this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
1716 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7194 readers
2991 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm even ok with them owning a second house - but I think simple, easily understood answers are what's called for in this day and age (nuance is so easily corrupted) so here's my pitch
You have a second house? If it's empty for 6 months, your taxes start going up. By a year it should be more then the house value rises, and it should just keep going up
Same with apartments and any property opening companies. Honestly, I'd be fine saying it all starts when your household owns at least three homes
You can surrender the house to the government to be rented at cost, maybe for a tax write-off for the first 10 years or something, otherwise it should just keep rising to insane levels.
I want people begging for renters. Developers should slash their prices to move units quickly - it'll incentivize more affordable housing. Hell, I want landlords so desperate they pay people to inhabit them for a fixed time period.
And that's why I like 3 - you had to move and your house isn't selling? I don't want to screw over individuals, there's easier people to. You have a vacation house? Fine, but if you move you better get your empty house sold.
It'll cause all kinds of problems, but we have empty homes and homeless people - that's just uncivilized
This is somewhat tangential, but what are your thoughts on Georgism -- a land value tax?
I like it in theory, but I have a couple issuesn.
I feel like it's too complicated to make average people understand how it works, the idea is simple on the surface, but I think you'd have an endless parade of people asking "so if I have resources on my land, then what happens exactly?"
And in practice I feel like it would be a difficult transition from where we are. There's a lot of opportunity to sabotage it if they can muddy the waters, and I feel like lobbyists would end up carving it up in a way that puts corporate profits first... It depends on assessing value of many things, and if you compromise that portion of the process it all falls apart. They might even sneak in easier eminent domain or something
Systems like this can't be put in place through compromise, they have to be pure or it all falls apart. Maybe someday, I just don't know how to get from here to there without a lot of middle stages
Those are good points. Thank you for taking the time to respond.