I think the title is intended to lead to partisan turf wars.

I don’t necessarily agree with the beginner vs expert thing.

I’ve been using linux for many years but I certainly don’t have any magical expert knowledge or intuition. When I have driver trouble I google it and copy whatever commands seem sensible.

It’s probably better to say that some distros are more configurable from the desktop than others. As in, if you’re going to get grumpy about using the command line then mint or ubu might be your best choices.

That said, in my experience linux GUIs rarely expose all of the underlying features of whatever service they’re interacting with. (For example, gnomes disk management GUI).

This is me.

I just don’t care about the moral or ethical considerations.

I honestly find it odd that you keep referring to my comments as my scenario as though this is some weirdo conspiracy I’ve dreamed up. In my opinion, your solution is impracticable. Sure, you should assist those adversely effected by climate change, but paying to rebuild their houses to be flood and fire proof is an absurd notion.

Yes private citizens are going to lose a lot of money and experience a lot of hardship as a result of climate change. It’s well established science that many areas will experience more severe weather. There are very likely to be severe water shortages, and extensive famine.

You are right of course that corporations should bear the responsibility and the cost but given the political landscape in 2025 that’s just not going to happen. Populations the world over are sliding to the right, electing governments who will reduce regulations and support further concentration of wealth.

That’s not my answer at all.

These houses will be more difficult to insure and less desirable and worth less as a result. Not worth nil, just worth significantly less.

Engineers can build amazing things, but most people probably don’t want to pay for a submersible house or a fire proof house.

Yes lots of people will lose a lot of money. Climate change is going to be a rough ride.

It’s difficult to comprehend how anyone can think that Trump can lower the price of anything for anyone in any period of time.

The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.

This was entirely predictable. It’s been well publicised for decades.

Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.

I’m not really sure it’s as easy as “building to a new standard”. For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there’s little that can be done on the residential property itself.

I think the core of this issue is money. It’s going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.

In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else’s insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.

… but that’s the type of people that these comments are talking about?

I personally do not own multiple houses.

[For example] I declare our actual home…

Sorry what is a Padrón? A letter you have to take to the police station?

This comment chain is not specifically about non-eu residents.

Letters do not confirm where someone lives. It would be trivial to work around that.

This might shock you, but if you announced a law whereby everyone has to go to the police station once a year to confirm where they live there would absolutely be blood in the streets. It’s a ridiculous over reach and a gross invasion of privacy.

In tax legislation the goal is to be broad based, which means easy to administrate and difficult to avoid.

The solution to this problem which people have been talking about since the 1940s is land tax. Tax the fuck out of all land, but allow people to apply for an exemption for 1 property. It will never become law because the powerful people that make law own property and do not wish to pay tax.

That’s not really relevant.

The proposition is to tax people who own property but do not reside there in.

My question is how does the Gestapo know where an owner lives.

For example, if my wife and I own our home and have a holiday home by the sea, we would simply say that one of us resides in the holiday home, and it’s not practically possible to disprove that.

Maybe. That doesn’t really help all of the existing buildings though.

Fewer people are becoming more wealthy.

There may be more billionaires but as a portion of the population that’s reducing.

That’s not how wealth concentration works.

The comment I replied to isn’t really talking about foreign ownership, but ownership in general. That is, owners need to live in the properties they own or pay taxes. Obviously many locals have never left the country and never cleared customs.

Additionally, most countries don’t bother to stamp your passport anymore, a kiosk just scans the chipped page in your passport and takes your photo.

Finally, a yearly in-person mandate to check where people are living is absolutely bonkers. Absolutely no one wants the gestapo coming to their house every year to confirm that they really live there.

The number of people who have so much money that they don’t have to care about how it’s spent are infinitesimal.

Hah. More likely you’re just painfully aware that it is indeed a dumb idea and realise that it’s pointless trying to defend a poorly considered brain fart on Lemmy just because you don’t want to admit you were wrong.

Honestly. Every city in the world is trying to ease the cost of housing burden but no one is doing this. I wonder why.

Some 18 year old economist blurts this out in any thread about housing to the applause of all the /r/antiwork dog walkers.

Hmm, it’s not “pointless”, I just wouldn’t buy one given that it’s inevitably going to be prone to failure.

I guess we will find out in 5 years or so.

Even wealthy people aren’t going to buy a home they can only sell for half the price they paid.

Most people don’t live alone though.

I declare our actual home as my residence, my wife declares our holiday home as her residence, my daughter who lives in an apartment she owns lists her boyfriend as the tenant and she declares our other holiday home as her residence.

Also, what about people who legit need a second dwelling. Loads of people have an apartment in the city for the work week and a home in the country for the family, or split their time between two cities for business / work reasons. Are these situations illegal now?

It’s just a dumb idea that sounds edgy that you haven’t really thought through.

I guess we don’t go to the same libraries?

What even is your angle here? No one cares what you think about my set up, my self least of all.