BlameThePeacock

I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they're safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what's then produced.

If you buy guns based on looks, you shouldn't allowed to own a gun in my opinion.

Every gun should be legally required to be neon pink. If you're using it for sport shooting or hunting or even self defence it wouldn't matter.

#Murica

Even without any insurance/coverage that specific medication (Adavair Diskus) is like $100 CDN ($70 USD) for 60 days where I live in Canada, and the generic is $20 cheaper than that.

That doesn't apply when the item has ongoing costs like a land value tax. People don't bid up items that return a negative value. This is why cars go down in value over time.

A high enough land value tax is the same as a government rent amount, but still allows for individual ownership and the benefits thereof (like being able to make changes to the property)

You're absolutely correct. People are yelling for change, but refuse to vote for that change.

There are multiple ways to crash the value of housing.

One of the easiest would be a 100% capital gains tax on property values (not building value). You can no longer profit from simply holding onto land. You can develop it and earn a profit from the building work you do, but just holding it and doing nothing no longer generates any value. This profit motive is what's pushing the investment in property that drives up prices, and removing it would crash the value of land overnight.

Or, and this is my preferred option, a monthly land value tax (again not on buildings) that is set high enough to replace all of the income taxes, then drop income taxes to 0%. This way we tax people based on how much land they use (which includes how desirable that land is just based on the assessments) not based on how much work they accomplish. People who live in smaller amounts of land (like a condo) pay less tax, and people who want giant mansions near cities can pay the rest of us a bucket load of money that the rest of us workers now save on taxes. Instead of replacing income taxes, I also wouldn't mind seeing a similar universal basic income system.

You handle it the same way we're handling the crazy high rents right now, by letting some people get hurt. It's just a matter of who.

In the current system we have, it's the non-homeowners that are getting fucked, and recent home purchasers too, but since new non-homeowners keep joining the population (kids grow up, and immigrants) that means continual pain for more and more people in a never ending pyramid scheme of sky high prices.

If we crash the market in the way I propose, current homeowners will get absolutely fucked (including me), but going forward the prices will now be affordable and controlled for everyone. It will also make for a much healthier overall economy.

I miss Costco having one-way aisles during COVID, it significantly improved the shopping experience.

In the case of the housing crisis, it really isn't.

The longer we continue this pyramid scheme of propping up house prices the more people will be hurt by it.

We need to pass government policies that crash the value of housing by 50-80% instead of continuing to pretend that we can build our way to cheaper houses after the market has shown again and again it will not do that.

You act like they weren't already making non-ethical decisions WITH humans.

There's no legal way to force them no, but they can offer them contracts to get them to do it they just have to pay.

Building enough housing to the currently homeless will not solve homelessness.

Especially if it's setting up a benefit to pay for housing, because that's just going to push lower rents up and force other people out.