I get that he’s financing it, but that’s not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too lang.
Which is why this needs to be a government task, and the rich shouldn’t be begged for voluntary charity, they should be taxed.
Sweden had the Million Programme back in ~1960, which produced a significant amount of the housing people live in to this day. Just shitloads of commie blocks (and houses, actually) because they recognized that people needed a place to live.
You can find apartments in these buildings for $200 per month, they’ll be tiny but they’re fine. $600 is pretty standard and gets you something i’d almost consider luxurious for a single person.
And these days there’s still a lot of subsidies going into housing, plus the fact that a lot of the apartment buildings are commissioned by municipal housing companies (i.e. owned by the municipality, and not operated for profit) or by what are effectively housing co-ops.
Yeah, I don’t want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can’t rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who’ve hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
No it isn’t? Usually it just means owning stock in a company, that others want to buy. That stock isn’t “stolen”, neither is the value that others assign to it.
It’s why the tech millionaire financing this isn’t a tech billionaire.
I get that he’s financing it, but that’s not sustainable if you want to implement something similar around the country.
I love the idea, and the tiny house village looks amazing! But if it relies on a millionaire to voluntarily subsidize the project, I can’t see it lasting too long.
Now, that brings us to a wonderful new option: tax the rich more than we do.
The top 5 billionaires could fund 1000s of these tiny home villages with just a fraction of a percent increase on their hoarded wealth.
Which is why this needs to be a government task, and the rich shouldn’t be begged for voluntary charity, they should be taxed.
Sure it is. You have to have government fund it, like a normal social democracy would do.
Any examples?
Sweden had the Million Programme back in ~1960, which produced a significant amount of the housing people live in to this day. Just shitloads of commie blocks (and houses, actually) because they recognized that people needed a place to live.
You can find apartments in these buildings for $200 per month, they’ll be tiny but they’re fine. $600 is pretty standard and gets you something i’d almost consider luxurious for a single person.
And these days there’s still a lot of subsidies going into housing, plus the fact that a lot of the apartment buildings are commissioned by municipal housing companies (i.e. owned by the municipality, and not operated for profit) or by what are effectively housing co-ops.
Look at riksbyggen for example, they’re kind of the bread and butter housing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksbyggen
Public services don’t need to be profitable to be sustainable. You just need to tax base to be okay with it.
Yeah, I don’t want them to be profitable, but sustainable.
Even if taxpayers are paying for it, you can’t rely on the (struggling) general population to lift people out of homelessness. Let the rich carry that burden. They are the ones who’ve hoarded money that should have gone to everyone else.
That’s not how money works?
Yes, because hoarding billions means it was stolen from someone else. Either through low wages, low taxes, loopholes, or unethical business practices.
Nobody should ever be able to accumulate billions of dollars. We have people who will be trillionaires in our lifetime. Unjustifiable.
No it isn’t? Usually it just means owning stock in a company, that others want to buy. That stock isn’t “stolen”, neither is the value that others assign to it.