this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
112 points (100.0% liked)

traingang

22966 readers
236 users here now

Post as many train pictures as possible.

All about urbanism and transportation, including freight transportation.

Home of train gang

:arm-L::train-shining::arm-R:

Talk about supply chain issues here!

List of cool books and videos about urbanism, transit, and other cool things

Titles must be informative. Please do not title your post "lmao" or use the tired "_____ challenge" format.

Archive links for reactionary sites, including the BBC.

LANDLORDS COWER IN FEAR OF MAOTRAIN

"that train pic is too powerful lmao" - u/Cadende

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
jack@hexbear.net
RiotDoll@hexbear.net
112
that's ok, i love not being able to own a home anyway. (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 days ago by Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net to c/urbanism@hexbear.net
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SwagliacciTheBadClown@hexbear.net 2 points 8 hours ago

Fun US tidbit - though unenforceable under current laws, many older homes have racially restrictive covenants on their deeds, explicitly stating that non-white people are unable to own the home. When we bought our home we worked with a law nonprofit to have it removed- but shits disgusting.

Idk our neighborhood is racially diverse and we all care for one another- so I like to think the racist fucks who added that are spinning in their graves at least. Especially since I’ve turned half the lot into an informal neighborhood park/prairie/edible garden

[–] AutoVomBizMarkee@hexbear.net 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Heard him saying this shit at Davos live while torturing myself listening to NPR (that’s half my posts). Talking directly to the base at an international conference was a bit interesting to me.

As someone with a mortgage, fuck this shit. I do not want to 1. Hold other people out of having the ability to secure a consistent place to live. 2. Give a fuck about my decaying homes value if it means I can never move out of it. Housing should not be a financial instrument/tool/whatever.

[–] FloridaBoi@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

I got lucky but it seems like I’m tethered to my house for life. Everything’s so expensive

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@hexbear.net 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Houses are for speculation not for living —JDPON DON

[–] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

JDPON DON ANNIHLATES THE AMERICAN DREAM.

LIVE ENGELS REACTION.

[–] Notcontenttobequiet@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So when no one can afford to buy the Mcmansions that Boomers are forced to sell to pay for end of life care, and the only people who can afford to buy them are the most wealthy and fucking Blackrock, that market is going to crash crash crash. Maybe around the same time the AI bubble pops. Maybe we'll get 2008 and 2001 at once!

[–] FloridaBoi@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I argued with my sister about her wanting to make her house into an investment to eventually liquidate so she can consider it as part of her retirement 💀

[–] mickey@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FloridaBoi [he/him]

FloridaBoi

Florida

just-one-small-problem I am sorry my friend but I think I have some bad news for your sister.

[–] NephewAlphaBravo@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

her house is getting liquidated one way or another

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They really are just shuffling his senile ass between rooms of ghouls in suits and press conferences aren't they?

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why not worked for Biden

He even ran for re-election

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The DNC has an actual party apparatus with proper channels of power to the elite, not the free for all shitshow that is the Trump admin?

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 18 points 1 day ago

Lol the Dems wish they were 1/10th as disciplined as the republicans

[–] Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I own a home, or at least I'm paying a mortgage. This is me: porky-happy

I don't understand why I would want home prices to go up. If I sell it, it just means I pay more to replace it. I still need a house, so I don't see how risong home prices give me any benefit. Am I missing something, or are the rising proces just good for the banks and people that speculate on properties they don't actually need or live in?

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

the benefit comes from treating the house not just as a place to live, but as a leveraged financial asset.

They probably didn't buy the house with cash; they used a mortgage. This is leverage.

Simple Example: You buy a $500,000 house with a $100,000 down payment (20%).

  • Your initial investment is $100,000. The bank "lent" you the other $400,000.
  • If that house's value increases by 20% to $600,000, you've made $100,000 in profit.
  • You just turned your $100,000 investment into $200,000 (your original down payment + the $100k in profit). That's a 100% return on your cash.

If you had invested that same $100,000 in the stock market and it went up 20%, you'd have made $20,000. The house gave you a 5x better return because of leverage.

Further you can borrow against an asset which is money that is taxed at capital gains and not income.

Speaking of capital gains, if you bought that $500k house and sold it for $800k, you made $300k in profit. If you're married, you pay $0 in capital gains tax on that profit (A single person can exclude 250k from taxes, married people can exclude 2x that). If that had been a stock investment, you could have owed over $45,000 in taxes. This is a massive government subsidy for homeowners.

In terms of income tax you can deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage from your taxable income bringing down your taxes.

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is slightly less effective now that interest rates have come up some, but for people who bought at like 2% in the 2010s, yeah: it was basically just the bank (and government) funding the most profitable investment possible for you with no downside or risk at all. That's how a lot of boomers see their house.

That other half of this "trick" is to then leverage your (now more valuable) asset to buy another house and rent it out. You take your $100,000 in profit that you made from sitting on your "asset," pull it out, and use it as the down payment on another property, then get some poor desperate person to pay the mortgage on that while you pocket the appreciation and get the property at the end. The faster prices go up, the easier it is for people who already have their foot in the door to just keep doing that over and over. It's braindead easy if you have no soul.

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

I think the idea is you cash out when you're old and then just live in a condo somewhere warm.

Problem is Boomers don't realize there won't be anyone to cash out to if the prices inflate too much and the younger generation is too poor to buy. I mean, I guess Blackstone could buy up a lot of them but I don't think even they have the capital to buy EVERY boomers home at it's current listing.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 22 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Lock in current prices and say that if anyone wants to sell in the next 10 years, the government will take the purchase at current market rate.

Then do every single thing possible to completely crash house prices.

Oh and limit home ownership to one per person so people don't use the opportunity to sell their existing house to the government and buy two or three more in the crash.

This is probably a bad idea for some reason, I just made it up right now.

[–] Speaker@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you just developed land reform with burger characteristics.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's definitely not just a burger problem, the UK has an absolutely huge problem with this.

[–] 9to5@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Its funny that I thought of burghers first and was expecting something medieval

[–] Mindfury@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

you're only missing the step where you set a due date and prosecute everyone with more than one owned residential property for treason after that date

(I say residential because working out productive real property ownership rules for worker ownership might take a little while to legislate correctly idk)

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

You could just take them from the landlords and purchase them from the people who simply own too many holiday homes. But I was more thinking within the constrains of a market economy here.

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh and limit home ownership to one per person so people don't use the opportunity to sell their existing house to the government and buy two or three more in the crash.

Eh even Cuba allows people to have a vacation home. BUT ONLY ONE!

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah I don't know if you'd do that permanently, maybe just a 10 year law for the duration of the price guarantee? The point is to prevent people from selling their existing house at a high fixed rate to the government then just buying many of the low rate houses. If average people did that at a large scale it'd be a problem.

The main problem I can see with this is people selling to the gov, buying a cheap house after the crash, then pocketing the rest. Maybe that's fine as an economic stimulus? Inflation could be a problem though. Fixing the housing issue might be worth it anyway given that inflation can be controlled other ways but homelessness without fixing the housing issue can't be.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Current nominal value of the housing market is $55 trillion. Government crashes housing prices, everyone with the guarantee sells because they can take the cash to buy a better home for less money, demand shoots through the roof, housing prices reappreciate, and the government bond market explodes in a spectacular fireworks show?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They're not all going to sell though... Maybe? $55 trillion is rather a lot though...

With that said I don't think it will reappreciate if you get rid of the landlords and limit total number that can be owned? There will be an overabundance of houses? No matter what happens under those circumstances the houses wouldn't reappreciate to the same value.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Suppose my house is currently worth $600k. The government guarantees that value, then crashes prices by 50% (presumably by some means other than creating new stock, as that would be time consuming and expensive). Now a house near me that used to be $800k is worth $400k. I could then sell my house to the government without having to bother cleaning it up, doing repairs, getting a real estate agent - all the things that add friction and cost to home selling - then turn around and outbid all the people that previously couldn't afford that kind of house because $400k was their ceiling because I have a ton of house money (kelly ) to play with. Plus, I would be incentivized to help bid prices back up because profits on home sales are taxable unless they're invested in a new home. Maybe there would be some sort of statutory price ceiling that prevents bidding wars from driving prices up, but that would have to come with some sort of scheme for choosing from among equivalent offers.

In the absence of price controls, there would probably be a lot of hermit crab shell swapping as existing homeowners get a massive incentive to upgrade their current homes.

I don't really see the solution fitting in with the existing housing market dynamic; we'd need to fundamentally change how homeownership worked.

[–] mayakovsky@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago

You will own nothing and you will not be happy

[–] LeninWalksTheEarth@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago

yay for economies built on necessities! so glad this isnt the former Soviet Union, 90%+ home ownership rates? my god, the oppression.

[–] Commiechameleon@hexbear.net 24 points 1 day ago

I did math on some boomers house that she bought way back then, came out to $43,000 of today's dollery doos. Fuck off (and die so we can finally afford to live somewhere that doesn't leech 60%[or more] of my paycheck, with or without roommates, to pay for some schmucks privileged child to go through private school, or I stg I'll start romanoffing these assholes)

[–] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago

Oh boy, more taxes for me to pay!

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What if I want to move?! honk

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Have you considered a van? Possibly by a river?

[–] NinaPasadena@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Riverfront property. No fuckin way dude. Van or not

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

If it weren't for the flooding I'd love it.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll take an airstream

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Those things are a pain in the ass to maintain cuz the company that made them used a bunch of parts that hardly anyone makes anymore.

I met someone in Austin TX who was trying to restore one and seemed to regret the decision.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Probably the aircraft rivet thing?

[–] ConcreteHalloween@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah they said something about the rivets.

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 2 points 5 hours ago

Skill issue, bro needs to learn to rivet.

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 17 points 1 day ago

i hate these people so fucking much holy shit

[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago

Owning nothing 🤝Me

Being Happy

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

How the fuck is “make homeowners feel rich and fancy” working out for California, dumbfuck?

That philosophy turned California into a literal punchline, but sure, losers need to feel rich and we all should live in squalor because of it.

Literally just worthless pigs

[–] Llituro@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

the only way i'll be able to acquire a home is the "dead parents/grandparents with a house" lottery. and that's only because the price of homes where i'm from, a podunk commuter town that is near one of the cheaper large cities to live in in the u.s., have launched through the fucking roof. in the early 90's, my parents bought their house for $50,000. the house across the street from them sold a year or two ago for like $250,000. this shit isn't going to end well in the end.

[–] GrafZahl@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

Love that for my landlord. At least I have another 5 years before hes allowed to come and insult me to my face again.