anarcho-queer:
ridethe-spiral:
alittlelateforalot:
ihaveabsolutelynoidea:
godofman:
Because homeless people can’t afford property tax or house payments. I’m sorry but I really would rather a house be empty than just given away. It does need to be paid for by someone.
Are you fucking serious
I wanna see you be homeless and then tell me that empty houses should stay empty
BOOOOOOOOO, fuck that guy. When you were putting your head up your ass to type that did it occur to you that empty houses don’t generate any fucking revenue either? Property taxes and home payments ain’t getting made if the house is empty. fuck you so hard dude
Do we not take in to account that many of these homes are potential income makers for the owners? I’m sure these statistics are based off of homes for rent also, that if given to a homeless person to use, lose the potential income gained from either renting it or leaving it vacant. Because a homeless person cannot afford that bills or property taxes to begin with, the owner is losing income. Giving these homes away would result in an overall decrease of income for more people than it benefits, in plain terms. I’m not looking at this from any other viewpoint than economical though. I’m not saying that homeless people don’t deserve homes, just that they don’t deserve homes paid for by other people.
In other words: Wealth > Homelessness
Who gives a fuck about the owners? They’re the one’s contributing the most to homelessness by hoarding property for the purpose of profit. We could literally abolish homelessness if it wasn’t for them and the capitalist system that values private property over human lives.
I dont think some of you realize that the income loss isn’t for one person. The company who built the house loses profits yes but so the employees who drew up the plans, the contractors, the builders, the suppliers, distributors, etc
It isn’t as simple as wealth > homelessness people rely on houses selling to make a living to support themselves and their families. When a house doesn’t sell it affects DOZENS of families and people, not just one sole owner
The job of the “company who built the house” and contractors must be done before the ‘certificate of occupancy’ can even be obtained. Only after then can the process of finding tenants begin. How how exactly does is the contractor’s (who more than likely signed a contract detailing that they must be paid by the owner when they complete their job) income affected by a lack of tenancy? I think you’re just pulling shit out of your ass.
