Sure, but that’s a different claim than the one you made.
SkepticalButOpenMinded
joined 2 years ago
A lot of people in this thread are claiming that homeowners are not really rich. A bunch are citing some Marxist definition of “rich” or raising the bar to “never having to work again”. OK, fine: they’re “rich enough” to be a problem, then.
The truth is, homeowners in Canada have enormous power, both economic and political, and they have been advocating for policies at every level of government that have both exacerbated the housing crisis and grown their own wealth.
“But they’re working class because they can’t enjoy their wealth without selling their home!”
That’s just not true. Homeowners enjoy enormous privileges at the cost of renters, most notably blocking new developments, which homeowners do with passion. Their mortgages are guaranteed by the government, subsidized effectively at the cost of taxes by non-homeowners, i.e. renters. And homeowners have enormous generational wealth to pass on, which if we don’t address, will cause an economic caste system to permanently root itself. Yes, this is real wealth, causing real social problems. This article is right to call it out!
No where in the article does it say that homeowners should effectively be forced to move out.
We absolutely coddle homeowners, with preferential tax treatment, subsidized street parking, super low property taxes in places like Vancouver, and, most importantly, outsized power to prevent new development at the cost of renters, young people, and the poor. This is zero sum: homeowners maintain and grow their wealth, in part, at the cost of renters and actual poor people.
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. Poe’s Law.
If you own a $3.5 million home in Vancouver, or you’re complaining about not being able to rent out four condos on AirBnb like one woman in the article, then, no, you’re not middle class.
To purchase a lethal weapon, fingerprints for a background check and a four hour training course is too much? I’m pretty sure a commercial pilot license requires more than 4 hours of training.
They’re everywhere in Vancouver. It’s probably better biking weather now than it is most of the summer.
But biking in the snow should not actually be a problem in Canada. It apparently used to be very common. See this video: Not Just Bikes - Why Canadians Can’t bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)
Sure, due to increasing partisanship there is literally no candidate that is universally well-liked by both sides. But you don’t need to convince everyone to win an election. Michelle Obama does better on polling than (almost?) any other candidate.
Oh is that why my comment is so controversial? I specifically said for electability, not on whether she wants the job. The polling corroborates this. She is objectively one of the most well liked political figures in the US today. Note, again, I am NOT claiming she is therefore likely to run.
I see that point of view. Out of curiosity, though, do you think there’s an obvious next in line on the bench? The only person I can think of as a no brainer for electability is Michelle Obama.
Edit: I’m confused as to why my comment has been so controversial. I think it’s because people are misreading my claim. I am saying that Michelle Obama is obviously one of the most electable alternatives to Biden. The polling corroborates this. She is well liked and has 100% name recognition. Seriously, even if you hate her, as an objective empirical fact, she is obviously one of the top contenders for electability.
I am not claiming that she is likely to run or that she wants to run, etc.
Based on what? I’ve given actual arguments and you haven’t. What a bad faith response.
My claim is modest: there are easily preventable harms to both widespread use of guns and cars, evidenced by the fact that the US is a HUGE outlier in both.
Very similar to a gun advocate. It’s what you’re used to and you’ve already made up your mind, actual arguments or evidence be damned.
Super low property taxes, besides starving government services and causing renters to make up the difference in fees, is precisely one of the reasons why places like Vancouver have one of the worst housing crises in the world. Economists agree that profiting from the increase in land value is a kind of theft from society, called “economic rent”. (This is why a land value tax has the nickname “the perfect tax”.) That theft is at the heart of our dysfunctional housing market.
You have a lot of concern for the hypothetical possibility of increases in property taxes forcing homeowners to sell. But in reality, annual property taxes on a $3 million house isn’t even the average single months rent on a 1BR. They should be taxed properly, and that money should help renters! We desperately need public housing and co-ops. This is absolutely a class struggle, but you seem to only see the harms of the homeowner class, not renters.
The goal absolutely should not be to subsidize homeowners. That is precisely the problem! When you subsidize a group, non-members pay the cost. That means non-homeowners pay for homeowners! It is precisely this mindset, that homeowners deserve even more from society despite their incredible privilege, that is causing our housing problems. More to the point, institutional investors inevitably benefit from many of these policies, perpetuating the housing crisis.