You both agree on the problem, it’s just big and encompasses all both of you said. Using the term “unhoused people” just shifts the narrative to “we just need to put them in houses”, be that new government funded housing projects, or changing regulations to dissalow empty houses, or stopping short term rental from eating central houses in cities.

Damn autocorrect striking again.

Also yes

What about staying at 0? Why is debt better than no debt AND no surplus?

As someone else said above, it is hard to calculate exactly how much they gained.

Instead using a set % of revenue would be simpler. If enough companies do it, raise the %. If someone repeatedly does it relative to others, raise the % for them on each repeated case.

That way it is simple, but still scalable and adjustable.

Similarly, scale it down if it disproportionate to how much is saved by breaking the law, or how much it hurts the society , to ensure it is a just punishment, and not a tool for big corporations to hurt smaller ones etc.

Blåhaj here I come!

Haha, nice. I had to go back to read his post twice to see what you were talking about.