this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
1331 points (97.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

7324 readers
2617 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:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] untakenusername@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (16 children)

No one who owns a home would vote for them. It's not in their self interest, if they spent 300k on a house and this happened, they would lose ~300k. Not worth it at all. A much better idea would be to just have tax breaks for contractors making new homes, that would lower the value of everyone else's homes, but by a lot less.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

you leave individuals who own up to, say, 3 houses alone and start massively taxing anything further. 4+ house voting bloc can suck a dick. corporations will be forced to rent at obscenely low rates to the point that they will be stupid not to sell. they have a minimum tenant percentage to make sure they're not hoarding, and have mandatory government evaluation for any sale. fail to do any of this for 60 days and your properties now belong to the people.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Everyone now owns wherever they are living. Current owner residents get reimbursed via taxes for their current equity over a period of time. People and government win, corporations take losses on investments and probably come out ahead anyway.

Obviously an oversimplified idea, but I think we should be asking "How can we make this happen?" more often than dismissing outright.

[–] Aux@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Taxes don't come out of thin air. What you're proposing is effectively: spend $300k on a house, lose $300k, then lose another $300k from your taxes.

That's why you shouldn't over simplify dumb ideas.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What I'm proposing you wouldn't lose the 300k because you still have your house and you'll get the 300k back over time. And yes taxes don't come out of thin air, but the whole system needs plenty of overhauling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You need to consider that people need somewhere to live. So, if your only house doubles in value, you generally can't make use of this fact to get more goods and/or services, since every other house has likely also doubled in value. The only way you can get to these gains is if you're willing to trade down in some way. For example, you could move to a rural area, where housing is cheaper, or you could move into a smaller home. If you're unwilling to do any those things, your house becoming more valuable is not that useful. (Unless of course the increase in value is due to the land your house is on getting better in some way. This only concerns cases were your house gets more valuable due to increasing scarcity). In fact, since property taxes exists, you might end up getting priced out of your own house.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slaveOne@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Oh I'm sure those contractors would pass those breaks on and not just pocket the savings /s

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Well I guess he could gather an army and open the portal to earth from hell?

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›