Musk Refuses to Pay Rent for Twitter building due to City Conditions
(www.breitbart.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
I'm a bit perplexed by this. Shouldn't the statement be made by not paying local taxes? Unless the landlord is also affiliated with the cities/states, it seems to me like they would be screwing an unaffiliated third party.
If you don't pay taxes, men with guns come to take your stuff. If you don't pay rent, the landlord tells the people you paid taxes to, to come kick you out. Since the men with guns don't want to take kick you out since you are paying them, they put backchannel pressure on the landlords to not kick you out, leaving the landlords with the only recourse of actually having to maintain their properties.
Property taxes are assessed to the owner of the structure and land, not to the tenant(s) of the structure. By refusing to pay rent, Elon is denying his landlord the means to pay property taxes on the structure.
If they've been renting land to Twitter to operate, they're not unafilliated. For years, Twitter was a propaganda platform against whites, men, Christians, and civil society in general. I don't know precisely where the line between collaborator and citizen is drawn, but I'm certain whoever owns those lands and buildings gets to share in the blame.