this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
92 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
777 readers
415 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IMO the fair amount doesn't cover taxes. Property taxes in the US are mostly a measure to cool down the rate at which landowners accumulate wealth from land value rising. Since the renter isn't getting equity in your scenario, if the renter is paying the property taxes then the landlord is profiting from the system where every other landlord hoards housing to increase its price.
Another way to look at it is that if the property tax didn't exist at all in this scenario, the landlord would still be accumulating wealth without working at the expense of the people who have to buy the house later, i.e. they're exploiting them (or, more likely, the future tenants who will pay off the future landlord's mortgage).
I think that’s a totally fair point
Main reason I said maybe is I hadn’t thought it through thoroughly and didn’t want to take a stance lol