03 Apr 22
@jimmac saidHear Hear, Jimmac.
I am in favor of a progressive taxation system, having a slowing effect on excess wealth, so, in that, we "may" disagree, not sure, but for the most part I believe that preventing someone from becoming rich, or even excessively rich, will have more negative consequences for all, than positive.
We live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people. NO plan can be perfect,don ...[text shortened]... ver that means, are not wanted. Not my place to differentiate, will leave that to the victim lovers.
03 Apr 22
@jimmac said"I do apologize to you for assuming that you had taken a default position amongst many here. And for the resultant abuse.
I do apologize to you for assuming that you had taken a default position amongst many here. And for the resultant abuse.
I just get tired of the drones having to blame someone else all the damn time for someone elses problems, and made an incorrect assumption. Again sorry about that.
While I think we may be more on the same page than I had assumed, you have raised a couple ...[text shortened]... that I do not know how to fix.
I do know that attempt to fix it usually make affordability worse.
I just get tired of the drones having to blame someone else all the damn time for someone elses problems, and made an incorrect assumption. Again sorry about that."
Dare I hope that because of thise, we can have a civilized conversation going forward? I don't know, I've been hurt before
" I Did not so much complain about minimum standards for landlords as point out that this drives up rent"
It does, to a reasonable level. Having to account for property damage like leaky faucets, cleaning up mold, repairing the roof should be accounted for in the rent. And we can all agree property damage that didn't occur through the fault of the tennant should be repaired by the landlord.
"If I rent, I am compelled to maintain the house to a standard that I cannot afford. "
If you cannot do repairs to a house before renting, you either don't rent or you rent as is at a lower rate. When you renovate a property for the purpose of renting out you do so because you will get a better rent out of it.
Minimum standards should only deal with things that are dangerous to a tenant's well being (like mold, roof collapsing over one's head, no heating in the winter) and when the property falls bellow the state where it was when it was rented out. Also, a form of rent control that seems to not exist in many places in the US.
"I do know that attempt to fix it usually make affordability worse."
Again, this thread is not about that.
A couple of regulations protecting tennants from landlords (and there are a lot protecting landlords from tennants too) will not drive up the price too much.
It's when you have a millionaire or billionaire gobbling up all the property available (much faster than new property could be built) that the prices go way up. Imagine everytime you want to buy a loaf of bread, you couldn't just pay the asking price and leave with that bread. No, you have to tell the baker how much you're willing to pay and then a billionaire comes along and offering double what you could afford. And he does it with all the other bakers in town. Just stockpiling bread. Since most of the bread has been bought and (assuming) new bread will take a while to be baked, the price is obviously high, there are few loaves of bread available, they are pretty much the moldy ones the billionaire didn't want and the demand is high because the regular people didn't get to buy bread yet. Low supply, high demand. You don't have to be an economist to see this leads to high price.
03 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 said"How can we let people in Mexico come into our country without passports"
Zhalanzi says the passport question is nonsense. Zhalanzi, maybe you can help us Americans. How can we let people in Mexico come into our country without passports, but require Passports at the airports?????
Zhalanzi, we are friends . All of us here are friends . Can you not answer this simple question ?
You don't.
" Zhalanzi, we are friends . All of us here are friends "
No, we're not.
03 Apr 22
@jimmac said"I am in favor of a progressive taxation system, having a slowing effect on excess wealth,"
I am in favor of a progressive taxation system, having a slowing effect on excess wealth, so, in that, we "may" disagree, not sure, but for the most part I believe that preventing someone from becoming rich, or even excessively rich, will have more negative consequences for all, than positive.
We live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people. NO plan can be perfect,don ...[text shortened]... ver that means, are not wanted. Not my place to differentiate, will leave that to the victim lovers.
So am I.
"Good billionaires, whatever that means, are essential"
I am going to push back on this one. How are they essential. What exactly do you mean so i know what to argue on? Do you subscribe to the idea (put forward by billionaires themselves) that Bezos would have just stopped expanding Amazon the second he hit 1 billion (if my plan to tax at 99% over 1 billion would have been in effect)? Even if that were true, why would that be a bad thing? Little separate Amazons would have popped up, engaging in competition which would have been beneficial for the consumers and the economy.
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidThis is the way it has been for 100s of years. What could happen in 2022 to make it different, to have a transformation, as Obama called it? (BTW, he is big-time working on it to this day, behind the scenes, hiding under the Oval Office desk).
"I do apologize to you for assuming that you had taken a default position amongst many here. And for the resultant abuse.
I just get tired of the drones having to blame someone else all the damn time for someone elses problems, and made an incorrect assumption. Again sorry about that."
Dare I hope that because of thise, we can have a civilized conversation going forward? ...[text shortened]... ead yet. Low supply, high demand. You don't have to be an economist to see this leads to high price.
03 Apr 22
Dare I hope that because of this, we can have a civilized conversation going forward? I don't know, I've been hurt beforeYes, and your differing view is vital to going forward, as I believe is mine. We can NOT go forward without differing views.
Your views will never hurt nor offend me. None here will. Your attitude towards my views "may".
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidEssential may not be quite correct, but the economy of scale often helps. If that scale is within a corporation then ideas are often compromised, as in consensus. A consensus is where everybody loses. I man pursuing his ideals has no compromise.
"I am in favor of a progressive taxation system, having a slowing effect on excess wealth,"
So am I.
"Good billionaires, whatever that means, are essential"
I am going to push back on this one. How are they essential. What exactly do you mean so i know what to argue on? Do you subscribe to the idea (put forward by billionaires themselves) that Bezos would have just sto ...[text shortened]... pped up, engaging in competition which would have been beneficial for the consumers and the economy.
It is not the billionaire that is the problem per-say, it is the ethics of the billionaire
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidUhhhh,k the issue is not Bezos and Billionaires, it is that we are in awe of them and their enterprises are a huge life blood of the USA.
"I am in favor of a progressive taxation system, having a slowing effect on excess wealth,"
So am I.
"Good billionaires, whatever that means, are essential"
I am going to push back on this one. How are they essential. What exactly do you mean so i know what to argue on? Do you subscribe to the idea (put forward by billionaires themselves) that Bezos would have just sto ...[text shortened]... pped up, engaging in competition which would have been beneficial for the consumers and the economy.
Zahlanzi, that concept doesn't dovetail very well into a country such as Romania, which was socialist only about 40 years ago, and an economy which has you thus brainwashed into thinking excess wealth should be 'slowed down'. Jesus.
03 Apr 22
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidGeez.
and explains why millennials just don't want to buy a house
https://god.dailydot.com/toronto-landlord-millennials-houses/
When the revolution comes, remember this guy. Add him to the list
The man doesn't own any of the houses (well, I guess he probably own his own).
He's the CEO of a publicly traded company with a market cap of over $8 Billion that owns the houses. The CEO of a company doesn't own the company (well, I guess he's probably also a shareholder).
Did you just read the stupid headline or do you really not know how this works?
03 Apr 22
@jimmac said"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
Essential may not be quite correct, but the economy of scale often helps. If that scale is within a corporation then ideas are often compromised, as in consensus. A consensus is where everybody loses. I man pursuing his ideals has no compromise.
It is not the billionaire that is the problem per-say, it is the ethics of the billionaire
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the list goes on.
My proposal of a 99% tax above 1billion still leaves them with 999 million to not starve and occasionally buy avocado toast. (being ssarcastic. At 99% progressive tax they still have all they money they could spend in 20 lifetimes and we improve the lives of millions in the process. All win actually, they still win more and they just don't get to increase a meaningless number further.
"It is not the billionaire that is the problem per-say, it is the ethics of the billionaire"
At some point holding unto that much wealth becomes unethical in itself. Like havin 99% of all firewood in the village. You're already warm, there is no way you can use more firewood but the people around you are starving. And that firewood is just sitting there doing nothing
03 Apr 22
@sh76 saidoh for fuk's sake. That's your takeaway?
Geez.
The man doesn't own any of the houses (well, I guess he probably own his own).
He's the CEO of a publicly traded company with a market cap of over $8 Billion that owns the houses. The CEO of a company doesn't own the company (well, I guess he's probably also a shareholder).
Did you just read the stupid headline or do you really not know how this works?
Does it make it better that a corporation owns them and not him in particular? Does it change anything the fact that one billionaire or several engaged in this practice and drove up the prices to the point where minimum wage americans can't even afford to rent let alone buy a home?
03 Apr 22
2 edits
@sh76 saidTerrible take. It works the same regardless of whether this activity fits the legal definition of corporate personhood.
Geez.
The man doesn't own any of the houses (well, I guess he probably own his own).
He's the CEO of a publicly traded company with a market cap of over $8 Billion that owns the houses. The CEO of a company doesn't own the company (well, I guess he's probably also a shareholder).
Did you just read the stupid headline or do you really not know how this works?
Corporations with fancy algorithms and insider tracks on the real estate market are buying entire neighborhoods, distorting markets and exacting consequences on younger Americans looking for a place to raise a family. Starter homes in many neighborhoods no longer exist on the real estate market. This is a new activity that could have drastic, long-term effects on an entire generation who cannot afford home ownership until they are 40+. Millennials are not buying homes because they aren't for sale. It's cool that you've identified a semantics flaw in the OP though. Good for you.
03 Apr 22
@zahlanzi saidThis would force the capitalists to only make $999 million in income per year, which would stifle innovation and motivation to succeed.
"A consensus is where everybody loses. "
assume you mean compromise. So how do billionaires lose? They are allowed right now to make as much money as they want, they can buy politicians yo make laws in their favour, they dodge the laws they can't change, they get bailouts when they make bad calls, they can treat their employees like crap and the list goes on.
My proposa ...[text shortened]... rewood but the people around you are starving. And that firewood is just sitting there doing nothing
03 Apr 22
@averagejoe1 saidRomania was communist, not socialist, you simpleton. There is a difference.
Uhhhh,k the issue is not Bezos and Billionaires, it is that we are in awe of them and their enterprises are a huge life blood of the USA.
Zahlanzi, that concept doesn't dovetail very well into a country such as Romania, which was socialist only about 40 years ago, and an economy which has you thus brainwashed into thinking excess wealth should be 'slowed down'. Jesus.
Also, it wasn't communism that thaught me "excess wealth should be slowed down" It was a little socialist country called the United States of America who under it's communist dictator Dwight D Eisenhower had marginal tax rates of up to 90% and had a booming economy that served most americans. Under Eisenhower, a factory worker could buy a home and support their family on just one income.
It's ok, you don't like to read, i didn't expect you to know that. Even though we told you again and again. Or maybe you know that and just continue to believe the nordic economic model of today only works in small countries. Like Norway and Denmark and the USA of the 50's