Grandma is on her own
-
The problem that there are many homeless outweighs the problem that somebody wants to have a holiday home. Soliving the homeless problem by not solving the holiday home problem is valid.
This is true, but if I take the top comment, we have 28 houses/homes per homeless person - subtract the 2 holiday homes and you still got 25
-
My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage... Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.
-
I’ve never subscribed to this generational hatred, as true as it is that the boomers voted for this shit, on account of it’s clearly a deliberate psyop “divide and conquer” campaign. It’s as obvious as the crack epidemic or redlining.
Nah, I'm happy to bag on anyone that benefits from a system and then pulls the ladder up behind them.
-
If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
This part applies. It's not about directly getting a house for the homeless in this case, it's the fact that they can CLEARLY afford to pay more tax.
Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
-
Not really, but it sounds like your family should rather sell that cabin and spend their money on more important things.
"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn't factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?
That isn't how you're supposed to spend your money, so stop it."
-
It's hard when you work with a guy like I do. He's 65 and hates absolutely everybody, including his wife, but he's a coward so he's very polite. He requires so much coddling that he spends all day sucking up to everyone for whatever praise he can get then immediately turns around and complains about them. He'll complain about everyone else to the point where they get their breaks and other privileges taken away. Those privileges are also taken from him, giving him more to complain about.
It gets worse, but I'm about to go to bed and don't want to think about that.
That piece of fucking shit. Sorry about the rant. But guys like that ruin everything for everybody.
It seems like that is more of an asshole problem than an age problem
-
"Hey you know that activity that you enjoy, that makes the tedium and tests of life a bit more bearable? The one that provides a hub to maintain familial bonds, and adds another source of food that isn't factory farmed or ultra-processed to your diet?
That isn't how you're supposed to spend your money, so stop it."
The key point you're missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.
If you're in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I'd argue that it isn't how you're supposed to spend your money. That's "Skip eating out once a year" territory.
-
The key point you're missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.
If you're in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I'd argue that it isn't how you're supposed to spend your money. That's "Skip eating out once a year" territory.
Nah, I'm not opposed to the proposition, and understandably any such tax law (if legislated with due consideration) should take into account cases where the effect may be otherwise than intended (or be amended with further subsequent legislation). Corporate squatting is a literal travesty.
I was just a bit baffled at the gall of supposing that the cost/benefit calculation of this kind of lifestyle choice could be up for second-hand proscription.
-
This is true, but if I take the top comment, we have 28 houses/homes per homeless person - subtract the 2 holiday homes and you still got 25
Buy 25 homes, get a free homeless person.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Did you do the right thing and put her down?
-
My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage... Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?
I'd sacrifice your family's hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.
It's an edge case that shouldn't hold up societal progress.
-
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up
-
Nah fam you got three homes you can pay up
Don’t forget how many people own three homes in the first place. You might need their votes.
Also, if one inherits their grandparents home and wants to give it their own children but must wait for 2-3 years, they might be forced to sell too.
-
Don’t forget how many people own three homes in the first place. You might need their votes.
Also, if one inherits their grandparents home and wants to give it their own children but must wait for 2-3 years, they might be forced to sell too.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The number of people who have three homes in this country I doubt is a huge number. And to be honest most of them are probably right-leaning anyway.
-
Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available no.
You want to tax just having that second home
Most people aren't homeless because there is no house available
It's amazing how I can add the word "affordable" to your statement and you're suddenly wrong.
You see this as wanting to tax second homes while ignoring that tons of people are homeless because they can't afford to live somewhere because of shitheads holding onto empty housing as an investment at the expense of the common person.
So yeah, let's tax any house left unoccupied for more than half the year. If you can afford to have 2 houses, you can afford to pay more for the one you don't live in so maybe we can free up some of them and lower the cost of housing.
-
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]If you can afford 3 houses, you can afford the extra tax on 2 or all 3 of them. And if you can't, maybe you don't need that many fucking houses....
-
Same. We have to get private equity out of homes, but telling people on the edges that they will get caught up is going to make it a tough sell. Even if we account for the example above, another family that wasn't on the edge of affordability might be after the change.
With something like this we may need to offer buybacks or short loved exemptions of some sort.
-
I'd sacrifice your family's hunting cabin if it helps house more people. Find a sixth person or something.
It's an edge case that shouldn't hold up societal progress.
The added tax revenue would also make the rural places these vacation home are in more sustainable for regular residents. And probably keep local governments and even small hospitals solvent.
-
Buy 25 homes, get a free homeless person.
Gotta catch them all
-
So you're saying granny would be fine with a 100% return on her investment at $36 for an offer? No? Shocked I say, shocked.
Granny is part of the problem. Not the biggest part of the pie, but still guilty.
Inflation is a thing that exists. Saying that someone is bad simply because they want to update the value of their property is dumb. Also, let's say granny wants to downisze. Should she sell her home for a value way below market and then be unable to buy a smaller home for herself?
