This is actually an older news story, and it does appear as though she recovered from this before her death.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14389544
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
1158 points (96.8% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9876 readers
416 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Should people get free housing at 92? At what point does a squatter get a free pass? Should we force the owner to give charity to the elderly squatter? What makes her more deserving than, say, Doctors Without Borders?
Developed nations give them enough money to pay rent after they retire.
Because you know, they shouldn't have to work in order to live when they can't anymore.
An answer to your questions in order:
Yes. At the point where an owner can easily afford to lose that building as a tax write-off. Yes, if their own wellbeing isn't dependent on that property, with a reasonable compensation for their loss. She was there first.
It may not be the right answer, but it is one.
She was there first?!? It's the owner's building! What does "easily afford to lose that building as a tax write-off" even mean? What do you know about tax? I presume zero based on your comment. smh
You forgot your own question?
In the context of whether Doctors Without Borders or her, the only difference is who was there first.
The tax write-off bit means being rich enough that donating the building to charity won't even make a dent in their wealth.
As for what I know about tax, only that I'd be happier knowing it's being put to good use where it should be and not where it is being.
So govt forces owner to donate to 93 year old squatter charity instead of donating to a different charity of their choice. Still a forced donation because money is fungible, doesn't matter who got there first.
Codify that. Ready set go.
Government forces people to donate their property for specific projects often enough. This wouldn't be much different. A proper government that is a representative of the people it governs wouldn't allow these type of situations in the first place, but those rarely exist, so we deal with what there is.
"Codify" huh? If you're looking for lawmakers, you're in the wrong place.
Profit is worth less than human lives. If you disagree, also in the wrong place for that.
If you're talking about eminent domain, the gov has to pay fair market value for the assets it takes, at least in the USA. So you're just flat out wrong using that as an example because in this context you guys are talking about the government forcing someone to provide something to somebody else for free, or just seizing their property (!) to do it themselves.
I'm looking for you to be able to articulate a specific rule or set of rules with hard numbers and thresholds that applies to literally everyone. You can walk around all you want saying rich people are big bad meanies and should give this poor woman free housing. But it turns out people will always act in their own rational self interest, and until you can figure out a way to codify your values into law, you might as well be writing letters to santa. I wish everything were perfect and nobody wants for anything, but the universe just doesn't work that way. It's hard to believe there are so many people naive enough to not know this by now.
I'm definitely in the wrong place because all I'm hearing is a bunch of morons.
Guess you only read what upsets you.
You want hard numbers from people who don't have hard numbers, who didn't take statistics, economics or specialize in this domain. If you want hard numbers, go get them from where they're available and accurate, talk to the people who can give you exact results, in percentages or whichever method you need. Then come back and let us bunch of morons reject it all on the basis that the numbers are rigged.
Let's keep it simple here. The owner wanted to evict an old lady. 93 years old. Was she rich and just didn't want to pay or was she poor and wasn't able to pay? Was she able to go somewhere else specific or was she to be thrown out in the street without a care? The context matters. Here, it's the difference between losing a potential income and likely causing someone's death. There's no contest on what the priority should be. Don't like it, raise hell with those in power, not the powerless.
Ok so govt is the landlord then, got it. Who gets to decide who gets free housing? Housing inventory is limited so somebody is going to be homeless. Seems like the govt agency, or worse, agent, has the keys to the kingdom and wields a lot of power in your scenario.
It's just especially sad and cruel, in reality housing should be decommodified.
What does that even mean? Concrete, lumber, electric, plumbing, plus location location location that everyone else wants. How can it NOT be a commodity with fluctuating prices based on basic market forces like supply and demand? Explain
Decommodification means to cease production for the purpose of profit. Instead, have robust public housing and personal house ownership, rather than allow private landlording. Red Vienna is a similar example in real life.
You're begging the question that the squatter is the recipient of charity, and not the landlord.