This is a Union in the United States. No class solidarity, just class cucks eager to defend the richest man on the planet. To defend a corporation which pays zero federal taxes.
Stop saying workers have no time for activism, these cucks have plenty of time to shill for capitalism.
Unions have been total shit in the US since Reagan's destruction of Patco. The union bureaucracy is often outright class collaborationist.
There's your problem right there.
This.
Leaving aside the shittiness of US unions, you can't ignore that this tax law (like most tax laws) was drafted to be deliberately divisive and nonsensical.
Well the plan was to deliberately fuck with Bezos, they just did it in a retarded way. They shoild have gone for something sneakier like LVT.
This all comes down to "affordable housing" aka rent-controlled apartments and free public housing. The average renter has no reason to support either because they are not helped by it, as they make too much money to qualify for the needs-based rent controlled and public housing units. The same thing happens in San Francisco, where renters who have rent controlled units ally with homeowners against new housing. Then when the rent controlled renter dies the landlord then relists as a market rate unit and makes a shitton of money due to the capped supply causing insane prices. And in general, "affordable housing" is explicitly made to work within the capitalist model because it is a form of capitalism, one which is designed to benefit property owners while keeping renters divided between each other.
Also Amazon has an unlimited ability to plop their HQ down almost anywhere, making competition between cities fierce. This means that Amazon has the ability to move all their workers elsewhere, causing a housing glut that means no new construction jobs which puts all local construction workers out of work. Which is why they're against it, because they profit from Amazon.
All housing should be free. Free market housing is going to be completely abandoned in the 21st century I think, just like free market agriculture was in the 20th century.
The amount of people in the agricultural sector is now less than 1% of America's overall population, whereas the population of Americans owning homes will only increase as population growth flattens out. As America gets older the percentage of people who own a home will probably increase, depending entirely on how the student loan issue plays out.
Even if housing becomes just as subsidized as agriculture is, there are still landlords and renters except the former is legally guaranteed to break even.
If governments stop giving tax incentives to home owners you will see a large drop in home ownership. This is likely going to happen as part of the next wave of austerity measures. Trump already tried it in the US. It's only a matter of time.
Unlikely. America is over. After it loses the war it is going to start it will probably turn back into the shithole it was prior to the second world war.
The only real tax incentive for home ownership is the lack of Federal property taxes, but these will not be enacted ever because homeowners will say No. Both Social Security and Medicare are easier targets and they constitute over 2/3rds of America's budget. The healthcare industry will get fucked long before homeowners do. With those two things eliminated the Dept. of Defense then consumes about half of America's entire budget, and this number can be increased by privatizing other government functions like highways.
At no point during this do homeowners get hurt. In fact due to the lack of social security fears about senior poverty would drive many out of the cities and into rural areas where housing is affordable, accepting a lower class lifestyle to avoid complete destitution within urban zones.
Looses what war?
Why would the population of homeowners only increase? Like as a proportion of the population? Aren't more and more people living with their parents into their 30s and so on?
Unions suck in most western countries, aside from maybe France where they actually seem to fight.
yes and yes, but the latter trend can change as people gradually give up on living in urban zones rather than buying in some periphery area. This will become harder and stronger over the next few decades.
Why would they do this?
That's why western unions are only ever good in places and sectors where they are basically illegal or not institutionalized.
$800/mo mortgage payment for a $150,000 shack (about 15 years of payments) vs $2500 rent payment to a landlord
You forgot the 5 hour commute though.
The whole "urban zones" vs "periphery" is just fluff. All you're saying is there's a trend of people moving from areas that are growing more expensive to areas that are less expensive. This has always been a thing. It's not going to suddenly create more homeowners.
Where I live you actually would move into a more urban area if you were looking for affordability. The peripherarys prices are jacked up by white flight, while poor people are able to easily buy up housing in de-industrialized urban centers.
not if they work a shittier job
yes but not many deindustrialized urban zones exist, at least not outside the midwest. But even then that is all brownfield land that is probably part of a superfund project so it can't be sold
Mainstream American unions have been chauvinistic garbage from their very inception. They launched vicious pogroms against foreign workers, barred black proles from joining and supported the Vietnam War.
Not denying that american unions aren't scum, but why would anyone support this?
let's say you're a NIMBY and you want big business to fuck off so your town remains an open air retirement community. A similar pathology exists in the SF Bay Area.
TAXES ARE SOCIALISM
KILL ROSA
MADE BAY
SOCDEM GANG
but homeownership has been on the decline
Eh typical americans being morons. They let businesses set the rules and then when someone tries to force them to play fair they throw a hissy fit and threaten jobs, so naturally workers will buckle under the pressure. Seatellites are fucking pathetic (go browse the subreddit), they will defend companies that force workers to wear GPS and piss in bottles because "muh jobs" while bitching about how it isn't as cool as it was in the 90's because everyone is moving there for the "muh jobs".
Urban sprawl disagrees.
a temporary thing, wait until the next recession hits and people are forced out of urban areas, many will buy homes
urban sprawl is built off suburban sprawl
NIMBYs are against this you fucking idiot. They want property values to increase. So do YIMBYs btw. Both groups are petite bourg scum.
NIMBYs in my town physically capped the amount of office space available because they explicitly do not want more business. While not explicitly a tax, it puts a hard cap on business operations within city limits.
Depends on the city I guess. I know that in more suburban-like places they tend to discourage business park expansion because they don't want more strip malls. However in big economically productive cities like Seattle constant expansion of business is actually really good for them, especially if it is really only one business that continuously brings in high paying professionals.