gains value.

Karl_ wrote:When assigning houses, ultimately I think you would simply assign based on that person's or family's needs, though I think there could still be some choice (maybe picking one from a small list of options). I hope we would eventually reach the point where all the houses are pretty nice, and there's enough capacity for individuals to have a fair amount of choice.

But ultimately people would have to accept having somewhat lesser individual agency as a consequence of the system providing for everyone.

While I think the current system that demands an unsustainable increase in property value is unfair and obviously broken, the state assigning all people to the homes in which they must live also sounds pretty horribly dystopian.

I think our society should provide housing for those in need, and I would much rather there be a relatively free but still regulated and accessible market otherwise to provide some degree of freedom to the individual from the state.

Private rent (to get back to that point), properly regulated, can offer real value to the tenant who is paying for the landlord's services in upkeep and maintenance of the property.

OrangeRKN wrote:Why pay to fix a serious issue with the house if you can just move though?

"Upkeep" is not the same as a "serious issue".

OrangeRKN wrote:Paying for non-vital house improvements also becomes less attractive if it's a sunk cost. At the moment if someone pays for an extension or a new kitchen, it's at least partly an investment on the value of the house. Take that away and it's money that will never be recouped. Currently someone could happily invest in improving their home knowing that should they need the money later in life, they could downsize in a move and free up some of the money they invested. That opportunity would be lost.

In my world, the government are renting these properties out, as is, to tenants. There is no prospect of non-essential home improvements as the tenant does not own the home, the government does.

OrangeRKN wrote:(I've not really thought this through fully bear in mind!)

Neither have I but it hasn't stopped me proposing the idea for a few years.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Drumstick wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:How does the government resolve competition for more desirable homes?

Clearly it would have to be run on a first come first serve basis.

I could see this creating an unintended "information market" where the knowledge of when the more desirable homes will become available gains value.

It's possible. In my world, the government has ownership of the rental/lettings market, so estate agents and the like would become purely sales based.

OrangeRKN wrote: the state assigning all people to the homes in which they must live also sounds pretty horribly dystopian.

I think our society should provide housing for those in need

I see. So rather than giving everyone a stake in the public provision of homes, it is only poor people who should live in "dystopian" state housing. Hmm!

Really hoping Drummy's snappy political slogan series is 'In My World...', where his campaign for re-election takes a sinister authoritarian turn with the addition of 'We Have A Little Thing Called Work'.

Cuttooth wrote:Really hoping Drummy's snappy political slogan series is 'In My World...', where his campaign for re-election takes a sinister authoritarian turn with the addition of 'We Have A Little Thing Called Work'.

By 2030 Drummy has us all living in massive Victorian poor houses and breaking rocks for gruel all day.

Karl_ wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote: the state assigning all people to the homes in which they must live also sounds pretty horribly dystopian.

I think our society should provide housing for those in need

I see. So rather than giving everyone a stake in the public provision of homes, it is only poor people who should live in "dystopian" state housing. Hmm!

Being in need of state provided housing should be a transitive state, not a permanent condition of the poorest in society. The market should be accessible enough for people to move out of state housing should they desire.

It is not the housing itself that is dystopian (that conjures images of inadequate and poorly maintained homes) but the authoritative state monopoly on the individual's choice of home. State provided housing should be of good quality.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:Really hoping Drummy's snappy political slogan series is 'In My World...', where his campaign for re-election takes a sinister authoritarian turn with the addition of 'We Have A Little Thing Called Work'.

By 2030 Drummy has us all living in massive Victorian poor houses and breaking rocks for gruel all day.

Bring back the two penny hangovers and four penny coffins.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_penny_coffin

Why should the poor have anything more than a rope?

What happened here?

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote: the state assigning all people to the homes in which they must live also sounds pretty horribly dystopian.

I think our society should provide housing for those in need

I see. So rather than giving everyone a stake in the public provision of homes, it is only poor people who should live in "dystopian" state housing. Hmm!

Being in need of state provided housing should be a transitive state, not a permanent condition of the poorest in society. The market should be accessible enough for people to move out of state housing should they desire.

It is not the housing itself that is dystopian (that conjures images of inadequate and poorly maintained homes) but the authoritative state monopoly on the individual's choice of home. State provided housing should be of good quality.

I don't care about the "freedom" of rich people to choose their perfect dream mansion.

I care about the freedom of ordinary people to have a suitable, permanent home that is theirs.

It is dystopian that the quality and size of a home are provided based on that person's economic class, rather than the material needs of their family.

It is dystopian that private landlords extract profit from the meagre income of the poor, backed by the threat of the state-sanctioned violence of eviction.

You can't solve the fundamental injustice of housing without abolishing those relations. No more renting means instead the community handling temporary accommodation; and no purchasing of housing means the community simply giving housing to people, which necessarily means communal decisions about how to apportion housing.

Drumstick wrote:What happened here?

What the Secret Drumstick Police ask with a threatening tone to make sure witnesses say "nothing".

Karl_ wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote: the state assigning all people to the homes in which they must live also sounds pretty horribly dystopian.

I think our society should provide housing for those in need

I see. So rather than giving everyone a stake in the public provision of homes, it is only poor people who should live in "dystopian" state housing. Hmm!

Being in need of state provided housing should be a transitive state, not a permanent condition of the poorest in society. The market should be accessible enough for people to move out of state housing should they desire.

It is not the housing itself that is dystopian (that conjures images of inadequate and poorly maintained homes) but the authoritative state monopoly on the individual's choice of home. State provided housing should be of good quality.

I don't care about the "freedom" of rich people to choose their perfect dream mansion.

I care about the freedom of ordinary people to have a suitable, permanent home that is theirs.

It is dystopian that the quality and size of a home are provided based on that person's economic class, rather than the material needs of their family.

It is dystopian that private landlords extract profit from the meagre income of the poor, backed by the threat of the state-sanctioned violence of eviction.

You can't solve the fundamental injustice of housing without abolishing those relations. No more renting means instead the community handling temporary accommodation; and no purchasing of housing means the community simply giving housing to people, which necessarily means communal decisions about how to apportion housing.

You will find no disagreement over the failings of the current system as it exists. I absolutely agree that everyone should have a home suitable to their needs and permanently their own should they desire it. I'd make these assertions:

- An inequality in the quality of homes available is unavoidable, but moreso:
- The value of a home, beyond the minimum standards of livability, is not universal. For example, this is true even in size of home.
- Private rent is not inherently exploitative and offers real benefits to the tenant, if freely chosen, as an alternative to ownership.
- If I want to improve my home, it is better as an investment than as a sunk cost (of either my money or labour).

Perhaps my fundamental view is that:

- Provided everyone has access to a home satisfying their needs and reaching some minimum acceptable standard, there is no justification for the state to interfere further with an individual's choice of home.

Of course it's impossible to judge your proposed system from such a broad description, as I think the degree of choice the individual has over the home they are assigned by the state makes a substantial difference (my dystopian vision is really one the extreme which the individual has no choice at all). I would also disagree that the state provision of housing alone would solve the economic inequality in home standards. Those with more money would still be able to renovate and extend their assigned property to raise the quality of their home (although I imagine really you'd not advocate for such a system in isolation but other societal changes that would in some way address this).