3 ms·

edit: I was a bit blind and didn't realize that my point was made an hour ago (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 https://news.ycombinator.com/

edit: I was a bit blind and didn't realize that my point was made an hour ago (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29229793 ) already. So I'll change my previous post to ask the following question: > That and the location is part of what gives a property its value. Would you support policies that would keep your property from increasing in value? Or at least to keep it from increasing relative to inflation? If not, why not?

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
It would be weird to make a policy just to prevent people's property from increasing in value, don't you think? Especially if you consider that improving the location (building better roads and infrastructure) would also increase the value. That would be a typical socialist failure, I think, that would only ensure nobody can have nice things. I don't think I would oppose policies that help other people, as long as they don't devalue my property (hypothetically, as I don't actually own any real estate).