Like most taxes it’s possible to do a progressive property tax, where the more your properties are collectively worth the higher rate of tax you pay. This doesn’t sound like what is being proposed here, but it is very-much possible and hopefully it gets changed before it’s passed.
Done right this will leave owner/occupiers in the same state they are in now, mildly reduce the profitability of small time landlords and make large scale landlords financial nonsense viable forcing them to sell.
The actual risk is that because it lowers house prices by artificially reducing the demand it won’t encourage housebuilding which is the only real solution when more people want or need to live in a place than there is housing.
That said, I am optimistic this increases supply enough by forcing sales of under occupied properties to offset the reduction in built supply.
The post asserts that the women pictured are so unattractive that it has turned their republican husband’s gay.
The implication being that women are to be valued primarily by their physical appearance and a man is to be judged by the appearance of his wife.
Lemmy lets this slide because they are republicans and therefore acceptable targets, but they are bad people not because they are unattractive or they married someone unattractive/low-status, or because they use Grindr, they are bad people because they voted for an administration which has done enormous harm to minorities, LGBTQ folks and anyone who drowned indirectly on USAID.
That’s not even getting into the problems with the conversation therapy-esque idea of being able to intentionally change an adults sexuality