I think there should be some leeway for people who own one home, but want to temporarily live in another city, so they rent their home while living in another rental property at the other city.
I think that is something that could be discussed but we‘d need to make sure peeps wouldn’t just search for a way to circumvent the law (which is always a problem).
True, but I’m pretty sure it’ll be easy to do. If you own more than one home, BAM, penalty tax that is equal to 100% on the rent on that property. If your second home is empty, BAM, quadruple the property tax. You’ve just made owning a second home impossible to profit from.
Funnily enough, between the time I wrote the comment you replied to, and the time I saw your response I thought of a loophole capitalists could exploit which needs to be addressed.
If corporations aren’t allowed to own residential properties, and a person is only allowed to own a single home, a capitalist could find a person who doesn’t own a home in that territory, buy them a house with the condition that they will manage the property and get 99.9% of the profit it generates. That way, a corporation could go business as usual while technically being compliant…
The proposed law needs to include a section that addresses these sort of loopholes.
I already thought of this as a potential loophole but chose to ignore it since there will be a ton more. Imo, the law should be made as vague as possible and include something like „if a company by any means gains the ability to own or control residential buildings, they should pay twice the amount of revenue (not profit) they make of it. In repeating cases, all people involved with the transaction as well as all directors of said company face up to 10 years in prison.
I think laws should be as clear as possible, not vague. By making a law vague, you’re leaving it for the courts to interpret, and there are plenty of Florida judges who would absolutely stretch their interpretation of the law in a way that conforms to their beliefs.
But I completely agree that making it a criminal act to attempt to circumvent this law would be a key here. Maybe even forcefully dissolving the company entirely for repeating offenders.
The first part is tricky as it entirely depends on who the offender is. The fact there are sick individuals at the wheel in the US is hardly shocking to me. But in most other countries the judges are still somewhat decent people but bigotted lawyers will find ways around clear cut laws.
Through my experience with both, the legal system and being an executive, I can tell you that its mostly psychopaths - either as lawyers or clients - that will use this to their advantage.
But I guess you‘re right. If we can make it illegal to circumvent this law, it doesnt need to be as vague as possible.
Little food for thought: if the legal system is corrupted, its not a legal system but a control scheme.
Good question. I didnt think of this. Maybe one needs to make an exception for hotels or something? Obviously this would need to be restricted so residential homes dont get transformed to hotels en masse.
People can only own a few (say, 2) houses (Marriage, death, inheritance, etc. This makes things easier in the long run).
Multi tenant buildings must be majority owned by a tenant co-op, where all tenants have equal say in all building related things and share in the profits This makes sure landlords can’t raise rent without convincing the tenants that it’s worth the price, incentives the tenants to either maintain the property or hire professionals, and makes their rent an investment in their property, just like a home owner
I’m sure there’s holes all over this plan, but I (and some friends) have put thought into this one a bit.
I have extended family that fall into “lower-upper class” but also know their income has an end date (comes from a lucrative career). They saved up and every time one of their kids turned 18, they bought a house to use as a rental property with a “just in case, my child will never end up homeless” gameplan. Not a huge cash expenditure for them and not a huge profit center, it bought them peace of mind a WHOLE lot cheaper overall than adding an apartment to their house for him to move back into as an adult.
I always found that reasonable, and it did in fact keep them from ending up with a basically homeless 30-something.
I understand the idea and its great if they were able to do that but the world would look a lot different if they would actually do it differently. There would be more houses to buy and they would be cheaper, their money would need to be put in other things to collect interest. The kids would be able to buy the houses themselves at 18 and the parents would have the same outcome, just bad actors would not be able to buy up the market.
To be clear: your extended family is not the problem imo and would not suffer from a law like this.
I understand the idea and its great if they were able to do that but the world would look a lot different if they would actually do it differently
I don’t think anyone has demonstrated that’s true. If everyone but megacorporations stopped owning property other than the one they live in, I don’t thin housing prices or rent would go down. In fact, it would have unexpected side-effects like increased rental rates (since you’d have to jump through even more hoops). Imagine if you will, the pre-flip car lease market. Owning cars was the way of the poor, leasing a new car every few years was the way of the rich. If only owner-occupied could be rentals, rent would skyrocket and the MANY people who want to rent would have to fight with each other. Consortiums would find a legal way to buy luxury rental buildings and have a dedicated “owner” live in them. As you implied, supply and demand. A lot of people don’t want the liability of property ownership for reasons other than “being too poor to buy a house”.
There would be more houses to buy and they would be cheaper, their money would need to be put in other things to collect interest
Yeah, it would collect more interest. So long as nothing happened to them (which it hasn’t), they’d end up a lot richer. But it’s a lot more risk because if something did happen to them, it would be harder for that money to be earmarked into a trust in the kids’ name like the houses are. So they would have had to live with the real risk that their son would end up homeless, but yay they’d have a lot more money.
The problem with a lot of people suggesting real-estate reform is that they don’t understand why individuals (not big businesses, that’s different) buy rental houses. It’s rarely about maximizing profit, it’s about minimizing or mitigating risk.
To be clear: your extended family is not the problem imo and would not suffer from a law like this.
Except, it sounds like you just said they would not be allowed to do what they did, and would be stuck with riskier propositions. Those houses were purchased under little LLCs so that if they got sued into bankruptcy their kids would still have a home (they themselves are under Homestead protections like most homeowners in my state). Not that they expected to be sued, but it’s called “doing anything to make sure my kids don’t end up on the street”. That’s what happens when you grow up in poverty. And there really is no better, simpler, and more reasonable way to make sure your kid won’t be homeless than to buy them a house. And if you’re not filthy rich, that doesn’t mean buying it cash and handing it to them on a silver platter. (technically, I think that silver-platter method would still be allowed under the plan I’m objecting to because the kids would have an owner-occupied house in their name… yay rich people I guess. My family isn’t rich enough for that)
I think you made valid points there. I‘m not familiar with any of the anti bankruptcy measures you just named. Sounds like your family did their research.
To be honest, I still dont think your family is the problem but I dont feel like this is a fair discussion among equals.
I said my piece and you questioning my motives kind of unnerves me. Is your family privileged? Absolutely! Is it fair to the others that they are able to buy homes and even keep them if they fucked up financially while most other lose everything? Not in my opinion.
But I‘m still not after families that try to secure their childrens future. As a privileged person, you might want to add some empathy to your answers in the future.
I’m not questioning your motives directly. I’m suggesting that the changes you’re looking for are still going to cause more harm than good to most people.
Is your family privileged? Absolutely! Is it fair to the others that they are able to buy homes and even keep them if they fucked up financially while most other lose everything? Not in my opinion.
Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut? I’m not a capitalist, but I still firmly believe you need to show your work when you want to take action that hurts the lower 99% to “even the playing field”.
As a privileged person, you might want to add some empathy to your answers in the future.
You just wrongly accused me of not having af air discussion among equals, and then you pull this? The only thing you know about me is that someone in my extended family has made enough money in their life to buy two rental properties. They don’t owe me anything. How does that make me privileged?
Further, you’re accusing me of lacking empathy. Why? I have the same problem with preventing them from buying a house as you would have if I said we needed to kick EVERYONE out of their homes because somebody out there is homeless. It’s the same thing to me. It’s obviously not the same thing to you. Do I get to say you lack empathy because of it? Because I don’t plan to. Instead, I like to engage as to why that’s a bad idea.
Desantis has the veneer of sanity, and actually has a clue regarding how to make things worse. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Trump just flails about and expects underlings to figure it out.
My only hope is that people as morally insane as Trump are rare, and there may be a correlation between his sociopathic traits, and how seemingly incompetent he is.
What this hopefully means in practice is that even though this time around he will surround himself with yes-men over which he will have more control, few of them will be precisely like Trump and so not immune to actual concern for the future, and to Trump’s surprise will not all follow his insane ideas without question, as Trump clearly wants everyone to do. He can’t rule on his own. He does need some people, and people needing people requires at least a semblance of regard for others.
In this same way, even his stacked Supreme Court I think will still be likely to put America itself ahead of Trump and a victory that would make a mockery of their own institution, the constitution, and just general common sense.
It’s only a shred of hope, but one which might enable civil society to survive another Trump presidency, and if we’re really lucky, avoid it.
I know nothing of DeSantis outside he’s running. Can you or someone share a tl;dr. It’s hard for me to imagine someone worse than Trump. But then again, never thought we’d have someone worse than George W…
Desantis is basically a competent Trump. They both have terrible ideas but Desantis would be able to pull it off because he already has in ruining Florida.
The short version is that he’s gutted public services in Florida and made life worse for nearly everyone there - while engaging in massive culture war bullshit to distract his base
Not to downplay that, it includes laws and discourse such as ‘Dont Say Gay’ and attacking school curriculums that are incredibly damaging. He’s the guy that flew refugees to Martha’s Vineyard to ‘make a point’
Vivaldi + tampermonkey + GitHub scripts. And ublock, obv.
I noticed Mullvad’s new DNS features seem to block a ton of ads by itself, so much that I can listen to Spotify Free for hours without any commercials!
Corporations don’t have to be about making tons of money. They can be about organizing people to accomplish things that they couldn’t individually. You then make money just to give those people a living wage and keeping the lights on.
This doesn’t even need to have a legal framework. Just a couple of people who agree to take up certain tasks is a company.
Fine but they shouldn’t be considered as people, lobbying should be illegal, fines can’t just be part of the business plan, money is not free speech, and if a corp is caught doing illegal activities it should go to jail or be broken up like the rest of us.
People are out to lunch on this whole situation. Try running a service that hosts somewhere between 2 and 3 billion Gigabytes of data. Where basically anyone on the planet can upload gigs of video and YouTube will still make it available 10 years later. You are never going to crowd source that, ever. I also pay for premium and I get at least 5x the value of any other streaming service. Just on home renovations, it’s probably saved me 10k+ being able to watch tutorials about every kind of repair.
I’m very curious about why YouTube allow users to upload what seems like unlimited footage in 4K HDR and keep it around indefinitely. Only guess is they don’t want to miss out on the next big YouTuber. I upload a lot of video for very few views. There is no way in hell that Google make money from my account.
Youtube can show ads and offers subscription without being this shitty though. Just look on how popular region-specific video services like niconico (japan) or bilibili (china) operate. They also have ads and subscription, but nowhere as crazy as google adding multiple video ads upon ads and pick a fight with ad blocker users (which used to be a minority when google haven’t aggressively pushed more and more ads. the current popularity of adblockers today is google’s own doing). This is only possible because google has killed off competitors in those market and now it’s time for cashing out.
The best part is: Youtube doesn’t even do any of that. It’s the creators that try to keep other streams off the web, because they wanna drive traffic to their own channel.
Hitler modeled his way of genociding Jews based on the native America genocide. And Hitler used the Jim Crow laws as example to model his race laws in Nazi germany. So there is no wrong order here, just a bunch of butt-hurt ignorant people. Israel is using the American example of genocide as well.
They should include sponsorblock with youtube premium, I won’t pay 12€ per month to watch more ads than on free tv. Youtube doesn’t even make their own content. 5€ max for youtube would be okay with no ads.
YouTube cannot do that. YouTube’s content legal system does not allow this.
That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.
Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don’t quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.
Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don’t like the default YouTube app.
So, I don’t know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.
What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?
I think it’s pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.
Yeah for higher energy bands especially, I just don’t get wanting to sit at shows. I’d rather just not go if I didn’t think I could stand/dance through a concert. I think it’s cool when venues have some designated seating for those who need it but it’s always kind of a bummer when I go and it’s mostly or only seated…kinda kills the energy
Yeah, I'd much rather be on gen-ad and standing than sitting up in the bleachers, but for some concerts it's like 4x more for gen-ad over seated sections. Sucks, but I'd rather see the band sitting than pay that ridiculous mark up for it.
That’s an accelerationist or a nihilist. If the status quo is pro-immigration and pro-LGBT rights, wanting to keep this status quo will make you a “conservative” because you want to conserve the status quo.
“Conservatives” haven’t wanted to conserve anything in a very long time. They want to prop up the rich with government subsidies, hurt the poor, control the women, and hopefully kill some sick people along the way. That’s a damned far sight from conserving traditional American values.
i’d imagine a part of the problem is that at least some of them do in fact see those things as “traditional american values” so from their perspective they are conserving their version of reality.
Genuine question as i don’t actually know the answer, is conservatism considered to be the conservation specifically of “traditional” values. Like, is there an agreed upon timeframe in which these traditional values were held or is it more of a moving target sort of thing ?
I’m no expert, but I always thought the American brand “conservative” stood for “fiscal conservative”, as in, to save money by limiting government spending.
That definition lines up well with their actual policies which tend to be cutting government spending, tax cuts, downsizing government jobs, etc.
Not really conserving traditions. Although there’s plenty of that in their cultural identity.
Edit: to be clear, the party has long since moved past being actually conservative. The most accurate description they might have now would be the party of spite.
This though. People love to harp about the good ole days but leave out that the good ole days were good cause only cishet white men could participate in the economy
I honestly thought critiquing the guy unilaterally funding genocide with taxpayer dollars would be a more popular take on here than the up/downvote ratio is showing.
I fully believe Trump is a bigger threat to democracy being the dumbfuck fascist he is, but I don’t see how I’m supposed to be excited about voting for a guy who’s clearly funded by lobbyists and in turn is paying for the country of Israel to murder innocent Palestinians, amongst other things like ignoring cries for debt relief and socialized medicine and codifying access to abortion
Preach! Biden also nullified the collective action of the union with the most sway in the flow of goods in the United States and forced a contract upon them. He never closed down those immigrant detention centers that were headline news for years under Trump. The two main parties work together, two hands, one with a velvet glove.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to be excited about voting for a guy who’s clearly funded by lobbyists and in turn is paying for the country of Israel to murder innocent Palestinians, amongst other things like ignoring cries for debt relief and socialized medicine and codifying access to abortion
Nobody was “excited” about Biden in 2020 and nobody expects you to be excited now. But the alternative is a guy who will do all of those things you listed (he wouldn’t ignore calls to codify abortion access, he’d actively support a national ban) plus dismantle democracy in America and hand Ukraine over to Putin. Unfortunately our electoral system is a first past the post system that perpetuates this two party nightmare and our bizarre electoral college gives Trump an extra advantage.
Vote in the primaries. Vote for the winner who’s least fascist. Yell at them. A lot. Activism in the streets, calling your representative about pending legislation. Donations to organizing groups you agree with There are multiple stages of the process you can get involved with. 1 vote every 4 years is not enough
You have my updoot. I’m a leftist so I live in this Schrodingers Valley where I’m a useless stupid baby who exists only to be laughed at but simultaneously the #1 reason Republicans win.
I’m supposed to vote blue to avoid fascism as the blue pres sidesteps congress to fund fascism and the blue party tells the primary winner to eat a dick then goes to court to tell their voters to eat a dick.
Doesn’t sound like the antifascist freedom bastion for voters to me 🤷
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.