Everyone should live in market-rate public housing with the income from rents distributed as universal basic income.
@LeoSammallahti
Seems a little convoluted. Why not just public housing for all who want it, paid for by the state. And if we want a UBI too, do that too.
Think all value generated from property should go to public coffers - not those best able to afford to buy property.
What would paid by the state mean?
@LeoSammallahti well, in the US and the UK, paid by the state means just that. Those gov'ts face no external *financial* restrictions on their ability to pay for whatever they choose - they don't need to fund their spending thru taxes. There are good reasons to tax, but funding expenditures at the national level isn't one of them. Euro currency members, however are more like state/municipal govt's, since they don't directly control their own currency issuance.
So paid by the state in the sense that state funds building them, not that tenants can live there for free?
@LeoSammallahti
Definitely the first, but there's no reason why tenants couldn't live in state-owned housing for free, or that rent couldn't be on a sliding scale from $0-market rate, or something like that.
@GuerillaOntologist @LeoSammallahti Hate the term, market rate, because it fails to account for need. If we think in terms of gentrification, market rate is what drives out the people least able to afford to move.
Think housing voucher would be easier and fairer. It would be easier to give to everyone eligible, and it would give them more autonomy.
From economic perspective, doesn't make much difference whether its $200/m below market public housing or market rate public housing with $200/m the person has. But I bet people would prefer the voucher, as it gives them more autonomy.
@lwriemen @LeoSammallahti
Yup. First priority should be making sure everyone has adequate housing, and doesn't have to struggle to maintain it. Then we can worry about what price, if any, should be charged, and to whom.