So your home is tied to where you were born. If you move to the city for a better life, but it doesn’t work out the state well fox your homelessness by shipping you back to where you came from.
The hukou system is broken, but it’s good to see that it’s being noticed and they are attempts to fix it
Fair enough on the goal post moving, but I’ll leave you with this, how would you feel if all your social services including residence we’re tied to the county you were born into?
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it’s the most populous country on the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8SvK0E5dI
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good.
Oh no, the state in China prevents rich assholes from buying up and hoarding property, how terrible!
Oh no, the rich still own heaps of land
Not nearly as much, and without a massive homelessness problem.
Add I’ve pointed out to you before the GINI disagrees with you.
No? Homelessness rates are extremely low in China.
So your home is tied to where you were born. If you move to the city for a better life, but it doesn’t work out the state well fox your homelessness by shipping you back to where you came from.
The hukou system is broken, but it’s good to see that it’s being noticed and they are attempts to fix it
It’s both a dramatic improvement on what was before, and the PRC’s homeless rate is incredibly small. You disproved nothing, and are moving goalposts.
Fair enough on the goal post moving, but I’ll leave you with this, how would you feel if all your social services including residence we’re tied to the county you were born into?
oh no the lib bible disagrees in face of all evidence, must be true 🤣
What evidence 🤡
this evidence ignoramus
90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
Chinese household savings hit another record high in 2024 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j
Social mobility in China being far better than in the US https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-social-mobility.html
The typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-chinese-adult-now-richer-than-europeans-wealth-report-finds-2022-9
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&%3Blocations=CN&%3Bstart=2008
Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it’s the most populous country on the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8SvK0E5dI
Meanwhile, billionaires are fleeing China https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/china-billionaires-declining-rich-list-13830670.html
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.
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”
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.
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.
So the city/state should be covering maintenance costs by reselling the land… what the fuck are rates and land taxes meant to cover again?
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 idea is to use land as a public resource, not something to be hoarded.
The answer is already there, increase rates for homes which aren’t owner occupied.
Anything else is just a tax on the working class.
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.
What is owning the land anyways?
How long is the lease for?
Typically 70 for residential and less for commercial/industrial use.
70 year lease, renewable via application.
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.