• SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Great, but no one is proposing what you’re opposed to.

    What I’m saying is that they’re able to hoard their huge homes all to themselves, without having renters, because we subsidize them to do so. They should be paying for the increase in land value with higher taxes. Instead they get to profit from increasing land value, deny other people a place to live, and, to top it off, not pay the fair price in taxes for all that unused space. Would correcting that be “forcing” them to quarter people? Obviously not.

    • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Did you read the title of this post? That’s exactly what’s being implied. If anything, you’re moving the goalposts in the discussion.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, I gave you a concrete example of how we can also change the perverse incentives. Your insistence that the most plausible alternative is “forced quartering” is ridiculous.

        Also, stop using sock puppet accounts to upvote yourself and downvote me. There’s no way you posted a comment and someone instantly upvoted you 1 second later.

        • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re delusional lmao and your concrete example had no relevancy to my comment or the subject of this post

          • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            What don’t you understand? Homeowners now are financially incentivized to leave their homes empty. That doesn’t have to be the case. Literally no one except you is talking about “forced quartering”.