• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I see no reason to believe that letting this guy make unilateral decisions is somehow better than taxing him appropriately and using the revenue to build public housing.

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Did anyone say that it was better this way? He could just go buy another yatch instead.

      Dont let perfection be the enemy of better

      • chingadera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 minute ago

        Man, Im starting to think I’m tarded. Something about this isn’t letting my brain work, please do more sentences

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This statement might be true, but we’re not taxing him. Should he just donate his money to the government?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Sure there are lots of failures to the way we govern ourselves. This shouldn’t be a need. The reality is that it is a need and that person did what he could. Have you?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      5 hours ago

      If every billionaire did this and ended homelessness perhaps they would have a point about their wealth hoarding. I won’t be holding my breath for this to happen though. Tax the rich!

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Absolutely. We don’t need kings making decisions like this. The downside is the difficulty in forcing government and the anti-help-anyone segment of our society to spend such taxation correctly to actually help people.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’m also angry he did a good thing despite the government’s abject failure to tax the rich.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Especially because his unilateral decision is optional. Someone got lucky with his choice vs someone was guaranteed an outcome.

    • suoko@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Corruption could make that money go to some people’s 3rd, 4rd or their relatives houses UNFORTUNATELY . The question here is: what about those who pay a rent???

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Corruption already makes most millionaires’ and billionaires’ money go to that anyway. At least if it’s taxed some of it will actually go to toward necessary housing, maybe even frequently enough that it’s not newsworthy when it does, the way it is now.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            You’re worried that if we collect money from the wealthy through taxation, it might not be used to reduce homelessness. However, if we don’t tax the wealthy, they’ll spend the money on their own goals, which definitely won’t be to reduce homelessness. While you’re right that taxes are largely wasted, they do still fund important things such as fire departments, medical research, and yes, government housing. It’s true that we need to implement better tax management systems, but we also need a wealth tax.

            • suoko@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 minutes ago

              I never said we don’t need a taxation system, I’m just reporting what’s happening almost everywhere.

              Alternatively a possibility is to give the public sector to woman, they should be a little bit more immune to corruption (I might be wrong though).

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        So we’re so scared of corruption that (checks notes) we stop even trying for fairness and instead just let rich fucks make all the decisions and hope for the best?

        • suoko@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It’s clear that a lot of people switched to that way of thinking, thanks to those corrupted people.

          That’s what current voting results say all around