Grandma is on her own
-
I've said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn't occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.
At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they're better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.
"But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?" If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.
"But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!" Doesn't matter. If they're vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that's where people go on holiday.
-
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that's where people go on holiday.
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
-
Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
full throttle
TKO
-
Grandma is not the problem. It’s the ~800 billionaires in the US controlling sizable portions of single-family residences through private equity, artificially controlling market prices for maximum profit per sale. Blackstone alone owns 300,000 residences.
Fun Fact: There are 16 million vacant homes nationwide. That’s 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person.
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.
-
One issue with the holiday home thing, they tend to be in quite remote places where there are very few job opportunities, because that's where people go on holiday.
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.
-
3 houses could be free (1 home, 1 for summer, 1 for winter)
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
