They can barely split it because they’re all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap

No, it shouldn’t hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it’s not just people that can afford them. And it’s not as far an edge case as you think, I believe

Governments really should be shifting entirely to Linux. Reliance on corps not to corp is not good practice for a government

He could’ve funded 4 months of American healthcare!

I built my egg out of solid steel, up to code ada accessibility, and denial. You’re not getting in

My extended family in Michigan keeps a hunting cabin that they split costs between 5 people on and can still barely make the mortage… Is that clearly able to afford more taxes?

I mean this genuinely is a good concept.

The powerful is inherently right. Sides absolutely matter and anyone who is not leftist is siding with powerful

Groceries don’t really get more expensive, because the methods for producing food don’t really get less efficient over time; if anything, it’s more efficient. So there’s no real reason for them to become more expensive.

There is reason though. Making them more expensive increases money in flow. Prices aren’t just based on supply

If people who care about climate don’t have children, there will be less people who try to put laws in place the help the situation.

The difference could lie in the viewpoint that I believe it is their fault in that case. Deserve? No, absolutely not, but I would see it as suicide, rather than an extra judicial punishment. Like falling off a cliff when rock climbing, it’s a risk they took when stealing.

I believe it’s a reasonable thing morally to do. Maybe not smart. Not going to argue it’s the best idea. But, reasonable moral thing to do.

There’s games with offline accounts, pictures that don’t sync properly – age of a phone is not the only thing that matters.

I don’t think insurance is a bad idea to have, I think the standpoint that insurance should be the only recourse is what’s bad

Yes, police will do nothing.

I never said it wasn’t. So you misunderstood. Having insurance is reasonable.

Are you intentionally ignoring what I’m trying to say?

At no point did I argue insurance shouldn’t exist. I said they shouldn’t be expected to use it as such

Insurance exists to allow thieves to get off with your stuff with no recourse? Ignoring anything that could be unrecoverable ~ and that insurance is overpriced for it.

Quite simply, that should be the thief’s decision to make. It’s their risk to undertake, it was their decision to make that choice to rob and steal.

You can’t commit a crime because someone else also committed a crime first. Get it?

Legality is not morality.

Pretty sure you can also get your phone insured for theft.

No individual should be expected to use insurance to protect themselves from theft as a solution to it. That’s a crazy take.

It is a thing there, in fact.

… Are sewers private in your area? Must suck man