nat_turner_overdrive

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

100% on their rental value, which for many landlords is directly tied to massive loans they’re underwater on. That’s why they’d rather have unoccupied rentals with nominally high values than reduce the rental price to match the market and have their loans called in.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

No, the rental value is the nominal price of the rental. This is extremely simple, a child could understand this. The landlords have gotten loans based on the assumed rental income, which is not $0.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

Seriously? OK, you must not really have thought about this before. They are listing their properties for rent but nobody is renting them. They’re listing those properties at the nominal rental value. So the tax would be on that nominal rental cost. This is like, babytown frolics level simple to connect the dots on even if you don’t agree with it - understanding this should have clicked like two replies back.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

nominal income

nominal income

nominal income

you’re welcome to disagree but wasting this much time pretending to not understand is just childish, have a very nice day weirdo

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

amazing, now you understand and it’s almost like I didn’t have to waste any time explaining this stupid concept to you

thanks, good job, very useful

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

I literally just tried to explain the idea that you were feigning misunderstanding, I have not endorsed anything. You’re typical of the “HEXBEAR IS RUINING THE LEMMYVERSE” chud - making up ideas in your head and getting mad about them. Reading comprehension and your big feelings really get in the way of your engagement with the lemmyverse.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

Edit: This dude’s banner is a 9/11 photo. Nice… I’m arguing with a literal troglodyte over the semantics of a dumb article title.

michael-laugh

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

The best part of this is the person whose idea I was trying to explain to you - and never once endorsed - isn’t a Hexbear user. You’re just full-on making up shit when all I was trying to do was explain the concept a user from a completely different instance suggested. Congrats on being too dumb to both a) get the idea and b) attribute the idea to the correct instance.

This is all entirely too perfect, I hope you don’t delete your replies because they are a perfect encapsulation of the liberal anti-hexbear derangement.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

One more reply, since I expect you haven’t got the testicular fortitude to keep up - I, and probably all hexbears, think landlords shouldn’t exist at all. Your idea that some liberal plan to tax them differently is indicative of hexbear is a fundamental ignorance of our actual politics.

Landlords should not exist in any fashion. mao-aggro-shining

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

if that’s the case it’s weird that they decided to be a pedant and pretend not to understand the extremely plain and simple original statement. It’s plain they disagreed with it but didn’t want to just say that.

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

They got mad about my 9/11 user banner image, beyond just intentionally pretending to misunderstand instead of stating their objection. I think my chud detector is in good working order tbh

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

next time just explicitly state your objection instead of pretending to misunderstand kombucha-disgust

nat_turner_overdrive , 10 months ago

They got mad about my 9/11 user banner image, beyond just intentionally pretending to misunderstand instead of stating their objection. I think my chud detector is in good working order tbh