I’d like to preface my comment by stating that I’m not American and have never lived in the US, so my knowledge of how stuff works (IDs and whatnot) is null.

That being said, surely there’s records for these things. I really don’t think that there needs to be a check for IDs at any point, on a personal level, because this information should be available either in the deed, and everyone’s IDs are in the electronic systems at the state and federal level. So it’s not that what you said about IDs is wrong, more so likely unnecessary, in a practical sense.

However, I do think there are a few problematic things here.

1. Your definition of “live in the state,” which you didn’t provide.

Say I work in NYC, NY State, but I’m originally from Vermont. I own a home in NYC and a home in Vermont. Where do I live? Mostly in NY, but I spend my summers in Vermont. What if my husband is from Maine, so I also own a home in Maine that we go to every couple of years to meet his family? What if my son lives in South Carolina, so I own a home there to go visit him? What if I own the home, never go there, but my son does live there?

These questions — and other questions in a similar vein that I couldn’t even think of — need to have a clear answer, if you want this sort of legislation to be applicable.

2. Living in the state and owning several homes as an individual.

If I live and work in Vermont, but own a whole neighborhood, what then? I’m a citizen of the state, I live in the state, I do it as an individual and not through a company. I don’t see anything in what you wrote that indicates this would be a problem, but I think it is a problem and should be encompassed by legislation of the sort you suggest.

These two points, I believe, highlight the fact that living in a state is a really bad indicator of whether home ownership is beneficial. I think the primary indicators should be legal status — company vs individual — and maybe something like the percentage of available homes. As in, a certain percentage of available homes is allowed to be owned by companies or individuals for non-living purposes. That could work as a sort of cap on how the market can be manipulated by speculative real-estate investment.

3. Not everyone’s a buyer.

Not everyone wants or needs to buy a home. You want your children to be able to buy a home, great, but what if they simply don’t want to? What if they want to rent? If they move to a different state but don’t think of it as a long-term or life-long place for them, they might not want to buy. They need to be able to rent from somewhere, then. Of course, if more people can buy, more people will own, and more people will be open to renting it out. However, this is a difficult proposition, I’d imagine. Renting isn’t a bad thing, it’s about how controlled it is, how regulated it is, and who ultimately benefits from the system.

If you’re gonna force large rental companies to sell their properties, you need to have a clear plan as to how the tenants can find other places to rent from. Again, there are a lot of people that rent not because they can’t afford to buy, but because they find that to be the best option for their particular situation. I think some kind of state or local buyback program could be good, and would allow the state to offer low-cost housing for many people, effectively flipping the rampant market speculation into a social service. Another thing could be to cap rent, I believe rent-control is a measure that already exists in some places. For example, if companies don’t want to pay the extra taxes, they would need to fulfill a certain quota of rent-controlled tenants. Something like that.

I’m just spitballing here, but I hope my input could be of some use to you!

I’m already gone…

Wah, good for you!

I’m invested solely in an all-world ETF, so I’m getting hit pretty hard by the market crashes in the US. It doesn’t really bother me too much, considering my time horizon, but still.

Good luck with your money!

Nowhere did I claim that billionaires are good.

Of course, nor did I mean to imply you did so!

I do get your point, and, on the surface level, I agree. However, I think it’s an inferior analysis of the situation.

Take your tiger metaphor; naturally, the rabid and hungry one is the most dangerous. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, they are both existential problems. I simply can’t celebrate, be satisfied, or even be appeased by the knowledge that we’re harbouring a hungry tiger, no matter what hungry and rabid tiger we may avoid by doing so. That’s my point.

It does seem we’re on the same page about this, to be honest… It’s just that your initial reply seemed a little — how do I put it… — irrelevant? It’s the Maxim of Quantity. We both agree that billionaires are fundamentally problematic, then why did you go and specify which ones are worse?

1. “Here’s a bowl of cereal. By the way, I didn’t piss in it.”

Yeah… I get that, but why would you even bring that up? Why say that? It doesn’t imply that you’re someone that pisses in cereal, but it does give off that feeling.

2. “Billionaires are bad. By the way, that kind of billionaire is worse.”

Yeah… I get that, but why would you even bring that up? Why say that? It doesn’t imply that you’re someone that thinks billionaires are good, but it does give off that feeling.

Do you pick up what I’m putting down?!

So? No billionaires at all are better than both cases. Bezos is evil too, any investment going towards him is terrible to. It’s better than Elon, but all this is terrible. Also, Bezos is not trying to preserve the status quo, he’s only trying to protect himself and his pockets, that’s all.

Not sure about that, but I can’t really say I disagree, fundamentally.

Well, Amazon isn’t exactly great for the EU, but at least it’s not Elon, IG…

It’s nice that Elon is getting hit where it hurts. Hopefully the EU benefits from this.

Well, it’s not “bad”, not really.

It’s more so about how authoritarian you are.

Enjoy :D

WHEN WILL SHE COME FOR ME!!! WHY MUST I REMAIN ALOOOOONE!!!

No, it most certainly is true. The left has decided that it’s acceptable and encouraged to stoop to the level of their enemies. You probably disagree with this because it’s a hard truth you don’t want to acknowledge; don’t worry, I see it all the time.

Sigh, there’s no stats on this, so I’ll refrain from further discussion…

It’s a waste of time and an effective distraction from what we should be doing instead.

Well.

Georgescu has strong ties to them

I see he’s praised the Iron Guard before. Makes sense.

Sigh… I really don’t like the way things have been going in Europe…

If you ask the average leftist on English-speaking internet forums

Seems pretty obvious you haven’t actually interacted with an average leftist, let me tell you, because that is not true…

I’ll say though, I’m torn, but leaning towards thinking this really wasn’t that bad. There’s a difference between allowing right-wing policy and opening the door to fascism. Should poison be allowed to run for main course?

Călin Georgescu seems to be a pretty clear-cut fascist, to be honest.

I shan’t assume even the obvious!!!

That’s a good way to put it, thanks! :D

Well, on one hand, I like the far-right getting some institutional push-back. On the other hand, I’m a little concerned with both the state of democracy — that such a candidate could get so many votes — and the disregard for the people’s vote — while there may have been significant Russian interference, to what extent should the courts intervene with what seems to be a genuinely popular candidate?

It does seem then that the less-than-great aspects of PieFed, from your perspective, are quality of life sort of things, rather than core aspects of the way PieFed works. That’s nice to hear :D

I’ve tried it out just a little, but I’ll definitely be exploring it more!

this Lemmy instance which will remain single user most likely.

You’re an evil person, keeping a name as cool as nocturnal garden all to yourself… Where has compassion gone? The world… The world is falling apart, one cool server-name at a time… /j