I love reading that we’re in favor of a wealth tax. I love that were in favor of paying into the pension system and broader reform.

We as a country should prioritize eliminating millionaires over 20+ million (id even prefer lower) and making housing not an investment. The following effects will be universally beneficial and will maintain Germany’s quality society and reverse any decline.

Cheaper higher quality housing, more infrastructure, less corrupt political systems, and a better standard of living for everyone. We must only remove conservatives from power, or centralists in general, and work to progress society to a better future together before we allow conservatives to duplicate what is being done in America and what has happened in Europe in the past.

Merz and the CDU (and the FDP and AFD) would rather bankrupt the country, destroy our retirement, remove our healthcare, and ruin the future of this country than tax the rich and solve wealth inequality.

Although I understand and agree with most of what you’re saying you’re making large assumptions about what I’m saying. Intelligence does not make you immune to propaganda, that’s not something I said or even brought up. What I was saying/implying is that east Germans are smart enough to understand what the policies AfD proposes mean and that the AfD proposes Nazi level policies (aka things I don’t think should be suggestable by any party at any time without a well educated and we’ll functioning democracy removing them from ever having power again either socially or systemically) such as reimmigration which you completely moved past. And if someone understands a nazi policy and votes for a nazi party to enact their Nazi policies, regardless of if they specifically agree with any given policy, that makes them a Nazi. Republicans voted for Trump, Trump promised to get rid of immigrants no matter what, he’s now doing that through several horribly inhuman and illegal methods, and every republican is responsible for that inhumanity and racism. They become racists when the actions they take directly support not just closeted racists, not just barely racists, not just mostly harmless racists, but full blown loud and clear and dangerous racists like the Republican party.

I’m not trying to simplify the problem for funsies, I’m trying to make it very clear that the party is evil and that all people should be able to make that judgement call. I understand desperation, I understand propaganda, I understand poverty, at least to the extent at which these things can make you do evil things but the point stands that they’re evil. My only issue with your messaging is you read like you’re playing defense for the AfD. The solution to the AfD party is simple, elect a party that is interested in and capable of addressing the problems of the common man, of the worker, and the AfD - besides the psyops element - will shrivel up.

As long as the CDU worsens the country for the average German. As long as the SPD improves the country slowly and avoiding the big ticket items, AfD will thrive. To me this is the simplistic truth of history. Things decline in the hands of the moderates or conservatives until they become so bad that people become desperate.

You can’t frame support for the AfD as simply scepticism “of traditionally west Germany political parties”. That completely downplays the intelligence of east Germans and the rhetoric of the AfD. They want Nazi level policies such as reimmigration and they are clearly disinterested in solving problems because their solutions are classic, historically proven ways to fail at improving a society.

Well I wouldn’t describe myself as a capitalist per se. I don’t believe there’s infinite resources but I do believe there are better, more efficient ways of distributing them - especially with housing. We definitely live in 3d space, I don’t really know what this comment is referring to or it’s use.

Probably a bit of both, insane and delusional, but I also think imagining a better solution requires a smidge of both.

Again, your loan comment doesn’t make much sense to me because you failed to contributing a meaningful comment - you could elaborate but I suspect you don’t believe government financing is a thing? Or that interest rates can be zero? I’m not really sure, but I can elaborate my original concept - because I’m not an Internet troll and I genuinely want people to imagine and work towards a better future.

Houses are expensive products, we can agree on that, even if they weren’t investment vehicles it takes a team of people months to construct a good house and a lot longer for an apartment or larger complex. Since everyone should be able to own their home, pretending for second we went so far as to abolish the concept of renting, we would need people to be able to afford housing immediately upon becoming an adult and choosing to live somewhere else. Normally we think of this as rent, we pay someone else’s mortgage with our money because we didn’t have the capital to purchase it directly in the past. I. My proposed future, there’d be no landlords to pay mortgages for, so we’d take out our own mortgage to pay for our housing.

Now I think this is where people imagine today’s mortgages and systems being imposed on an 18 year old and think that’s foolish. That’s why i clarify housing as a product instead of an investment vehicle is cheaper, and housing as a right or a goal of society means mortgages aren’t for profit. So someone buys a home that costs less than todays home using a loan who’s interest is less than todays interest - likely the first from the previous owner, construction company, or the government and the second from some level of government.

It’s how loans work but instead of for profit they’re for the betterment of society. We do this all the time for various reasons today. The PPP loans being forgiven is one example, so is 0% student loans, and if the government wanted to charge 1-2% interest for a good reason we have historical precedent to that as well. Idk what about this is so hard to understand for you but hopefully this helps. :p

When a house is an investment that grows in value society attempts to maximize scarcity, fewer houses or higher demand means more growth in their value. But imagine we lived in a society where we had more houses than we need, a surplus, because we valued housing people whenever they needed housing and we knew roughly how many houses we needed to do that.

You could move anywhere and find a house to own at a cost you could afford. Imagine housing wasn’t a massive store of value such that multiple bureaucratic steps were created to nickle and dime the transaction. Buying a home could be easy.

You could find a vacant house or one that has leaving owners, inspection papers were regulated and up to date, you could buy it off of them using your money or a loan from the government, and you could move in just like if you were renting.

You don’t have to save up for money to buy a home in a society where housing people is a priority. Housing would be cheaper, cost of living would be lower, purchasing power would be higher, and we could have methods in place for transitioning ownership without requiring a lump sum of cash cause no one’s expecting a massive windfall immediately. Ya know, loans.

Living on the street would be a fictional concept, encouraging homelessness is a societal choice - we could house everyone on the streets within the year if we wanted to. Does that mean long term hotels wouldn’t exist? No. That’s an actual service being provided.

I’m just saying, if landlords served a purpose we could enable that service as a society but if housing wasn’t an investment vehicle it’s pretty clear the number of landlords would plummet over night and we’d quickly realize relatively few people liked the “service” they were receiving.

Your lifetime of experiences does not consistute a meaningful sample size when compared to everyone else’s. It can leave you feeling or believing something completely different than everyone else, for good reason, but that doesn’t make it true.

Most landlords own property because it is a vehicle for wealth growth. And if someone owns something because it makes them money every year they are likely attempting to or interested in maximizing that return. That means cheap maintenance, little to no improvements, and an increasing price tag like an investment vehicle instead of a decreasing price tag like a consumable good.

If landlords were systemically good, if the overwhelmingly majority of landlords were good, rent would go down every year as the building and utilities get used - only going back up after real meaningful renovations.

My last flat had an awful kitchen design, very aesthetic but a nightmare to actually cook in. Can you imagine living in your own home and hating something you Interface with everyday multiple times and not changing it despite knowing you have the money and skills to do so? I can’t. But because I have a landlord, because people have landlords they are stuck with the decisions of someone who either makes absolutely or relatively bad decisions all the time. My current flat the bathroom is a nightmare to live with because a quarter of the room is a bathtub and yet there’s no place to put your toothbrush or plug in a water pick/hair dryer/razor. I’d happily change the entire bathroom, renovate it to include a decent sized shower, add electrical outlets and kitchen sink that isn’t just a bowl - but again I can’t because that isn’t putting money into my landlords pockets and because they’re not planning on living here ever again (if they ever did) they don’t care how it is to live in. That’s what being a landlord does to someone naturally, it’s understandable but the reality is you care less about a place you’re not living in, you’re spending a lot of money for a place you’re not living in so you want to make that money back so you can improve the place you are actually living in so you’re naturally getting more stingy and cheap at your other properties, and over time the incentives of the system realign your values and behaviors.

No, I don’t think your lifetime of “good landlord stories” is a meaningful data point to change what the overwhelming majority of people experience every day of their lives nor the systemic logic/reality of the situations. Good people can become landlords with good intent but they can’t stay good and be a landlord because being a landlord is inherently an anti-productive thing to be in society - overtime the incentives change people into doing things that hurt others for their own interest.

You’re right, there are good examples out there. The point is they’re statistical anomalies not the rule. Landlords by and large serve very little societal purpose.

Genau. Lol, ich lerne Deutsch langsam aba ja.

Immigrants will always be an easy marginal group to distract from the poisoning effects of growing economic disparity.