Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This isn't well developed enough for a main thread post, but it's something I've been mulling around lately.
Are we too hard on small scale corruption from politicians? Politicians motivated by implementing their grand vision seems like they'll screw things up. If they're motivated by accolades from their ideological group members it can also lead to bad things. A guy who wants to keep things running smoothly so he can skim a little doesn't sound too bad in comparison.
This is partly motivated by thinking about the housing situation in Ontario (Canada). Various interests have collided to create a continuing housing bubble. Many politicians have invested in rental units. Municipal governments have shifted to development fees to avoid property tax increases. The urban left has been fighting for no housing until there's enough subsidized affordable housing for the needy, ie them. No one puts pressure on the bureaucrats at various levels of government to approve things. Trudeau has been brining in vast numbers of immigrants despite the housing shortage to keep the bubble going.
Here's my idea. On top of the rent, each unit has to pay a monthly $30 fee. $10 for their municipal, provincial, and federal representative. This money goes straight into the politicians bank account.
Suddenly politicians will have an interest in getting new rental housing on the market.
Or simply run in high-population districts that have a high proportion of renters.
The average MP would get about $58k/yr (2 million units * $10 / 343 seats in the upcoming election) from that fee, but some districts are three times as large as others and renting is unequally distributed.
The budget has funding for an additional 131k units by 2031, which is nearly 1% per year. Wow, all that work for a few hundred bucks. It's nearly a third of what you'd need to keep up with inflation.
Every time I see something like this my head spins. You don't need to budget for housing, it literally builds itself if you let it.
To paraphrase a great man of our era: regulate it until it stops moving. Then subsidize it.
At first glance that might sound like a libertarian quip, but I think it more or less describes a good portion of government actions.
Building new units in any significant quantity is practically illegal. Also housing vouchers for poor people. Sorry, all we can do is restrict supply and subsidize demand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link