It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
That would be incentivised, yes.
This is an arguement for government owned housing because no individual is going to buy a property, do everything that is necessary to maintain and run that property for zero gain. How would that person live making no money?
That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.