Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
I want to be very clear, that I meant this sincerely:
I have a similar attitude on a lot of the things that you mentioned in your post, and take similar personal actions. We're aligned on a lot.
I'm by no means moving my family from my detached inner city SFH into a row house to take a stand, even though I think that is the type of home ownership that is more beneficial for society in the case of a family like ours. The existence of my large yard is contributing to taking away an opportunity for housing form someone else, and I don't think I'm wealthy enough to justify being able to afford that.
There is no implication you should sell your place in Canmore or feel bad about it.
My point is purely that many luxury choices are artificially cheap, and don't represent their cost to broader society. I use cheap pretty loosely here, as this relates to taxation of wealth as well as the lack of ability of our free market to properly price in things like environmental impact etc.
So I am saying that the systems that let people pay dick all for taxes and buy yachts, or contribute to the rising rates of second home ownership, or a huge amount of people live in inner city houses taking up extra wide lots like my house absolutely contribute to other people struggling to attain housing.
Is it on us to give up what we have to fix it? Nope. Helping where an individual can (charity, creating jobs etc) is great. As is voting.
But we have a problem, IMO.
|
Boy, you took the brunt of my full-on assault, eh? Haha, didn't mean it like that FWIW. Was just a jumping off point.
I agree with your post here.
Out of thanks at the moment.