It probably wasn’t keylogging but it was probably not updating itself 24/7 either.
You’d be surprised at how shit Chrome’s autoupdate is.
- 0 Posts
- 60 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: December 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
That’s the idea! They can just break even, if they bought a place but aren’t currently living there. Otherwise, leave the property on the market so someone who actually needs it can get it.
It seems to me that if a house exists, someone owns it, unless you consider government possession NOT ownership.
Even if you argue for the ownership of a house, the land it sits on is ultimately owned by the state, so I don’t think that’s a very productive topic…
So if the government possesses the house, they should provide it as housing for free to someone, right?
Not necessarily for free (although, as I stated, that would be ideal), but certainly not for profit.
And a person CAN buy the house, but if that person is not going to live in it, he should provide it to a person to live in either rent free OR at a price that is not more than the taxes and costs so that it is essentially provided non-profit. Correct?
That would be incentivised, yes.
That’s the ideal solution, but not the only solution.
So there should be no land ownership
There already isn’t, in absolute terms. A government can reposses any piece of land within its territory (maybe with the exception of embassies) at its own discretion.
Another simple solution is that the taxation on any land should be proportional to its market value deduced from a “usefulness” score, i.e. tilled land used for farming is very useful, therefore shouldn’t have increased taxes. Empty houses aren’t useful at all, therefore high taxes are justified. This is a developed application of Land Value Taxation.
I’m saying “owning” land shouldn’t be a viable way to acquire profit. It’s a really basic statement, and it’s not a new idea either.
Show me proof of your god’s existence.
The hypocrisy is in claiming to know the truth from a hypothesis with (currently) unknowable factors.
Can we possibly test for the simulation hypothesis? Not at the present. Thus, to say that it’s true is just as bad as claiming a sky fairy made the world in seven days
“I know you’re a leprechaun because I believe that. You must be a leprechaun.”
Any basic book on banking. When I say basic, I mean the sort you’d read to get an entry level job at one.
The obvious solution is to dismantle capitalism and destroy anyone that gets in the way.
You should read about how banks work. Most of their “assets” don’t actually exist, they’re counting borrowed money as still being theirs.
Risk my ass, they take in profit off of doing nothing.
As a home owner now, that would be entirely on me to figure out.
Guess what? In the mean time, you’ve paid for these repairs with your rent, plus the repairs of any other property the landlord has.
If you move every 3 years
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle.
practically they’re an important part of the housing market
Non sequitur, none of your arguments support this conclusion.
If you want the current rent model so much, do you know who could do the exact same job much cheaper? The State itself.
They shouldn’t buy the house to begin with, how are you having trouble following such a simple argument?
Not popular enough. With Whatsapp you get to talk to pretty much everyone, from businesses to second hand sellers to your weird aunt that lives in the middle of the woods.