BlameThePeacock @ BlameThePeacock @lemmy.ca

Posts

4

Comments

1,938

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why do people keep saying that I can't get that money out of the house?

• I can use the equity as an asset to borrow money at low interest rates compared to unsecured loans.
• I can sell the property and move to a lower cost of living location, or even just a smaller home if I wanted.
• I can rent part of the property out at a rate commensurate with it's current value.

And, to top off your stupid assumptions, you say my tax payments will increase. That's not how property tax is calculated at all. People see "Taxes per 100k" and assume that if your house price goes up, so do the taxes. Instead, municipalities set a total budget, and just divide it by the total value of all the homes in the area to come up with something called the "Mill rate." If the municipal budget doesn't change year to year, and all the house prices go up evenly, the mill rate simply goes down.

Individuals voting to keep the value of their home from dropping down to reasonable levels ARE the problem. That's almost all home owners.

I still think that regulated capitalism works best for certain industries, and socialism works best for others.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing choice.

I've made a million dollars in appreciation on my home in the last 15 years.

Are you telling me just because I own one home, that I'm not part of the problem?

That's observablt false. Capitalism has lead to a massive improvement in living conditions for countries that have implemented it

Yes it also has downsides, but pretending it doesn't do anything good is rediculous.

The billionaire fortunes pale in comparison to the trillions of dollars of unearned appreciation owned by regular home owners.

It's the unearned part that matters most, at least capital investment has some benefit to the economy. Real estate appreciation adds literally zero value to the economy.

The thing a lot of people fail to understand about many technologies is that they don't always eliminate ALL of something.

The internet didn't eliminate all of almost any job, but it significantly reduced the number of people working in many jobs.

Significant impacts reductions have been felt in:

• Mail delivery
• Retail workers
• Newspapers
• Landline Telephone Services
• Photograph printing
• Encyclopedias
• Movie theaters
• Video Game Arcades

and more

First, the simple answer is religion, Christianity (the primary religion of the west) mostly rejected the idea in the middle ages which means that culturally most of the west grew up seeing it only as a practice engaged in by groups that aren't "us" Even those of us who aren't religious are still impacted by religious imprints on cultural norms for the area.

The actual reason?

The gender balance at birth is generally close to 50/50, I think it's closer to 51/49 but it's close enough that it doesn't matter. If one man takes two or more wives, it means there will not be enough women for every other man to also find a wife.

When a lot of these cultural norms were set, the gender ratios in specific regions were often completely skewed by wars and other deaths related to fighting, most of which happened in men. This left more women than men.

The other significant factor was that women used to die in childbirth, a lot, so having multiple wives was almost an insurance policy to make sure you still had a wife after a few years.

As death from injuries/war and childbirth decreased it has become less of a practical arrangement and there's little reason to switch away from monogamy to polygamy given that it's the current cultural norm anyways.

That being said, I don't see anything inherently wrong with polygamy myself it as long as all parties are informed and consenting.

Unfortunately a lot of the groups that still practice polygamy often do not educate women, do not provide paths for them to succeed independently, or even outright control them as property.

It's what... Three times as expensive to jail them compared to just giving them a house?

Great way to reduce the government budget there Mr. PP head

I started by just going to drop in games rather than joining a league. You may or may not be able to do the same depending on your availabile rink(s)

I took up ice hockey as an adult.

If you try hard, it's an insanely good workout.

Subway changing the way they cut their subs.

It's been more than 20 years, I'm still not over it.

Title is wrong, both here and on the site. It's 250 million not billion.

Just tell her autism doesn't exist and that she'll never hold a job, go on a date, or play baseball.

/s

VLC Media Player

https://www.videolan.org/

Drones, yes.

Ieds, no.

I don't want a sizable population that knows how to blow shit up until the last possible minute before an invasion.

The simple answer is that the government teams who assess them can't know the exact market value unless the home they're assessing sells on the date that their assessment is meant to be for. There's no other way to obtain the market value other than selling the actual house.

What someone lists a home for is not the market value, what someone bought the home for 6 months ago is not the market value, and about a hundred other things from renos to rezoning to even a murder can change the market value of a property overnight.

So these teams use a "good enough" approach which statistically analyze based on property size, location, age, known building information, etc. and then combine this with historical sales data to try to get a decent number so that property taxes can be applied reasonably fairly.

So? What's the problem with that being the goal?

There are options for letting even single parents raise their own children that do not require that parent to work.

There is always hope.