this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
1015 points (94.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
15391 readers
1774 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With all due respect, I can't agree with this. It's theft when a multi billion company buys home properties and then rents and manipulates the market. If someone buys a house and succeeds into buying himself another studio apartment for future kids and in the meanwhile rents it, that's not theft, pal.
When someone rents that apartment and they pay the landlord rent, the landlord is making money without working. The landlord isn't actually providing any value or service, they're only refraining from using the state to remove the person living in their property because that person is paying them.
If a person were to occupy the property without that landlord's consent or awareness, it would cost the landlord literally €0 barring damage to the property. If you factor in damage, the "fair" price of rent would be nonzero but negligible, in the order of several hundred euro a year.
Is there any reason why this landlord ought to receive payment for providing 0 value? Let alone enough payment to fully finance the property over the course of a couple of decades, during which time the tenants are effectively paying for the landlord's mortgage without receiving any stake themselves.
No property is free to own, at least in the USA. All property owes tax to the state, and 99% of dwelling units needs utilities and upkeep
Say you pass down all the recurring costs (I said damage in my comment above but sure, include utilities and upkeep too) to the tenant.
As for property taxes, consider that the purpose of property taxes is to slow down the rate at which the owners of land accrue wealth. Without them, there is no friction on land speculation, and landownership becomes too attractive as a source of income, which impedes the flow of capital to industry. This means that (in theory) property taxes correspond to appreciation of land. This means that paying property taxes on property ought to fall on the owner because they're the ones that benefit from the appreciation anyway.
If you disagree with that, then say you pass down the property taxes to the tenant as well.
In total, you'd be making 0 profit, with some debate on the subject of the appreciation of the home. This situation is more or less fair. Any profit that you would be making is what comes out of appropriating surplus value, that was my point.