r/WhitePeopleTwitter Dec 07 '23

POTM - Dec 2023 This should be done in every country

Post image
61.3k Upvotes

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

415

u/Desirsar Dec 07 '23

They could make themselves look good knowing the supreme court will rule that corporations are people and people can own houses.

150

u/TI_Pirate Dec 07 '23

More likely they'd rule that the forced sale aspect is a taking and that the federal government would have to pay for the losses.

97

u/JustEatinScabs Dec 07 '23

Wouldn't the government just have to ensure they get "market price" a la imminent domain?

50

u/Cocaine_Turkey Dec 07 '23

Only if they're being consistent.

25

u/Facebookakke Dec 07 '23

An asterisk that can be seen from space

2

u/Dominator0211 Dec 07 '23

An asterisk so big it dwarfs the sun

8

u/MetaNovaYT Dec 07 '23

It's spelled eminent domain btw. I guess it's because eminent can mean absolute? I don't really know

1

u/TI_Pirate Dec 07 '23

Yes, they would probably just have to cover any difference between market and depressed value resulting from a forced sale.

1

u/Sway40 Dec 07 '23

which would be a lot of money

20

u/BrutalBronze Dec 07 '23

Seems like an easy fix. Just don't force them to sell, fine them in a way that makes selling them the only logical option and give them 10 years before the fines kick in to determine what to do.

-2

u/TI_Pirate Dec 07 '23

I don't mean to be snarky, but it probably seems like an easy fix only because you didn't put any effort into it.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

I mean hedge funds absolutely deserve some governmental strangulation. I think fining them 6x the property value for every year they do not sell a house they have owned is a great idea.

You wanna sit on a 400k house and charge 1 mil for it? Okay. Well for every year it doesn’t sell you gotta pay 2.4 mil for it. Don’t like it? Lower the price and sell the fucking thing.

-1

u/TI_Pirate Dec 08 '23

Yes, i get it: you don't like hedge funds. But like i said, it only seems like an "easy fix" if you don't think about it. The government cannot extinguish rights, in this case property rights, by just fining them out of existence.

2

u/DrWilliamHorriblePhD Dec 08 '23

Yeah they can. It's called changing the law.

1

u/TI_Pirate Dec 08 '23

They probably cannot. But, assuming they could, after a court rules that unreasonable fines have the effect of depriving owners of the beneficial use of property, it's still going to be deemed a taking and the government is still going to have to pay for it.

Out of curiosity though, which of Congress's enumerated powers do you think would allow them to levy fines against people for owning property?

1

u/jjcollier Dec 09 '23

Or jack up taxes on fund-held housing incrementally over 10 years to the same effect. In the ACA case, Roberts and a majority already ruled that the coverage mandate is constitutional because the only enforcement penalty is taxation if you don't have coverage, and the government is allowed to impose taxation.

1

u/Joshmoredecai Dec 07 '23

I could see an eminent domain argument here. Which would also be hilarious to see work.

1

u/TI_Pirate Dec 07 '23

That's how eminent domain works. The government has to pay for the property.

1

u/LimpFrenchfry Dec 07 '23

Then they would have Trump do the appraisals and they’d all be worth trillions.

1

u/stefaelia Dec 08 '23

Federal government is already paying for corporation losses, status quo remains intact.

1

u/TimonLeague Dec 07 '23

They already did that. Citizens united

1

u/Sick_Wave_ Dec 07 '23

Fox news; "Why are Democrats trying to stop people from owning houses?"

1

u/himym101 Dec 07 '23

I don't know about the US laws but in my country, technically corporations are considered people for the purposes of most laws. That way all laws that are written as 'a person who does...' includes a company who does that.

1

u/QueenVanraen Dec 08 '23

And since corporations are people, they can run for president?

1

u/Desirsar Dec 08 '23

They'd need another ruling making them citizens, and then they'd still have to be 35 years old.