Selling your home so there's more homes on the market as a solution is equivalent to turning the water off while brushing your teeth to fight the dwindling supply of water.
Fucking EXACTLY. Every drop counts, not running the water uselessly for 4 minutes a day saves enough water for you to survive a full day. Sure there are people wasting more water and we need to spend more energy reducing their waste, but just because someone is worse than you doesn't mean you're "good".
Yeah, damn those tenants who use their legal rights to actually get their landlords to maintain their own damn property. They're just mean. If only all tenants just did free labour for their landlords, the world would be a better place.
What a fucking joke.
Landlords gonna landlord. You're literally the guy in the meme "owning other people's homes and complaining about it"
Basically you wrote a story where you're the good guy who out of the goodness of his heart rented his only house at HALF MARKET VALUE just because you love the poor and want to help them. Then an EVIL NON LAND OWNING tenant moves in and destroys it for no reason. And you didn't even make any money. What a disaster. Thankfully for your landlord you're a good land owning tenant. If only all tenants were like you.
What a joke.
Other businesses "we can provide you with a good or a service in exchange for money"
Landlords "I own your house so you owe me half your income"
Yeah, no difference at all /s
Land value tax is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of. "Unimproved" value? So basically when rich people get together and build mansions, next to them we build affordable housing. Both pay the same tax because the unimproved land is worth the same? Or maybe you'd argue that because the other mansions were built that the land is now worth more because it's more desirable. That logic applies to the affordable housing next door though, so the rich can kick the poor out of house and home just by being nearby.
No, all taxes need to be extremely progressive because the wealthy simply consume more from society than the poor. A poor person can be poor anywhere. A rich person can only accumulate and hoard vast wealth if the society they parasite provides them with a steady source of healthy and intelligent workers and vast access to energy and natural resources to consume. The rich take more from society and need to pay more.
Taxes also need to apply to every possible economic transaction because unlike the poor, the rich can afford to do weird things to escape taxation. If we tax only one thing you can bet your ass the rich will find a way to avoid it and only the poor and working class will pay, allowing the rich to hoard wealth unimpeded leading to the tremendous inflation we see now.
Should have sold your house. Another person could have bought it. Being the owner, they would have more respect for it since it's their loss of it gets wrecked. Adding another house to the market also increases supply and makes houses more affordable.
Your landlord also should have sold his house and you could have bought it instead of paying his mortgage.
The ethical use case for rentals is short and medium term for travelers and people who are in a place for a few months to a year.
Basically Google started monetizing it's semantic matching engine. It's what made Google results so great. For example if you searched the word "tall" it would include results for "big", "height", etc... with each word being ranked by closeness to what you searched.
Well now they made it so they will match monetisable words preferentially, like brand names for example.
It's likely the main reason Google results have been getting so shitty lately, the semantic match engine is one of the things that made the results great. Now it's an ad delivery engine and the results are crap.
My favorite part about this story is the company selling fake parts is called AOG. The acronym AOG usually stands for Aircraft on Ground in the aerospace industry. It means that because of a defect the aircraft is no longer allowed to fly. It's pretty much the worst thing that can happen if you're operating an aircraft (next to a "safety incident") because you're losing money until the problem is fixed.
I guess the lesson here is buy AOG be AOG!
If you're trying to claim that a series of carefully selected "neutral" facts don't create a narrative then you're either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.
I note that you haven't aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn't create any protections for trans people that don't already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.
Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, "neutral facts" must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a "neutral" light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was "an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views" that's a bunch of neutral facts, but it's deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a "neutral light". Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.
Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don't know what that term means.
This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can't blame people for assuming you support heinous people.
The law doesn't create anything for trans people that doesn't exist for gays. If you repeatedly call someone using male pronouns when they repeatedly ask to be called by female pronouns that's being insulting on purpose. This is very similar to using slurs or insults with any other protected minority, if you call a brown skinned person an "Indian" repeatedly when they tell you they're Philippino you'd get into the exact same trouble. It's not new. Purposefully being an asshole to minorities is, in many situations, illegal especially when you have a position of authority.
I've read what your said and I don't think I've been unfair. I feel your presentation of facts was narrow and omitted a lot of important nuance. I feel it created a narrative that is flawed at best and dangerously dishonest at worst. I do agree that my statements are more biased, I don't like JP and I think he's a predatory con man, I'm not claiming to be neutral. I also agree that on the surface your presentation of information is more neutral, but your choices on what to include and what to omit create a strong but more subtle bias, and I don't believe this was entirely accidental.
It's not progressive.
How much land does Musk or Bezos own? How much land does an average farmer own?
Amazon warehouses are built on the unimproved equivalent of farmland or worse. The Amazon warehouse generates millions in annual profit. The same parcel of land gets a farmer a meager income and we should tax BOTH THE SAME???
If you come up with a tax that has any chance of taxing an old farmer more than it taxes Musk or Bezos, don't come tell me it's progressive.
Also I'm sick of hearing that somehow this tax "can't be passed down to the consumer". If every plot of land nearby is taxed the same, all the owners will shrug and say "sorry that's just what it costs". It's the very definition of things that will be passed down to the consumer. Take your libertarian BS out of here.