deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nah, nonprofit state-run landlords (in countries which have them) are great, and strong protections for renters are good. I don’t want to buy a house, I move around a lot, don’t wanna deal with lawyers every time I move, don’t wanna be responsible for maintenance, I just want some basic level of security and not to be completely ripped off.
Why is 85% the magic number? Just because you say so? I do agree that increased property taxes are important, but there’s no reason not to also make rental contracts less exploitative.
Oh, I see, you aren’t actually interested in nuance, just trolling
It’s you who has the logic the wrong way around. The rich profiting from the healthcare system is why the healthcare system is bad, that doesn’t exclude them from profiting from other things too. In your analogy OP’s statement equates to “this Toyota is a car” (or “this car is a Toyota” depending on which thing is the rich and which thing is ruining a societal good).
Because it’s cheaper than paying for your own private healthcare
That doesn’t sound ridiculously nuanced to me, that sounds straightforwardly like what OP said.
That is absolutely not certain. Sure, it probably won’t be trump, he’ll be too old to be capable by then. But the republicans could easily find someone meeting most of those criteria, and they still have 4 years to try an insurrection
Building massive production capacity to replace all the cars just locks us in to having cars though
Everest is a bit unique in that regard since, as the highest peak, by definition it can’t have any higher peaks within any contour around it.