“Liberal” means different things in Europe vs America, and that confusion has been specifically exploited by propagandists as well, just making things worse.
disabled people or people temporary without jobs
We’re not giving them millions of dollars, just enough for survival (and not even that sometimes).
you prevent new people from possibly starting businesses because why should they, if it will basically be taken away from them?
We’re only talking about inheritance specifically, not taking money from wealthy people in general. Something like a super high inheritance tax.
If you have an extra 20% productivity to give, you’re probably not a great worker to start with. And even so, it’s rare to keep sn employee 3 years anymore.
There is no level of productivity boost that can make up for months of actual absence lol
Paternity leave helps employers attract talent; in all other ways it does not help them at all.
What’s wrong with taking from them? It’s not like they earned it.
I’m not convinced
The data is pretty conclusive.
From a comprehensive survey of all existing studies on the effects of rent control. However, they do note:
Furthermore, if private construction experiences a decline, governmental intervention becomes a possibility. This could involve the construction of public housing or financial support for private investors engaged in social housing development. Consequently, the total number of completed dwellings can remain steady or even rise, potentially leading to a misinterpretation of rent control’s impact as beneficial.
Which afaik is the case in the UK. Government is compensating for the negative effects of rent control by spending taxpayer money on it.
Firstly, I think your focus on housing is too narrow to solve wealth inequality.
Second, if landlords are handed a $100 monthly tax bill they tend to increase their tenants rent by $100 a month.
Third, you ignore the effects this will have on new home construction, which will be SEVERE.
Fourth, and this is a minor thing, I think when discussing housing policy we should always be trying to disincentivize suburban sprawl snd incentivize density. Having more people own single family homes is not necessarily a great thing, maybe better than having corporations rent them out but not as good as having more dense walkable transit filled urban cores. I’d even go so far as to say that while having people own condos is best, having people rent apartments is still better (on a large scale) than having people own single family houses.
As for rich people in general, most of them, AFAIK, actually built their wealth from ground up.
Why in the world would you think that’s the case? We could look up stats but we shouldn’t have to. You already realize that the children of self-made rich people will themselves become rich without any effort. Logically, it would follow that over generations there would end up being a much higher proportion of “descendants of self-made rich people” than “self-made rich people”.
Rent control tends to decrease the supply of housing by making it unprofitable to build more. It turns into a lottery, massively helping the few who can find a good place but massively hurting those who can’t.
We’re not “confused”, we have a different variant of English and a different definition for “liberal”.