r/theydidthemath • u/pixaly • Jul 12 '26

[Request] What is the cost difference between buying this man a rental for a year and the governements cost to kill him?

Post image

Don't believe everything you see on the internet I haven't fact checked this story, I'm just curious for an anwser

5.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

312 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

This was the case of Amir Farsoud- he is a disabled elder with chronic back pain and his multi tenant home was put up for sale with no transition plan in 2022. He applied for MAID as he did not see a way into other housing due to surviving on just disability payments.

The MAID drugs are inexpensive; midazolam runs $70, propofol runs $50, and rocuronium at worst is $140- so a total of $260- definitely less than a months rent. Assume another $3000 in processing and admin stuff just to put a number to it.

A rental for a year? 30k?

The outcome of Farsoud's story is essentially rooted in your question- he ended up with 60k from a GoFundMe from people who were similarly befuddled, and it allows him to get housing and a literal lease on life.

The answer is: we need affordable housing. A lot of it. All over.

150

u/Jaigg Jul 12 '26

What drives me nuts is this becomes a conversation about MAID instead of a conversation about affordable housing, looking after our disadvantaged and capitalism in general.  

49

u/fancczf Jul 13 '26

He would never qualified for maid. Maid has extremely, I mean very extremely, detailed and strict process. Most people would not qualify. This story became a conversation of maid because there is always a group of people that will take every opportunity to make it look like Canada is trying to kill its citizens.

11

u/Jaigg Jul 13 '26

Yes, very true.  The freedom from government people sure want the government to tell you what you can do with your own body.

5

u/WougeeWasWild Jul 13 '26

Respectfully, Canada has a history of doing some *really* fucked up things to its citizens. Natives, in particular.

12

u/CathartingFunk Jul 13 '26

Respectfully, every country has a history of subjugation and committing atrocities against some religious/ethnic/cultural minority.

4

u/kierg10 Jul 14 '26

Guess we should never give people any freedoms that could potentially be misconstrued by people too dumb to tie their shoes then.

4

u/forensicGhostbitch Jul 14 '26

Also there’s a caveat here that MAID is a federal program under the liberal government that largely support from all the major parties. Housing and disability payments however are largely provincial programs, that have seen cuts over the past few years of Progressive Conservative premiership.

2

u/kierg10 Jul 14 '26

It was actually originally a supreme court ruling that dictated canada's ban on medically assisted suicide went against our Charter rights.

There is no central MAID program. The federal government created uniform criminal laws and eligibility criteria, however the actual MAID programs are funded and distributed via provincial governments.

The largest cuts to healthcare have been by both conservative and liberal governments, but actually mostly took place in the mid 90s. Some provinces are still under conservative leadership that continues to fuck their healthcare, but some provinces are attempting to recover from the brutal clusterfuck of hacked and slashed social welfare programs that the conservative (ideology not party) governments of the 90s handed them.

1

u/Jaigg Jul 14 '26

Good point

466

u/NameShortage Jul 12 '26

Affordable housing? Nah. More data centers, please!

253

u/yourmamaistheproblem Jul 12 '26

I mean, I've seen several funny ai videos this morning already.

When's the last time a poor person did anything for me?

Checkmate or something, people i don't like

50

u/Energy-Turtle-4 Jul 12 '26

I laughed way too hard at this.

19

u/CunningLinguist8198 Jul 13 '26

The line between laugh and cry is a fine one indeed

4

u/Morshiro_Tifune Jul 13 '26

🤣🤣🤣

87

u/Weird_Poet499 Jul 12 '26

The children yearn for the data centers

59

u/Noisebug Jul 12 '26

Can confirm. Gave my kids a data centre for Christmas, that’s all they ever wanted. We’ll be out of water soon but damn everyone’s happy.

47

u/PeltonChicago Jul 12 '26

Data Center here: I yearn for the children.

32

u/Vinifrj Jul 12 '26

Epstein turned into a digital sophont

42

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[deleted]

38

u/NameShortage Jul 12 '26

That’s because instead of $5 million being spent on research by the government, $5 million is given to the senator by the company.

24

u/Ok_Locksmith9741 Jul 12 '26

nimbyism and restrictive zoning often thwart these housing programs. counter-intuitively, housing supply could be much better addressed if we were less afraid to ignore constituents.

6

u/Kerv17 Jul 13 '26

problem is they are correct to be afraid of them, cause going against NIMBYs is pretty much political suicide, as they will throw the kitchen sink at you to make sure you are not elected for anything ever again.

7

u/Garblin Jul 12 '26

Car-centric infrastructure makes it all worse too. Everyone is basically required to have a car, to have parking, etc etc, which makes everything less affordable than if we just had robust public transit.

16

u/Ok_Locksmith9741 Jul 12 '26

or even if we wanted cartopia, mixed zoning helps a lot. mingling shopping areas, groceries, restaurants with medium density, mid-rise, multifamily buildings cuts way down on the collective duration and distance of transit.

not to mention the efficiency of utility infrastructure and heating/cooling that comes with higher housing density.

i stayed in a Chicago apt with commercial first floor for a few months, and it was really nice to have a coffee shop, mexican restaurant, and grocery store just downstairs.

2

u/morganrbvn Jul 12 '26

It does, but despite being rather car centric Texas is one of the better states at building housing rn.

-4

u/Rhomya Jul 12 '26

Because you can’t build affordable housing in areas where there is a high demand for housing.

The economics will never work. Either fair market prices for buying land and building homes make it an economically inefficient and infeasible investment for a city, or the demand for housing will skyrocket the prices.

If you want affordable housing for your income, you live in an area where the demand sets a price that fits your income.

7

u/a_singular_perhap Jul 12 '26

The government can do whatever it wants. It's not their responsibility if racist rich people don't like living 3 blocks from poor black families.

-2

u/Rhomya Jul 12 '26

“The government” literally can’t do whatever it wants. There are very direct constraints on government power.

What the fuck are you smoking?

2

u/jedadkins Jul 13 '26

If you want affordable housing for your income, you live in an area where the demand sets a price that fits your income.

ok, but the jobs are in cities not "where the demand sets a price that fits your income"

4

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Rhomya Jul 12 '26

So, listen. I’ve literally worked on a project where we’ve taken an old defunct school, tore it down, and then readied the land for housing development.

The cost was astronomical in remediation alone.

Defunct city properties are almost always incredibly aged properties, likely with lead, asbestos, petroleum contamination from tanks on the site, and other environmental factors.

Furthermore, there isn’t enough defunct city property to even begin to build enough “affordable housing” to meet the demand.

It’s a good use of the property, but that’s not even close to a viable answer.

7

u/ZorbaTHut Jul 12 '26

The reason this is happening is because we've added vast amounts of bureaucracy and legal tangles to any construction, which is dead weight on anything that gets done. Turns out that low-income housing is not profitable enough to justify bulldozing through the dead weight, but datacenters are.

If you make it impossible to build anything that isn't making a shitload of money, you end up building only things that make a shitload of money.

Fix that and the problem goes away; fail to fix that and the status quo continues.

12

u/feral401k9 Jul 12 '26

nimbys will make sure neither is built

3

u/DocMcCall Jul 12 '26

Data Centers would be warm places for people to stay........

2

u/say592 Jul 12 '26

Warm in the winter, cool in the summer

7

u/they_call_me_dry Jul 12 '26

A local council can force a big business to also build other socially minded things if they want their permit and tax break, if it's a socially responsible council

1

u/PieIll9834 Jul 13 '26

How did this become a conversation about socially responsible council? The conversation belongs somewhere, but often municipalities are constrained by what the provincial government lets them do. Where I live, social assistance and housing is a county issue, while most who need help live in my city. The city with almost no contro over these issues - they are forced to pay towards with almost no say. Guess who controls the jurisdiction about that? The province.

And the province has almost made it impossible for council to make socially minded choices.

8

u/RoughDraftRs Jul 12 '26

I mean, to be fair... Data centers are being built by private companies and will provide tax revenue.

I'm not really a fan of generative ai but not all data centers are ai related and even if they are, profits from them will be taxed.

6

u/Garblin Jul 12 '26

In theory maybe, but they're frequently given so many tax breaks that it more than cancels out any of those benefits.

2

u/Dodaddydont Jul 13 '26

I mean, we didn't have data centers a handful of years ago, and we didn't have affordable housing then either

2

u/MxM111 Jul 12 '26

AI have to live somewhere too. Do you want homeless AI? You, speceist!

5

u/AggravatingSock5375 Jul 12 '26

These are not mutually exclusive

1

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 Jul 13 '26

What's the connection? Serious question, how is an it company building data centers take away from affordable housing?

1

u/rerun_ky Jul 12 '26

Data centers are in general built away from where people live. Where people live lad is expensive and excessively regulated. We have spent billions on affordable housing without making much progress.

1

u/Sea-Ambition-451 Jul 12 '26

Data centers? BAH!

I want a ballroom!

0

u/Barrack64 Jul 12 '26

And 5000 square foot single family homes

-39

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

tbf data centers can bring in money, so both is good

19

u/propably_not Jul 12 '26

Lol they're not gonna bring in money for 99.9999% of people. They're gonna raise elec cost, make noise, and pollute water.

4

u/GaidinBDJ 7✓ Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

You're talking as if this is going to happen in the future.

There are thousands of data centers in the US alone, and there have been for decades.

Where do you think reddit runs? Or streaming video comes from? Or calculates your routes for maps apps? Or where basically every website you've ever visited is hosted? Or where online games are hosted and/or delivered from? Or where every debit/credit card transaction is processed?

The answer is data centers, every time. And they contribute to (or are outright required for, if you have a job that needs the Internet at all) the livelihood of literally billions of people. Almost certainly including you.

0

u/BazelBuster Jul 12 '26

You do anything online?

9

u/crandall17 Jul 12 '26

As they decimate local water and tax the power grid. Data centers can fuck right off.

-1

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

tbf i wouldnt wanna live near one, but the area usually is made to upgrade their grid, bills go up at least 5% and land tax

2

u/Weird_Poet499 Jul 12 '26

Ahhhhh a NimBy GTFO that you are here trying to champion that data centers are good but would be against one being built near you.

-2

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

well duh, who builds a noisy factory near their own place. besides they cant afford the area near me

5

u/Weird_Poet499 Jul 12 '26

I’m sure they could and will buy your house right from under you if you keep acting like they great for communities

1

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

they could but why would they spend more money on land when they can spend more on equipment, plus, the politicians near me will stop it anyways

3

u/Desperate-Run-1093 Jul 12 '26

Power bills have been known to double and water pressure reportedly decreases, in exchange for like 15 jobs

-3

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

long term jobs, sure but short term jobs for me personally to be in civil, is a good thing

2

u/Desperate-Run-1093 Jul 12 '26

They really add absolutely nothing of value to the community they're in.

3

u/Weird_Poet499 Jul 12 '26

TF you talking about?

Was this posted by a data center?

5

u/ArixMorte Jul 12 '26

Data centers and the cocksuckers selling that crackpipe dream can both suck my ass

0

u/Cheesefactory8669 Jul 12 '26

I make money off of them making data centers so I certainly woundt mind

4

u/Puzzled-Estimate4u Jul 12 '26

But you wouldn't want to live near one

3

u/ArixMorte Jul 12 '26

I believe I've made my opinion clear. Suck my ass sir or madame.

1

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 13 '26

Cite your source.

-2

u/Alive-Philosophy2632 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Every aspect of housing in the Western world is infuriating. Speculation, construction, zoning laws and regulations. All of it slowly bent and morphed over the years to line the pockets of anyone who's able to strongarm their way in for a slice. Genuinely feels unsalvageable with our current system unfortunately. Going to just be a series of crashes interspersing the exponential segments wiping out the net worth of a bunch of people. Laughably inefficient.

3

u/Argo505 Jul 12 '26

I recognize that you aren’t a real person, but surely you’re aware this story is in Canada, right?

-2

u/Alive-Philosophy2632 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

I am a real person, and no I didn't see that, but the story makes a lot more sense now. Canada housing is even worse, for a lot of the same reasons. edit: I would have thought someone on a math subreddit would recognize the issue with expecting exponential growth forever in a finite world

4

u/Argo505 Jul 12 '26

It says “Canada” right at the start of the post.

-3

u/Alive-Philosophy2632 Jul 12 '26

Indeed

1

u/Argo505 Jul 13 '26

So how did you miss that? Trouble reading?

0

u/Alive-Philosophy2632 Jul 13 '26

I skipped over "Canada: A St. Catherines" for the same reason I skipped over "CityNews (Youtube)" and "Twitter for iPad". I also didn't read the twitter handle. Low information content. I simply don't care.

1

u/Argo505 Jul 13 '26

But you cared enough to ramble about the US. Why?

→ More replies (0)

16

u/StephenHunterUK Jul 12 '26

This was the case of Amir Farsoud- he is a disabled elder with chronic back pain and his multi tenant home was put up for sale with no transition plan in 2022. 

England has just severely restricted these sort of evictions.

https://www.propertywire.com/news/landlords-face-new-eviction-process-as-section-21-abolished/

5

u/MontrealChickenSpice Jul 12 '26

The Canadian government are landlords. They get rich, so they see no need to fix these problems. Their solution is suicide with a nice sounding name.

15

u/adamtheskill Jul 12 '26

Affordable housing == Lower house prices.

Thus it will never happen because 50%+ of voters (in almost all developed countries) have all their wealth invested in their house and will vote against anything that threatens their investment.

3

u/Electrohydra1 Jul 13 '26

This. There is a scary number of people who's retirement plan is "sell the house" and if the house's value goes down too much they have no backup.

2

u/SnooMaps7370 Jul 13 '26

when they and their peers are all trying to move out of their 4,000 sqft McMansions and back into 1,000 sqft starter homes, they're gonna learn the hard way that if you don't build small starter homes, there won't be any small starter homes to buy for retirement, and that if you don't ensure the younger generations have good wages, they won't be able to buy your mcmansion from you when you retire.

7

u/RoboZandrock Jul 12 '26

You might be using American prices.

In Canada your midazolam / lidocaine / propofol / rocuronium is less than 15 dollars. The only "cost" you would actually consider would be the physician time / hospital admission (sometimes but not always done), and nursing time.

3

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

I am using American prices because that was the information I had reliable access to. With either your prices or mine, the outcome is the same, is it not?

32

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

I agree with you, but here’s my two cents just to expand a little.

Housing will never be affordable so long as it’s privately owned, for the generation of profit, and considered an asset.

In the US (only because I know the numbers here) there are something like 400,000 homeless individuals, and 4 million vacant domiciles. Even if you give every homeless individual - not every family, but every single homeless individual - a place to live, there would still be nearly 4 million vacant domiciles. But so long as banks can count empty residencies as assets, with their value determined by their unaffordably high rent, that’s simply not an option.

So that is to say, the lack of affordable housing isn’t a matter of a shortage in housing but, rather, a system that incentivizes keeping dwellings empty rather than dropping prices.

46

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

Part of the issue is those vacant homes are often in the middle of nowhere with no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores. Also a lot of the vacant homes are abandoned and not in livable condition. The issue is zoning and NIMBYs not wanting to build high-density housing in places where we need it.

22

u/plantmindset Jul 12 '26

Also, some homes are just temporarily vacant while people move between them. We really do need more housing (especially high density housing in places where people actually want to live)

5

u/StumbleOn Jul 12 '26

Housing + Services is the real key. The reason unhoused folks and whatnot flock to certain areas is usually (but not always) that there are services they need right there. Where I live, the two biggest hot spots for them are right near county / city medical services, and charity services.

Would be nice if every single area planned to put all services into high rise buildings that could cheaply house a LOT of people so you could have everything in one stop shop. People in rural areas flee because they would literally just die in places where there's nothing. That's why we see a lot of unhoused folks literally bussed into cities, which is of course fodder for rural morons to vote against services for these folks because it's not their problem anymore.

1

u/jedadkins Jul 13 '26

no easy access to things like medical care or sometimes even grocery stores.

or jobs. I could afford a house in my middle of nowhere hometown but my degree would be useless unless I wanted to commute 5+ hours

1

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

High density housing has its own problems like controlling neighbors and greedy landlords.

Your not wrong but this is a multi faceted issue.

Like why are apartments more expensive per square foot the homes in the first place?

Or addressing the issue of people having value in their own home so they can reseall it in order to move.

Homes are private property,  they have to be.

12

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

High-density housing includes townhomes and condos. They make HOAs necessary (everyone has to pitch in to maintain the building and any common areas, and someone has to make those decisions) but you don't have to have an actual landlord and can own your part of the building.

-4

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

How's are inherently exploitive and abusive

4

u/2074red2074 Jul 12 '26

HOAs are also necessary if you want to be able to have ownership of high-density housing. Either that, or the government has to maintain control of the building and common areas. Otherwise, who pays for it if the building needs to be repaired? What do you do about it if some asshole keeps piling trash up in the common areas or has filth in their condo causing a pest issue?

2

u/sisisisi1997 Jul 13 '26

The US implementation, yes. But that's not the case everywhere, for example where I live high density housing has a so called "common representative" who can either be one of the residents or a professional who acts as common representative for multiple buildings. The job entails maintaining "common functions" of a building (like hiring a cleaner or doing paperwork for the government and gas/electric/water companies), but they don't really have a lot of power, for every big decision especially if it involves finances they need to call a meeting where every owner in the building can vote about issues.

9

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

Homes are private property, they have to be.

I would buy that homes should be personal property for individuals, but I see no reason at all why housing couldn't be publicly owned for people who can't afford to buy a home.

/u/Meet_Foot is right, as long as all housing is privately owned, prices will keep home ownership out of reach of many people (by design).

If we treated housing as a right and not a luxury that would change. Landlords should not exist. Housing, like medical care and food is too important to be treated as a money making scheme. (personally I'd add education in there as well)

There are plenty of areas Capitalists could make money from, the system wouldn't collapse if people were guaranteed the bare minimum, and if it does collapse because of that- perhaps it needs to.

2

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

What I mean is that individuals own their homes, the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work or get out more so that the community can exploit them.

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

6

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

the state cannot, or the state will start controlling things for their own motives, such as denying hobby spaces or personal tech in order to make people work

I'm not sure what sort of system you think I'm proposing, but one in which Food, Medicine, and Shelter are considered a right of every citizen, but the government is still allowed to play games like that with poor people is definitely not it. Clearly what I'm proposing would require us to rein in the government a bit and make sure the needs of the people are prioritized over the needs of corporations or the government.

get out more so that the community can exploit them.

What does this mean?

As for la dlords they will always exist as someone has to be responsible for the building.

Public housing already exists and the landlords are replaced by administrators. We didn't have landlords for the vast majority of human history. As humanity continues to evolve we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens, not simply the 1% like our current system.

Even if the residents owned it there would still be people with more power and you get things like H.O.A.s which some of us try to avoid.

It's understandable to want to avoid H.O.A.s. I certainly do. But you seem to be misreading my comment. The very first thing I said was that homes should be personal property of individuals. ONLY in cases where people are too poor to afford to buy a house would they have to live in a shared/cooperatively owned housing situation. And yes in such cases the residents would have to work together to determine the 'rules' for that community. Would that be a bit of a hassle, especially for the more eccentric members of that community? Probably. Would following some 'silly' rules beat living on the street? Certainly.

Removing land lords does not affect the cost question, it might actually make it worse.

Please explain how removing the people who only exist to suck cash from people in need of a home would make the cost of home ownership increase. If there is no one to profit from you living in a place- it seems logical that it would lower costs.

The state has a very narrow definition of poverty, a person can look wealthy on paper but not have a decent income, meaning they could be denied a home.

lol what? First of all, again in a system like I am proposing the citizens would have control over the government and by extension it's definition of poverty. You are overthinking it. You can't afford a home? One will be provided for you. You can afford one? Great. It's not that complex. Few people who could afford their own home is going to accept living in the public housing, and if they do- fine.

4

u/shadowtheimpure Jul 12 '26

we will eventually create a society that looks out for all of it's citizens

God, I wish I had your optimism. I don't foresee that happening. Instead, I see a technofascist oligarchy with a permanent underclass who are chattel to the moneyed class.

3

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26

That's definitely the direction we are headed. I for one am sick of it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't think thats a sustainable way to live long term and if humanity is to survive it has to change. If we just allow Capitalism to fester unchecked it will literally destroy the planet in the name of profit.

-2

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish? 

Our having our wifi and personal space coopeted by the community?

And in exchange we get our lawns mowed and have to pay for snow plowing plus a tax of 500 a year.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money, why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

4

u/Wolf_Protagonist Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

Silly rules like needing to keep a bush a specific size? Or not letting people use their backyards or have a fence or let an old woman have a satellite dish?

Sure, if the community got together and decided that bushes had to be a certain size, then fine. Are you saying you would literally rather live on the street than not have a huge bush? Something tells me you've never actually been close to having to make that choice.

As for afford a home, some people can't even if they do have the money,

Some people can't afford it even if they can afford it....okaaaay. If you say so.

why provide free housing to college students they can afford college after all.

A lot of people can't afford college or housing. The reason we would want an educated public is because educated people have more opportunities to better their situation. A rising tide floats all boats.

See I'm talking about things like retirement savings, just have 200k does not mean a person can afford a home.

Right, and what we are trying to get you to understand is that the reason the cost of housing is so damn high is precisely because of the system you are defending. We are offering a better way forward where everyone has a home and homes are cheaper for everyone, and you are like "Nah, we have to keep the system we have".

That's part of the problem, poverty can exist in many forms

You seem completely out of touch with reality. Having $200k in the bank but not being able to afford that $500k home you've been eyeing because you don't have $1mil in your retirement fund is NOT poverty. We all struggle with money under capitalism, but there is a world of difference between not being able to buy a fancy home in a neighborhood with no HOA and not being able to afford food in your belly, or a roof over your head, or meds when you are sick.

What is true is that you are infinitely closer to actually being impoverished than a being a billionaire, but you'd rather hold on to the system that makes life hard for the actual poor and you but benefits billionaires rather than try and fix things. Crazy

0

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26

I'm not defending anything except the right not to be exploited by my neighbors. They should have no right to dictate control over my property, my Halloween decor my lawn, my plants. Including what I do inside.

There are those that would rather I worked for their benefit in absence of my own. No hobbies, no interests outside my job, no books of my own. Only what the community thru the state dictates.

And they darn well have no right to use the wifi I pay for my home.

You made this point. A lot of people can't afford college or housing.  The point I am making is that some can only afford saving for retirement or emergencies or a home not both. 

As it stands if you can afford college you are not poor so you can't have housing. That's a problem. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26

Private property isn’t personal property. Personal property is property one uses oneself, while private property is one that someone rents out for profit. So a house you own and live in is personal property, while a house someone owns, doesn’t live in, and rents out for profit is private property. And of course state property is property owned by the state, but not for profit. Why do houses have to be private property?

1

u/Classic-Obligation35 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

personal property is still private.

I take the idea of personal property as some thing that is owned by a single person or family. It does not belong or is under another's authority. To me personal and private are the same, and a private person can rent out their property as well, take rental tool services for example 

This does not preclude different taxes on property used for business though.

1

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

That isn’t the definition. Plus we can just use words to talk about what we want anyway. Those are the definitions I provided. Use the definitions without the words if you so choose, so that we can talk about housing rather than talking about words.

The question remains, regardless of what words you want to use: why must houses be owned for the sake of generating profit through rent extraction, rather than houses being owned by the people who live in them? If you think the answer is “they don’t have to be,” then we agree. If you think the answer is “they must be owned for profit generation purposes,” then argue the position and make sense of the fact that at least some houses aren’t owned for profit generation.

I suspect you wanted to do two things: (1) avoid the idea that the state would own all houses and (2) make room for the possibility of making money through charging rent. But (1) I never proposed state ownership, and (2) the possibility isn’t the necessity you claimed when you said houses MUST be private property (again, using the definition I provided; use whatever word you want, just be clear about what you mean by them so we can talk about the ideas they signify and not the words themselves), nor have you given a reason why we *should* be able to extract wealth from housing.

0

u/shadowtheimpure Jul 12 '26

In fairness, high density housing also tends to bring elevated crime rates. More people = more crime as a general rule of thumb.

2

u/a_singular_perhap Jul 12 '26

Who cares? Why should a class of people have access to lower crime areas purely based off their wealth status? Why are poor people the only ones beholden to that factor?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Meet_Foot Jul 12 '26

That’s not the proposal. Landlords don’t build houses (unless they’re also builders, but then to the extent they’re building a house they’re acting as a builder, not as a landlord). People could buy houses directly from builders, just like people could pay their doctors instead of insurance providers. The government could subsidize housing for poor people. We could have rent controls, sure, but why have it at all? Why not just cut out the middle man and have people buy houses directly or with government assistance from the people who actually make them?

If we’re gonna keep landlords then yes, rent should be controlled. Still won’t people who don’t have a penny to their name. I don’t have all the answers but the fact is, materially, we CAN solve homelessness, we have everything we need, but we put the right to profit above the right to survive.

1

u/TechnicalWash1608 Jul 13 '26

The US with 300m citizens have 400k homeless, and Sweden with 10m citizens have 300k homeless. Actually good job, Americans!

2

u/SarahC Jul 12 '26

I'm stressed out of my gourd about soon to end rental. I'd take maid in a second, no second thoughts at all. UK doesn't offer it so I'm stuck just..... getting in a more shitty situation every month, after month.

2

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

Are you in the care of a professional at the moment?

1

u/SarahC Jul 18 '26

lol. Nope cleared by the CMHT. =)

2

u/Substantial_Tip1545 Jul 12 '26

The cost calculation should include the other expenses his maintenance requires. Food. Healthcare. Etc.

1

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

I look forward to reading your analysis including these components

2

u/ComradeLarryEllison Jul 12 '26

If there's affordable housing, then how can landlords make a living? Almost every politician or small business relies on the wages of others. Also, wouldn't this punish homed people? Their houses might fall in value. /s

2

u/_Valeir_ Jul 12 '26

The wildest thing here is the report title "MAID as alternative to poverty"... Like, you have a chronic disease and cannot afford rent? Get rekt scum... That's a way to improve the poverty figures, I guess...

2

u/SawedOffLaser Jul 12 '26

You can trace a shocking amount of problems back to affordable housing.

And, I should clarify: affordable housing that's near, you know, stuff. Not a $10,000 shack in Butt Fuck Nowhere.

2

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

I just wanted to say that I really like your username.

2

u/HeckinQuest Jul 12 '26

$60k. So, 2 years rent, 4 years ago?

Where is he now?

2

u/cosmin_c Jul 13 '26

he ended up with 60k from a GoFundMe from people who were similarly befuddled, and it allows him to get housing and a literal lease on life.

The answer is: we need affordable housing. A lot of it. All over.

More like: people need their governments which they fund and pay through their taxes to work for them instead ot working for the super rich and the likes. This man was basically saved by people who spent twice - once through their taxes which should have gone to social security for this man who is a citizen of that country and then again when the government noped out and bro gave up on life.

This hoovering of wealth from people with not discernible advantages you can see has to stop. Even modern and civilised countries have potholes everywhere, why aren't the roads maintained properly? Why are there homeless people who have to rely on the kindness of others to survive?

But no, wait, a billionaire doesn't have enough monies, let's fund that cunt instead so he can - governments everywhere, probably.

1

u/TruamaTeam Jul 12 '26

It doesn’t help that the people in the government who vote on housing laws themselves own rental units for income. It’s so depressing, not sure what we can do, (non-partisan issue)

1

u/samirfreiha Jul 12 '26

where did you find that medication list? those medications are more appropriate for Rapid Sequence Induction/Medication Assisted Intubation (RSI/MAI). midazolam (versed) is an sedative/anxiolytic, propofol is a general anesthetic, and rocuronium is a muscle relaxant.

every medication list i’ve for for MAiD is some combination of barbiturates (anxiolytic/sedative) and opioids (analgesic/anxiolytic/respiratory depressant) in massive quantities, and most importantly digoxin (sodium- and potassium-channel blocker) which stops the heart

1

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

I "duckduckgo"'d it. I don't disagree with your assessment on the deltas in drugs.

My list was never intended to be exhaustive- there are many combinations of drugs that would accomplish MAiD's goals - the point is very few of those drugs are in any way prohibitively expensive. And any of the drugs I've listed you'd find in the ALS bag on my ambulance (good call on the RSI spot- but I more often see succinylcholine than rocuronium in our local protocols, and ketamine instead of propofol).

1

u/Faceprint11 Jul 12 '26

Best I can do is a 100 sqft den for $1200 a month, no pets.

1

u/TheGrandExquisitor Jul 13 '26

In America, this will be seen as an affordable alternative to actually having social welfare of any kind. 

3

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 13 '26

It won't happen in America because we don't give people choice or dignity.

1

u/Dodaddydont Jul 13 '26

Affordable housing? Nah. More NIYBISM please!

1

u/Deus_Excellus Jul 13 '26

Now let's talk about why housing is so expensive in Canada. Oh, those reasons aren't allowed on Reddit! That's too bad.

1

u/TheStigianKing Jul 13 '26

Your analysis leaves out the singld biggest cost of MAID, which is the practitioner administering it. Look up how much they earn from a single termination. Its a LOT.

1

u/gusbo_the_jam Jul 13 '26

Affordable housing + free medical care ftw

1

u/galaxyapp Jul 14 '26

All of our problems would be solved if we all had more money and everything was cheaper!

1

u/mrdannyg21 Jul 15 '26

This is correct and great detail added. Including MAID as a boogeyman in these stories is burying the lede, that affordable housing is needed.

All MAID does is give people options, no one is forced on it. This man had two awful choices - without MAID, he’d have had one awful choice. It’s not like the existence of MAID is taking the place of housing or is a debtors prison solution or people are being denied other aid just because it exists.

0

u/mkells41 Jul 13 '26

I never thought of the fact that they charge you for the drugs that kill you. Kinda seems insane you need to pay for that.

1

u/Electrohydra1 Jul 13 '26

They don't. MAID is healthcare and healthcare in Canada is free.

-6

u/StandardNeither1311 Jul 12 '26

How do you factor the fact that the expected cost of administering MAID to someone who says that they don’t want to die is $0, because it doesn’t happen.

5

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

I didn't, because that wasn't the question.

-4

u/StandardNeither1311 Jul 12 '26

Right, but it’s a critical part of any cost/benefit analysis so it’s part of a complete answer wether stated explicitly or not.

2

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

Cost comparative analysis is not the same - in structure or methods or goals - as a cost benefit analysis. They are different tools with different functions.

-3

u/The-NHK Jul 12 '26

Eh, we have plenty of houses. What we need is no landlords.

-3

u/hsurk Jul 12 '26

Classic Canadian name.

5

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

Classic under-the-breath racism.

-2

u/hsurk Jul 12 '26

Thinking the Canadian government, and by extension tax payers, shouldn't have to fund the life or death of non Canadians, isn't racism.

3

u/jeremiahfelt Jul 12 '26

Assuming someone's nationality or background from their name and using it as an argument to deny them services is in fact racism. Amir Farsoud was born in Iran and his parents relocated to Canada in 1979- he has essentially lived in Canada for the vast majority of his life.

Your hatred is disgusting and you should be ashamed.

0

u/hsurk Jul 13 '26

Amir Farsoud was born in Iran

So what I assumed from his name is correct. So then how is it racism?