Law is complicated for many reasons. Private people (here referred to as the personally taxed) don’t have the means, both financial and time, sometimes also the ability to understand the language used in lawmaking, which isn’t made to be easily understood, to keep up with the law. Normally people aren’t really expected to, if you’re a “good” person (morality being subjective and cultural, of course), you’re unlikely to break a law and get punished for it (not diving into edge cases of people forced by their circumstances). But then you’re forced to comply with tax law. If it’s automated, you can get unrightfully made to pay more without your knowledge. If it’s not, you get forced into a game staged against you. People shouldn’t be taxed. Tax should be solely handled by the companies, because they have the means to hire people dedicated to taxes. I feel like this is very important and tax is frequently brought up in many ways, but I don’t see people speaking of this and I’d love to!
Disclaimer: I file for tax literally refreshing for it to be available and help other people with their tax. It’s precisely why I think personal taxation is wrong. I know too many people who paid way too much in tax and didn’t know and cannot claim it, because it’s been too long since.
Of course! But I think it should be smartly implemented to ensure they cannot fight against it by appealing to poor people with delusions of becoming rich one day. Instead of choosing a wealth tax per income, I’d put a wealth tax per property owned, making it so one person can only own however much housing their family needs. I.e. dictating it by square meters per person inside the family, so they cannot game it through making it so husband owns one thing, wife another and child another while they live in one place and rent the rest (and so the rich who live in unreasonable mansions cannot say “I only own one” while their mansion is bigger than housing for hundreds). And of course a tax on unspent wealth, but I’ll be fully honest and admit I’ve no idea how I’d approach it not to screw over people trying to save up for retirement or people saving up to buy their first home.
by ensuring that those needs are guaranteed by the state regardless of one’s ability to work.
Of course! I also don’t believe in privately owned housing, and really hate when families don’t move into appropriate sized housing once their children move out to make space for families with children who need these, however, in the truly bisexual fashion, I play both revolutionist approach and reformist approach. Reform will not sate me, but I still feel inclined to seek ways to improve conditions for the working class
even if temporarily.
Honestly, we can just say, one house per household. No need to get into finer and finer graduations of “how much is too much”
Like, the problem is hedge funds and investment companies buying houses to rent, and people who own like 10 houses. There is a lot of people that have far in excess of what is needed, before we would ever need to actually break it down by square foot.
Nah. I know of too many families living in way too much of confined spaces and of too many old people who feel lonely having multiple spare rooms, but won’t move to make way for families who need the space. And no, endlessly building isn’t the solution. Urban planning can take only so much horizontal space and nature literally needs the horizontal space, because, unlike humanity, it cannot go higher.
I honestly don’t think those are the people that are the cause of a housing crisis.