5 ms·

It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in t

It's different. If your home was previously paid for in full, then it's your private property. If I'm paying someone on a monthly basis to allow me to live in their residence, then it's obviously not mine. Asking someone to keep paying an annual tax on something that's: 1. completely theirs 2. essential to their life is a form of feudalism and serfdom and a flagrant violation of their right to be secure in their life, possessions and property. You can try to argue this as much as you want and invoke all sorts of broken analogies, but it is what it is.

dllthomas 12y ago
You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    If you're going to play silly semantic games like saying your discussion partner doesn't believe theft is wrong and immoral, then don't be surprised when people find you tedious to talk with.
csomar 12y ago
Think about living in a house in a community like living in an apartment in a building. There are monthly costs related to the building syndicate so they can fix the building for you and keep the maintenance services. Same go for having a house. If you had a house in the middle of nowhere, then you might be right to complain.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- VexXtreme 12y ago
  Ok, let me present a simple scenario. Imagine the following: Initially you're doing well in life. You're making decent money at your tech job and you eventually end up buying a pretty nice house. Things are good for a while, but at some point you get old/sick and are unable to work anymore. You are able to survive on what you have and perhaps have a fairly decent life, but it's not a lot. You like the house where you live and you consider it yours. But for some reason, the price of real estate in your neighborhood skyrockets and the government reevaluates your tax liabilities based on the new valuation of your house. You used to have a pretty good life, but now you just can't afford the new property tax anymore and are forced to sell the property, move halfway across town and buy some dingy shack that you actually can afford. Question: is it fair of the government to evict you from the place that you fully own and where you lived for ages, because of someone's rent-seeking behavior and based on certain factors that are completely outside of your control? Are you telling me that you wouldn't feel even a little bit upset in that kind of scenario? edit: Also, I thought that downvoting is reserved for rude discourse and blatant violations of the HN rules, not if you disagree with someone's opinion. This place is becoming just like Reddit.
  - cardinalfang 12y ago
    It is a reasonable option. It also happens to be shared by those complaining about the effect of tech companies on the housing market, who don't seem terribly popular around here.

dllthomas 12y ago

You beg the question. That said, I really don't think this is likely enough to go anywhere constructive or useful, so I'm going to beg off.

VexXtreme 12y ago
I agree. It all comes down to your personal belief system. If I believe that theft is wrong and immoral and you disagree, then we will never be able to reach common ground. Goodbye.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  If you're going to play silly semantic games like saying your discussion partner doesn't believe theft is wrong and immoral, then don't be surprised when people find you tedious to talk with.

csomar 12y ago

Think about living in a house in a community like living in an apartment in a building. There are monthly costs related to the building syndicate so they can fix the building for you and keep the maintenance services. Same go for having a house. If you had a house in the middle of nowhere, then you might be right to complain.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
VexXtreme 12y ago
Ok, let me present a simple scenario. Imagine the following: Initially you're doing well in life. You're making decent money at your tech job and you eventually end up buying a pretty nice house. Things are good for a while, but at some point you get old/sick and are unable to work anymore. You are able to survive on what you have and perhaps have a fairly decent life, but it's not a lot. You like the house where you live and you consider it yours. But for some reason, the price of real estate in your neighborhood skyrockets and the government reevaluates your tax liabilities based on the new valuation of your house. You used to have a pretty good life, but now you just can't afford the new property tax anymore and are forced to sell the property, move halfway across town and buy some dingy shack that you actually can afford. Question: is it fair of the government to evict you from the place that you fully own and where you lived for ages, because of someone's rent-seeking behavior and based on certain factors that are completely outside of your control? Are you telling me that you wouldn't feel even a little bit upset in that kind of scenario? edit: Also, I thought that downvoting is reserved for rude discourse and blatant violations of the HN rules, not if you disagree with someone's opinion. This place is becoming just like Reddit.
- cardinalfang 12y ago
  It is a reasonable option. It also happens to be shared by those complaining about the effect of tech companies on the housing market, who don't seem terribly popular around here.