That would affect a lot of farmers. A farm is a business, and even smaller farmers (what’s left of them, anyway; doing this isn’t going to help) often own their land and buildings under a corporate structure owned entirely by themselves.
If it could be limited to corporate structure with more than a few shareholders, that could work.
Yeah I’m just an ordinary guy, you know? I don’t have all the answers. I’m just saying we need to look further, consider more options. Maybe your modification is better or necessary. Maybe not. My point was we need to stop merely putting our finger on the scale to create incentives to make capitalism do better and just consider perhaps a solution lies, at least in part, outside that framework.
Well, that’s part of what collaboration (in good faith!) is for. No one of us has all the answers, but we can put forward proposals, hash it out, and hopefully what comes out is workable for a broad selection of the working class. Farms, factory, and office workers alike.
Problem is, conservatives only need to poison the well a little bit to destroy the presumption of good faith. Any pointing out of issues that would affect one group disproportionately is treated with suspicion, and the whole thing falls apart.
“omg theres a small subset of America who might be mildly inconvenienced when we ensure housing is affordable for everyone.” yep, a hell of a talking point.
And an individual farmer live in multiple houses? Nope. One of those houses is a viable residence and the rest are typically rented out in my experience. The exact behavior were trying to discourage.
That would affect a lot of farmers. A farm is a business, and even smaller farmers (what’s left of them, anyway; doing this isn’t going to help) often own their land and buildings under a corporate structure owned entirely by themselves.
If it could be limited to corporate structure with more than a few shareholders, that could work.
Yeah I’m just an ordinary guy, you know? I don’t have all the answers. I’m just saying we need to look further, consider more options. Maybe your modification is better or necessary. Maybe not. My point was we need to stop merely putting our finger on the scale to create incentives to make capitalism do better and just consider perhaps a solution lies, at least in part, outside that framework.
Well, that’s part of what collaboration (in good faith!) is for. No one of us has all the answers, but we can put forward proposals, hash it out, and hopefully what comes out is workable for a broad selection of the working class. Farms, factory, and office workers alike.
Problem is, conservatives only need to poison the well a little bit to destroy the presumption of good faith. Any pointing out of issues that would affect one group disproportionately is treated with suspicion, and the whole thing falls apart.
A farm isn’t a sfh
The house for the farm usually is, and it’s covered by everything else.
Split the land the house is on to it’s own lot and sell it then. Or knock it down/rezone it so it’s not legal for living/renting.
You’re handing your opponents a talking point against it before you even start.
“omg theres a small subset of America who might be mildly inconvenienced when we ensure housing is affordable for everyone.” yep, a hell of a talking point.
Farmers. They’re part of the working class, and they’re important.
And an individual farmer live in multiple houses? Nope. One of those houses is a viable residence and the rest are typically rented out in my experience. The exact behavior were trying to discourage.
The proposal above doesn’t make a distinction between first and second homes, only that a corporation owns it.