Nothing big, no. You're free to point out any I may have missed

Who decides who gets to live where ?

Are all the housing going to look the same ?

If housing does look the same, then what about housing for larger families?

How would you account for different land attributes and features?

Are the people that live in the housing going to own the land ?

What age does someone get their own housing ?

How are the housing maintain ?

How are these housing being developed?

Can someone who lives in a housing expand their housing due to the area, their housing is located at ?

What's the fallback when people that live in these housing assignments damage the housing and move somewhere else. Will they have to pay a fine ?

How does the lack of property tax affect the u.s and will it defer in the production of these housing assignments ?

Are the government involved in any way ?

Great I'll answer all those tomorrow

It is. Whoever has the money and credit moves in which is fair to me.

But if we ain’t paying rent anymore and credit is gone then there has to be another way

1. Idk why you and others are approaching this as if i'm saying take away all houses then distribute them. No. If you currently live in a house, renting, paying a mortgage etc you would simply become the owner of it.

2. No? Because again, we aren't starting for 0. Social housing built to provide housing for those who don't have it will be built to fit the needs of those who need it. No idea what it might look like as I am not an architect

3. See number 2.

4. No idea why you seem to think this is a "big flaw." Again, you build the housing based on the needs of those who are going to be living in it, and i guess yeah, you factor in the enviroment too like no s***.

5. Like, own the land connected to the house like their front and backyard? Yeah.

6. I don't know how the parent-child relationship will look like in a radically different society but 18, probably, but depending on their own life choices. maybe theyll still find it more convenient to live with their parents, maybe theyll go live an apartment complex near the college of their choice. The point is to simply have the housing available for when they need it

7. By the people that live in them or the community/the administrative government when it comes to social housing.

8. By building them? Idt I understand the question. I've said itt that the housing developments will likely come at a time in this society that precedes the abolishment of wage labor.

9. My cousin owns a house and he is currently building a kitchen type area on his back porch. Do you mean like that? Yeah they can do that, its their land lmao

10. Idk why I'm just supposed to assume this will happen

11. Things are not funded by taxes if that's what youre asking.

12. Ideally the government, directly elected by the people or even in some sort of direct democracy, will be, before the abolishment of wage labor, handle the commission of building social housing for those that do not currently have homes. Otherwise, things will likely be handled at the community level.

there ya go

1. Okay, so if I currently live in a s***ty residence or a residence that is under par then can I move from this residence and get a better residence ?

2. Whose to decide the needs of the housing ? The people the housing being built for or the people building it ?

3. Okay so if I have a family of 8, me and my wife and 5 kids. When my kids move out. Would that mean me and my wife would have a house that could fit 8 people ?

4. Again like I said earlier, who decides these needs. And yes environment is 100% a factor. You can't build a house that's next to a busy road and one that's next to trees, parks and etc and call it a truly "fair" system. This difference would definitely cause disagreements.

5. Okay so, if I own the land and I own the house. What's stopping me from renting my place out to people who are traveling, nomads, people who want to get away from their house ?

6. So your saying every student that goes to college can choose to have an apartment complex if they want ?

7. Alright.

8. My question is who are building these housing ? The government or are they contracting companies to do so?

9. No, expand housing as in renovations as in I want to make my house bigger. This also leads to another question. What is the distance of these housing ?

10. Why wouldnt u assume that happens ? It literally happens all the time lol.

11. How are things funded then ?

12. How will it be handled at community level ?

and we back

thank god for the free market in america where you have a choice of having a landlord or not

mortgage is almost always cheaper than renting anyway

1. All houses that are not up to standard would definitely undergo repairs/upgrades to make them much higher quality.

2. The people its being built for of course. Although you could probably do some sort of uniform standard, like for example have every house be fit for a potentially disabled person to live there. Same with family sizes although certainly there'd be some slips when working at the extremes (famiy of 10 or something, would be pretty hard to account for that).

3. You could. But also i'd say you could apply for a new house more suitable to your new needs, and let that 8 person house (prolly not even really an 8 person house because that'd imply 8 bedrooms) become available for a family it might suit more.

4. Uhm yeah we'd hypothetically want all the houses to be in the most suitable enviornment, one that makes sense to maximize people's sense of living.

5. Sure, I suppose you could do that, but only so as long you yourself are not vacating the premises in a way that signifies you no longer live there. Also this would be a bit more complex once wage labor is abolished.

6. So your saying every student that goes to college can choose to have an apartment complex if they want ?

7. Their own apartment complex? No lol. But a room in an apartment complex. Social housing for college students in buildings near their chosen university.

8. The government at first, most likely.

9. The distance of the housing for a lot of people would be whatever current distance their housing is from their neighbor lol. As for others, again, im not an architect, so i don't know whats optimal.

10. Even if it did happen, no reason the community couldn't repair it.

11. Not through taxation. I'm not an expert when it comes to modern monetary theory but you could look into that.

12. boards of community members selected democratically or perhaps the entire community participating in direct democracy in accordance with the constitutional laws of the new society.

How so

mortgages really are not that expensive,compared to renting unless your interest rate is crazy high

owning a home should always be your end goal, not renting and just giving money with nothing in return at all for you

1. Alright. Makes sense. But whose deciding whether these housing are to standard and what is the standard ?

2. You dont see how that could be problematic ? What if one of my needs is that I want a housing with lots of space and a pool to be included. How is this going to be regulated ?

3. Why would I want to give my big house with 7 to 8 bedrooms up to another family? And if I can keep it. What's going to stop me from adopting children to get a bigger house and then returning them to an adoption agency ?

4. But with the large population in America, how would you plan on doing that, making everything spread out enough to maximize people sense of living ? Especially in highly dense states like New York for example.

5. How would anyone know if I vacate the premise ? Maybe I move in with my partner I met while on vacation in California. How will you regulate that ?

7. I know what you meant. But dont you think that's unrealistic considering many large universities where there's many students. Almost any university study would choose an apartment over a dorm. And if these student have their own apartment, what are you going to do with the lack of space ?

8. Alright.

9. Housing distance differs amongst neighborhoods. Housing somewhere in the midwest is most likely larger than those in new york. This would mean that people in the midwest would own more land than people in New york right ?

10. Where is the money for repairs coming from ?

11. I did after you said it and it still said taxation.

12. Is this implying that the community would not be involved with the state at all ?

13. Another question, what about all the people who invested money into buying land and apartment complexes?

I dont think this is a standard all across the boards tho. And owning a house implies that you want to be in a fixed position for a long period of time

thats not true at all, when you want to move you will most definitely at least break even or even make profit when you sell that house. Unless your in some super high living cost area I can bet a mortgage is cheaper than renting a place out

there is NO penalty to selling your house after maybe 2-3 years of living there, unless the housing market is in a crash

renting is really not a goal you should have, just a temporary means of living, obviously a bad credit score which would you give high interests would make renting seem more appropriate, but thats why it should be a goal to get a good enough credit score than owning a house is the clear better choice

1. Maybe a panel of experts that has experience on the matter?

2. A pool is not a need. Hope that makes it simple for you. I would also hope to make sure every community has top quality recreational centers so you could access that pool anytime. Or, you could see if you could get a pool built either by yourself or through workers.

3. I'm sure some people would, I'm sure others wouldn't. And lol, idk do you think no one is going to notice that grift? like do you think society will just be full of idiots with no oversight whatsoever?

4. I'm not an architect.

5. Lets say you did that. Why would this person who was paying to be a guest in your home continue to pay for it knowing full well what the laws are lol?

6. Lack of space where?

7. Housing distance differs amongst neighborhoods. Housing somewhere in the midwest is most likely larger than those in new york. This would mean that people in the midwest would own more land than people in New york right ?

7. Let's say this statement is correct. It wouldn't matter, because that land doesn't = wealth or any sort of potential for profit. Hell, if there was enough acreage to warrant building more houses in some place like montana because it fit the need of the people there, then it'd be done.

8. Well before the abolishment of profit, we could simply say the community/state/federal government oversees all repairs. again i don't think this is going to be a widesprea issue lol

9. Pretty sure Modern monetary theory contends that taxation doesn't fund government activities but that taxes are a way to control inflation.

10. The state government would just serve an administrative function same as the federal one. again, its not like ive worked out everything, nor do i need to in order for this idea to have merit.

11. lmao tough s*** for them huh

I'm pretty sure the overall cost of owning a house is more than the overall cost of renting when you take in other factors as in house related issues and bills.

Also with owning a house its possible for the house to lose value and suffer from inflation. Seems like a bigger risk than just renting to me

are you taking into account the natural rise in property value and equity? house value always rises unless were in a crazy housing crash, so all that extra money you spend compared to rent is made up in straight profit if you decide to sell that house. renting you get NOTHING back when you leave, maybe a security deposit

scared money does not make money, owning is always better than renting if your credit can support it

kinda feel like your just speaking out your ass man, everyone knows owning is always the better choice if you can do it, who would ever recommend renting?

1. Alright.

2. But if I am the person who is deciding the needs, who are you to tell me what my needs are. And the pool is just an example that people needs differs from one and another lol.

3. The fact that some people would keep their house is an issue over land control. People literally adopt kids for checks and send them back, idk what ur talking about.

4. Neither am I, but this a real issue.

5. I'm not sure I follow ? If a house that is bigger than the standard that one single person could get, then why i wouldnt i want to rent out a place that had far more extra space than something I could get without kids.

6. Highly populated cities

7. You do realize if I own more land I could do renovations on my place to expanded it. While some people have less of that in other states. It doesnt have to be about profit, it's just an uneven distribution.

8. Abolishment of profit lol ?

9. Modern monetary "theory" "contends". You do see the issue with this statement

10. So the federal government wouldnt be involved at all. I mean you dont have to but itt, you're dismissing other people arguments to this system when you havent fully thought out the system is wild.

11. Lol so no different to what happen in cuba ?

The point is house value doesnt always go up, historically yea, but house value does not always go up. My old house where my family used to live literally lose value due to damages and the neighborhood just decreasing in value.

And like I said before the idea of mortage being cheaper than rent isnt a standard all across the board. And adding in the fact there's other expense that come with owning a house. And then adding interest on your mortage to that equation

bro what r u saying owning a house is not always the better option like what r u saying

why on earth would you buy in a bad area and expect the value to rise? More often than not the value WILL rise and you WILL profit or break even if you sell it. I think its almost always the standard that a mortgage is cheaper than rent. owning a house is the better option if your situation is right and your credit and support it, it should always be the end goal

Like I said if the interest rates are too high to make it a good decision, building your credit back up to lower that should be the goal with owning in mind

but dont listen to me, rent a place and pay someone eases mortgage for them, everyone else knows who is winning in that situation

Idk maybe cause that's all they could afford....

businessinsider.com/us-cities-where-its-cheaper-to-own-home-than-rent?amp

They compare the values in 85 cities and only in 31 of them were the mortgage value lower than rent value

If I'm not mistaken that's only approximate 36% is it like that

Owning a house is the end goal but it's not always the better option. Like freshmen year of college I had an apartment only needed it for a year. I didnt have much money and the apartment wasnt all that. Are you really telling me I would of been better off a buying a house and selling it there ?

1. You can try and defend the idea that you need a luxury. Doesn't mean it's true.

2. Yes I've never contended that we can have complete equality in all facets of life down to a T without more authoritarian measures. And people doing that isnt some inherent fact of life. It's the result of a system that can be fixed.

3. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things. Can be figured out once ppl other than me for example are helping to plan it.

4. Scenario: You own a sizable house from the days before this change I'm proposing. Someone owns a smaller house but a totally suitable one. You decide to rent out to this person because you're going to live with a partner in another state. Person moves in. Why would they pay you, knowing that the law of the land dictates that you, having moved out, now no longer can claim ownership of that house?

5. If theres a shortage of suitable apartment rooms they'll live on campus or at home with parents or a friends home closer to the school.

6. You'll be free to do that provided that extra land can't be used for the common good

7. *abolishment of profit motive/wage labor

8. It makes sense. The government can't tax what doesn't exist

9. Like I said they might be. And no, I'm dismissive of idiotic comments that assume certain things are inherent to people and not side effects of our system and ones that invoke no critical thinking

10. Idc about wealthy landowners or landlords

obviously a college student does not need to own a home, but they should have that end goal in mind when they got the career they want and move where they want to live, this whole conversation ive been saying it should be the end goal, you shouldnt be HAPPY renting a place and not wanting to eventually own is my point

No ❤️