• SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year 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.

          • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year 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”.