Girls, how about reading the words:
“I suggest once current owners become deceased, ownership of all their residences passes to the State”
&
“This way a slow transition can occur without the need to forcibly remove anything from anyone’s possession”
I was specifically against theft.
Nobody is taking anything from the dying. Once you’re dead, everything’s been taken from you anyway, including your house - so no difference.
Just like you can’t pass down the ownership of people etc. in your wills anymore, the same thing now applies to property. Or in the “slippery slope fallacy” eyes of Wendy, perhaps no longer being able to pass down the ownership of people in your wills was likewise a transition into Communism and “theft”… but in line with strong recent evidence I’ll not assume her use of logic is consistent in this case either!
If anything, I am advocating LESS theft than our current system and replacing it with something more reasonable. Taxation is infamously “theft” to rightists, and worse it’s applied in such a way that feels like a penalty for contributing to society (taxes on income and profits etc.), but rent replacing tax means you no longer see a minus figure on your wageslip, instead you pay rent just as so many do already for the privilege of getting to live in a shelter in a civilised society with all the opportunities that it offers that you couldn’t get by going it alone. Landlords no longer get richer from sitting on property while it appreciates, so will instead be encouraged to invest in productivity, and we cut down on nepotism and its violation of equality of opportunity.
Positivity, not negativity, is what I am proposing.
You know what, MagsJ, I’d be happy to consider the possibility of those who build their own homes not legally having to sell it onto the state once completed, and getting to live in it rent-free until they die (that means after death, not while they’re dying). However the illegality of renting it out to others remains, and it would only apply to the actual builder(s) + everyone essential to the project. This would actually encourage building houses, instead of the current model where home owners benefit from less housing being built, driving up the demand for the house they own relative to supply.
How’s that? Definitely no theft now, yes? If you don’t build it, you can’t own it.
I’m not saying don’t check into empty buildings before the State claims it - I’d be in favour of that too.
And States are already trying “to pool money together to build social housing and unused land”, so that the money gained would go back into the State coffers, but apparently that alone is proving difficult - given the ever appreciating values of houses from a higher demand than supply. Property prices have long become a huge issue, they’re a barrier to businesses that require property to run, and to the essential prosperity of new generations who are struggling to get into the housing market now more than ever. Surely you can’t disagree with that?