This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

If you’re talking about eminent domain, the gov has to pay fair market value for the assets it takes, at least in the USA. So you’re just flat out wrong using that as an example because in this context you guys are talking about the government forcing someone to provide something to somebody else for free, or just seizing their property (!) to do it themselves.

I’m looking for you to be able to articulate a specific rule or set of rules with hard numbers and thresholds that applies to literally everyone. You can walk around all you want saying rich people are big bad meanies and should give this poor woman free housing. But it turns out people will always act in their own rational self interest, and until you can figure out a way to codify your values into law, you might as well be writing letters to santa. I wish everything were perfect and nobody wants for anything, but the universe just doesn’t work that way. It’s hard to believe there are so many people naive enough to not know this by now.

I’m definitely in the wrong place because all I’m hearing is a bunch of morons.

the government should control the property and not charge rent. It’s not that hard to understand

Yes it is hard to understand because we are having this conversation despite it being a ridiculous idea. If the gov controls the property and doesn’t charge rent, it doesn’t lower the cost. The value of that property doesn’t go away. It just changes hands from the private owner into the gov agency (or worse, agent) who controls who gets to live there. Imagine a neighborhood where everything costs $10k/month to live there, but you control who gets to live in that one place that costs $1,000/month. Think of how powerful a position that is. The value of that rental property didn’t magically disappear just because the government waived its magic wand and said so. Economics doesn’t work that way, and it’s really frustrating talking to people who don’t get this. You can’t solve these issues by decree.

Right, if only this mean rich person would go against their best interest and do something stupid. But they didn’t because there’s zero incentive to do so, because what you and everyone in this thread is suggesting is a bad decision to make of one’s own free will. So other folks are arguing the gov should step in and, what, force the owner to rent their unit to the squatter for free just because she’s old I guess?

I challenge you to codify your position. Meaning, if someone is over X years of age they get free rent? Or the gov pays their rent? Or if someone is over such and such net worth they have to give free rent to people? Or something? You’re just not making any sense and you’re arguing out of pure pathos, emotionally laden incoherent thoughts that you can’t build a functioning economy out of.

Man it’s always govt with you people. I challenge you to codify your feelings into actual policy with facts and figures rather than loaded emotional imagery like ‘govt should pay for housing for everyone.’

I read something recently analyzing what tends to happen when there’s tons of artificially cheap public housing. Market forces determine housing prices regardless of government interference, so when the govt rules by decree that their public housing will be cheaper, the price differential doesn’t go away, it just changes form. And more importantly, it changes hands. The price difference changes form from money into power, and it changes hands from the landlord into the govt agency or official in charge of determining who gets to live there and benefit from the lower cost. Make sense?

I don’t disagree that housing costs are out of control. I think everyone is missing the point though, and the cause. It isn’t mean rich people being evil bastards charging people too much. Right now what we are seeing is the natural result of decades of exponential economic growth. Real estate is an asset like any other with prices strongly positively correlated with other asset classes. If everything is growing exponentially like equities, of course real estate is going to grow along with them. I don’t know what the solution is, but it certainly isn’t anything suggested in this thread.

Who pays is a very valid question because right now you guys are all saying the owner should pay instead of the squatter. Then you go on to talk about tax money which implies the govt should pay. We live in a world of finite goods and resources which is why things are the way they are. These comments are like letters to Santa.

So govt forces owner to donate to 93 year old squatter charity instead of donating to a different charity of their choice. Still a forced donation because money is fungible, doesn’t matter who got there first.

The tax write-off bit means being rich enough that donating the building to charity won’t even make a dent in their wealth

Codify that. Ready set go.

You didn’t answer the question.

What does that even mean? Concrete, lumber, electric, plumbing, plus location location location that everyone else wants. How can it NOT be a commodity with fluctuating prices based on basic market forces like supply and demand? Explain

Ok so govt is the landlord then, got it. Who gets to decide who gets free housing? Housing inventory is limited so somebody is going to be homeless. Seems like the govt agency, or worse, agent, has the keys to the kingdom and wields a lot of power in your scenario.

She was there first?!? It’s the owner’s building! What does “easily afford to lose that building as a tax write-off” even mean? What do you know about tax? I presume zero based on your comment. smh

You’re not, Lemmy is just filled with young naive quasi communist morons. It’s really breathtaking how dumb this community is, financially.

Should people get free housing at 92? At what point does a squatter get a free pass? Should we force the owner to give charity to the elderly squatter? What makes her more deserving than, say, Doctors Without Borders?

…How does that work? Who pays for the lumber, cement, electrical, plumbing, etc?

They call it “Lincoln’s Tax War” in the South.

Fuck your stupid pink and blue hair lol that’s how I came up with that

Personally I feel like it’s less about exposure to extreme gore and porn and stuff like that. It’s more about the constant barrage of awful shit happening all over the world. Some stupid thing some politician said, police brutality, an asshole on a plane, etc. Our brains just weren’t designed to handle so much stimulus overload. I’m not a psychologist or whatever but that’s my opinion.

I just told the truth. Personal time off, health and wellness, weight loss, surfing, travel, and yes vibing doing nothing.

It went over well. Most interviewers were more interested in that than my professional experience. Most people can’t do that and want to know what it’s like.

For my part, I don’t want to work for/with people who look down on that sort of thing.

Warning: my resume is extremely strong so I have a lot of leverage. YMMV

There was a lot of speculation about that but I’m not sure if there’s any consensus. Individual tax returns only show income, and business returns only show book values (not fair market value which would help determine wealth). He had pretty big net operating loss carryovers from previous years which essentially zeroed out his income for a few years, so it’s hard to say. I feel like I remember looking for foreign account disclosures but didn’t see them in the returns, which would be at least one set of FMV numbers to go with. It’s been a while since I looked though. Overall I walked away being disappointed so I’ll stick with my original assessment, maybe I take another look later today though.