The amount of vacant units in cities where people actually want to live tends to be highly exaggerated (Manhattan is generally sitting somewhere around a 5% vacancy rate), but twisting income tax into some weird kind of tax on unrealized value is administratively messy and completely unnecessary when we already have much simpler solutions in the forms of land value taxes or even basic property taxes. Not to mention, increasing taxes on rental units just increases everyone's rent, which is a rather odd strategy if the aim is to make housing more affordable.
People really will propose literally anything except the wild concept of building more housing.
Food is also an essential need, but it absolutely has a massive profit-driven market around it that generally works. I'd argue that there are specific flaws in the housing market that can and should be addressed, not that the very concept of having a housing market is inherently flawed.
And who's paying the construction company or contractor?
Like, if you want to advocate for the abolition of private property ownership, that's fine, and it's a model that has actually worked halfway decently in some countries (though the lifetime leases aren't necessarily that functionally different than ownership). But just own up to what you're actually proposing and state that you think the government should own all property.
Especially in large cities like New York, where there's an endless amount of very good food, most apartment kitchens are very small, and many people make a pretty decent amount of money. plenty of people cook very little or not at all.
The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults is preventing thousands of premature deaths each year, a landmark study finds.[1] It saved the lives of at least 19,200 adults aged 55 to 64 over the four-year period from 2014 to 2017. Conversely, 15,600 older adults died prematurely because of state decisions not to expand Medicaid. (See Figure 1; see Table 1 for state-by-state estimates.) The lifesaving impacts of Medicaid expansion are large: an estimated 39 to 64 percent reduction in annual mortality rates for older adults gaining coverage.
I imagine the several thousand people who are not dead might disagree with the assessment that the ACA (which wasn't a particularly bipartisan endeavor, if you care to check the vote count) did nothing but increase insurance costs.
I don't care enough to respond to the rest of that drivel, and I know you have no interest in facts anyway, but for any readers passing by, there are actual facts that you should look up.
Justice Jackson is on the Supreme Court, and would not be if Manchin (or Sinema, for that matter) hadn't approved.
So yes, they have helped the Dems. Not to mention, every significant piece of legislation that passed in the last Congress could have been killed by either of them.
If Manchin didn't exist, not a single piece of Biden's agenda over the past two years would have passed, including things like Justice Jackson joining the Supreme Court.
Yes, he's incredibly annoying, but he's also representing the people of West Virginia, of all places. Would you really prefer a 6-2 Supreme Court? I wouldn't.
Oh no, the Dems have now lost the Senate and will be unable to appoint any judges, the importance of which I think has become abundantly clear over the past several years, but at least, for a brief moment, we got a little ideological satisfaction.
It doesn't; this guy is just unaware of what 'right to work' means (admittedly, it's a deliberately obtuse name), and seems to have no willingness to entertain the possibility that he might not know something.
Again, that is not what 'right to work' means. You are talking about 'at-will' employment, which is a completely different topic that is essentially unrelated.
Right to work refers specifically to laws that make mandatory union membership illegal. It has absolutely nothing to do with at-will employment, termination, or anything relevant here.
I think they were rushing it to try to take advantage of Twitter's X-plosion. From my understanding, it was a bit of a mad dash behind the scenes to get to the initial release.
Do you have any evidence that the placement in algorithmic timeline was monetized? They have said that they expect to eventually roll out advertising, but for now at least, there aren't any (explicitly inserted) ads.
I've noticed that the Following tab for me is kinda empty since a lot of people I'm following aren't posting much yet. I think the algorithmic view was mostly there to prevent the app from feeling like a ghost town as it was getting started.
