You were asking for a limiting principle and I gave you one. You're now making a weird insinuation that I think that limiting principle should morph into a tax policy that applies to people who don't own rental properties, which feels like a non sequitur.

But, my personal feeling is "at least some", because homelessness is fundamentally a housing supply problem and I think no one likes it, so it sounds like the kind of social ill that needs funding to address.

> You're now making a weird insinuation...

Not sure how. I am trying to understand your thinking. But the phrase "housing is a fundamental human need" can use some explication. What's the maximum for "at least some"? (Roughly, not trying to pin you down to a particular number.)

Pretty much all my tax policies boil down to getting rid of super corrupt breaks to energy and ag, and a 110% tax on income over 10 million, and Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Confident we can build some baller cribs on that kind of cheddar.

> 110% tax on income over 10 million

Why not 125% or 200%? Or save even more souls at 500%?

Morty: "... If you really want your grandpa back, grab a shovel, because the one that won't let you down is buried in the backyard."

Summer: "You're right!"

Morty: "What! No! I was using ghoulish overkill! Ghoulish overkill Summer!"