it’s a lifetime lease and prevents the accumulation of generational wealth in real estate.
not flawless but generally still miles better than what westerners have. (nothing)
Why? Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? Is there a particular reason you’re so adamant that China’s system must be worse than the commodified system we have in the west?
You are sealioning right now. You’re asking someone else to do a shit ton of work under the guise of “just asking questions” pretending to have healthy discourse.
A lot of this sites people suck and its filled with people justifying absurd things, but right here, you are asking a question so open ended its tantamount to asking for a thesis paper, and those would still be scrutinized.
This may be a hot take but I think there should not be forever private ancestral lands.
The city/state should periodically get the land back and resell it to cover the ever changing maintenance costs (heck you are paying this with the increasing property tax)
The city/state should have a relatively predictable timeline of when they can reliably gain control of a land back so they can plan development around it (particularly infrastructure) and not deal with someone who know they can just squat on such land to sell for an inflated price.
Having an “expiration date” on the land is a surefire way to stop ever increasing property prices, getting a home with a shorter remaining lease period might be preferable for some who is not going to stay there permanently but long enough to want to own a home and having these options be a cheaper option is a very good thing. Such expiration date also means it is easier to modernize each property as needed, this will not be the death of historic buildings because the city/state still can make exceptions for them if needed.
Also how many of the US-ians are getting a house as their inheritance anyways? Oftentimes when a generation passes away post retirement, their house gets sold to some investment firm and becomes a rental.
How exactly is it better for land to be ownable by the populace, rather than the public? I understand that there’s taxes, it’s to combat home ownership as an investment vehicle.
I am 100% sure that even when westerners will be reduced to living in a pods, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy (or else) there would still be massive number of homeless people to serve as warning for pod people to be happy (or else).
If they have to pay to renew the lease, that’s is a kind of property tax, especially if an individual has to compete to buy their own lease. This may or may not be the case.
The news about the pilot is correct. Xi Jinping had been pushing for it for a long time and this is all he has been able to get so far. He is strongly against speculative growth of real estate.
AFAIK residents don’t have to compete to renew the lease. We have seen the first batches of leases expiring in recent times and no one got evicted. What I understand is that, you can’t sell your house after the lease expires, but you can continue living their indefinitely till the building crumbles. If the government decides to demolish and redevelop, then they give you a new house in the same place.
Human Rights Watch? Seriously? Do you look into your sources at all, or are you just happy to spread imperial apologia?
Wikipedia is a terrible source for current affairs.
Your attempts to smear the three gorges dam project are part of a tradition older than the Internet. Of course, the human rights watch was all over that propaganda.
The land under your house is owned by the Indigenous people you stole it from. So while you may “own” the structure, when Indigenous law is restored after the illegitimate occupation falls, you will be told to GTFO.
This isn’t upsetting anyone, though. Communists understand that the home ownership in China isn’t the same as it is in the west, our point is that that’s a good thing and is part of why their housing rates are much higher.
Yes, really it’s the worst of both worlds. In the western sense of the word, there aren’t any homeowners in China. They have to pay the premium of ownership for the privilege of still having a landlord that can evict them or demand extra payment without any legal recourse for the tenant whatsoever.
Isn’t the land underneath the house never owned by the person, always the state? So while they may “own” the structure, it’s always in doubt of whether they will be able to lease the land again after the current lease expires.
it’s a lifetime lease and prevents the accumulation of generational wealth in real estate. not flawless but generally still miles better than what westerners have. (nothing)
It does? Do you have anything to back up that claim?
the fact that real estate is dirt cheap and therefore it’s not a feasible way to become a leech (landlord) and live off rent because it’ll not pay off
That’s not backing it up, that’s saying “nu uh” in an echo chamber.
Do better. Cause I actually want proof. Like, please, give me proof it’s better.
Uh if the 90% overall homeownership rate isn’t “backing it up” I want to know how you define “better”
eChO cHaMbEr
OK, do you have a source for the 90% home ownership rate?
Why? Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? Is there a particular reason you’re so adamant that China’s system must be worse than the commodified system we have in the west?
I’m not being adamant and I don’t hold that opinion. That’s why I’m asking for sources.
Until told otherwise, I hold that it’s just as bad as every other system. None are good, just different.
You are sealioning right now. You’re asking someone else to do a shit ton of work under the guise of “just asking questions” pretending to have healthy discourse.
A lot of this sites people suck and its filled with people justifying absurd things, but right here, you are asking a question so open ended its tantamount to asking for a thesis paper, and those would still be scrutinized.
And what’s the problem with that?
This may be a hot take but I think there should not be forever private ancestral lands.
The city/state should periodically get the land back and resell it to cover the ever changing maintenance costs (heck you are paying this with the increasing property tax)
The city/state should have a relatively predictable timeline of when they can reliably gain control of a land back so they can plan development around it (particularly infrastructure) and not deal with someone who know they can just squat on such land to sell for an inflated price.
Having an “expiration date” on the land is a surefire way to stop ever increasing property prices, getting a home with a shorter remaining lease period might be preferable for some who is not going to stay there permanently but long enough to want to own a home and having these options be a cheaper option is a very good thing. Such expiration date also means it is easier to modernize each property as needed, this will not be the death of historic buildings because the city/state still can make exceptions for them if needed.
Also how many of the US-ians are getting a house as their inheritance anyways? Oftentimes when a generation passes away post retirement, their house gets sold to some investment firm and becomes a rental.
deleted by creator
The idea is to use land as a public resource, not something to be hoarded.
deleted by creator
How exactly is it better for land to be ownable by the populace, rather than the public? I understand that there’s taxes, it’s to combat home ownership as an investment vehicle.
I am 100% sure that even when westerners will be reduced to living in a pods, eating bugs, owning nothing and being happy (or else) there would still be massive number of homeless people to serve as warning for pod people to be happy (or else).
Sadly I think you’re right.
There are no property taxes in China last I checked.
If they have to pay to renew the lease, that’s is a kind of property tax, especially if an individual has to compete to buy their own lease. This may or may not be the case.
There are also ostensibly value-added taxes and land appreciation taxes but I’ll admit those are not property taxes per se.
There is also this source that says that select cities such as Shanghai and Chongqing have pilot programs for property tax primarily targeted at high-value residential properties and secondary homes but they don’t have any sources, so I have no clue if it’s true.
The news about the pilot is correct. Xi Jinping had been pushing for it for a long time and this is all he has been able to get so far. He is strongly against speculative growth of real estate.
AFAIK residents don’t have to compete to renew the lease. We have seen the first batches of leases expiring in recent times and no one got evicted. What I understand is that, you can’t sell your house after the lease expires, but you can continue living their indefinitely till the building crumbles. If the government decides to demolish and redevelop, then they give you a new house in the same place.
Awesome! Do you have another source for the pilot? I expect it’s all in Mandarin and I am terrible at finding things in other languages.
I don’t have anything handy but I believe there’s a wikipedia page which has references for this topic. I can’t remember which one.
deleted by creator
Being a jackass is also not a meaningful contribution.
deleted by creator
Pointing out someone being rude does not make me rude.
deleted by creator
Yeah the us would never force anyone off of land.
Every government does, that’s no “gotcha”.
The US did and does it.
China did it with 1.3 million people to build a dam.
Russia is doing it in Ukraine.
There’s a genocide in Sudan.
Doesn’t make it any of the instances right.
Human Rights Watch? Seriously? Do you look into your sources at all, or are you just happy to spread imperial apologia?
Wikipedia is a terrible source for current affairs.
Your attempts to smear the three gorges dam project are part of a tradition older than the Internet. Of course, the human rights watch was all over that propaganda.
What is owning the land anyways?
How long is the lease for?
70 year lease, renewable via application.
Typically 70 for residential and less for commercial/industrial use.
Good.
The land under your house is owned by the Indigenous people you stole it from. So while you may “own” the structure, when Indigenous law is restored after the illegitimate occupation falls, you will be told to GTFO.
That’s incorrect.
Indigenous people as a general idea did not believe that land could be owned by an individual due to viewing the Earth as one’s relative, requiring respect and care, as are all the animals and plant life the land supports. Judeo-Christian religions, likely along with many other religions that I haven’t studied from Eurasia and Africa, view land as being able to be subjugated like cattle or sheep.
This is unlikely to change until climate change and its disasters convince people that they need to actually take care of the earth.
Don’t use facts. It upsets the edgelords
This isn’t upsetting anyone, though. Communists understand that the home ownership in China isn’t the same as it is in the west, our point is that that’s a good thing and is part of why their housing rates are much higher.
Yes, really it’s the worst of both worlds. In the western sense of the word, there aren’t any homeowners in China. They have to pay the premium of ownership for the privilege of still having a landlord that can evict them or demand extra payment without any legal recourse for the tenant whatsoever.
China killed tons of landlords, now the people own the land. This is just cope.
Removed by mod
Yes, the people own the land, China is socialist. Not sure what your racist non-sequitor is supposed to be doing here.
Removed by mod
You’re depicting a Chinese man as a yellow cartoon bear. Why is it that right-wingers love spamming that? Whatever could it be?