[s4vi0r]

Or just destroying the entire cancerous concept of landlordism and housing as a commodity.

No need to get all complicated, the solution is pretty simple.

[mmirate]

What exactly would remain after this "destruction" of yours?

[s4vi0r]

Not sure why, but I couldn't respond to your comment for quite some time.

I'm not sure what you're asking re: what would remain. Housing as a human right, I guess? There's no good reason for landlords to exist, nor do I understand why you would want housing to be a commodity especially considering we live in a post-2008 world.

[conanbatt]

There can't be "no landlords". Someone owns the land, even if its the State.

Beware of that solution: you have a chance to fight a landlord, you have no chance to fight the state-landlord.

[s4vi0r]

Yes, but the state isn't leeching off of the people. My point is wrt landlords in the sense of people who do nothing, provide no value, and make money solely by virtue of "I/my ancestor was here first I/they bought this when there was less people so gimme money".

I don't see where you get your conclusion from. For many (most?) people, they really don't have a chance to fight their landlord. Legal expenses, time, energy, etc. are pretty huge deterrents. Not sure why you can't fight a "state-landlord", also.

[conanbatt]

> Yes, but the state isn't leeching off of the people

Are you sure about that. US government spending is 1/3 of GDP, while rents are around 1/10.

> Not sure why you can't fight a "state-landlord"

Because the state has the power to make it illegal to sue the state. You need to win a supreme court case to beat the state into something, and you will be paying taxes to fund your opposition all the way up to the supreme court.

[tonyedgecombe]

Presumably what the government in the UK is already doing, gradually adjusting taxes to make the rentier economy less viable over time.