BlameThePeacock @ BlameThePeacock @lemmy.ca

Posts

4

Comments

1,932

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yup, by excluding the south east (Texas to Florida) they could easily reboot it in a much more progressive manner.

From a best friend, sure, I fully agree.

However do be careful when it comes to other relationships, it does have the potential to cause problems.

I like the government to force companies to meet certain regulations for production of various food items so that they're safe for everyone, but then let me pick at the grocery store from what's then produced.

If you buy guns based on looks, you shouldn't allowed to own a gun in my opinion.

Every gun should be legally required to be neon pink. If you're using it for sport shooting or hunting or even self defence it wouldn't matter.

#Murica

Even without any insurance/coverage that specific medication (Adavair Diskus) is like $100 CDN ($70 USD) for 60 days where I live in Canada, and the generic is $20 cheaper than that.

That doesn't apply when the item has ongoing costs like a land value tax. People don't bid up items that return a negative value. This is why cars go down in value over time.

A high enough land value tax is the same as a government rent amount, but still allows for individual ownership and the benefits thereof (like being able to make changes to the property)

You're absolutely correct. People are yelling for change, but refuse to vote for that change.

There are multiple ways to crash the value of housing.

One of the easiest would be a 100% capital gains tax on property values (not building value). You can no longer profit from simply holding onto land. You can develop it and earn a profit from the building work you do, but just holding it and doing nothing no longer generates any value. This profit motive is what's pushing the investment in property that drives up prices, and removing it would crash the value of land overnight.

Or, and this is my preferred option, a monthly land value tax (again not on buildings) that is set high enough to replace all of the income taxes, then drop income taxes to 0%. This way we tax people based on how much land they use (which includes how desirable that land is just based on the assessments) not based on how much work they accomplish. People who live in smaller amounts of land (like a condo) pay less tax, and people who want giant mansions near cities can pay the rest of us a bucket load of money that the rest of us workers now save on taxes. Instead of replacing income taxes, I also wouldn't mind seeing a similar universal basic income system.

You handle it the same way we're handling the crazy high rents right now, by letting some people get hurt. It's just a matter of who.

In the current system we have, it's the non-homeowners that are getting fucked, and recent home purchasers too, but since new non-homeowners keep joining the population (kids grow up, and immigrants) that means continual pain for more and more people in a never ending pyramid scheme of sky high prices.

If we crash the market in the way I propose, current homeowners will get absolutely fucked (including me), but going forward the prices will now be affordable and controlled for everyone. It will also make for a much healthier overall economy.

I miss Costco having one-way aisles during COVID, it significantly improved the shopping experience.

In the case of the housing crisis, it really isn't.

The longer we continue this pyramid scheme of propping up house prices the more people will be hurt by it.

We need to pass government policies that crash the value of housing by 50-80% instead of continuing to pretend that we can build our way to cheaper houses after the market has shown again and again it will not do that.

There's no legal way to force them no, but they can offer them contracts to get them to do it they just have to pay.

Building enough housing to the currently homeless will not solve homelessness.

Especially if it's setting up a benefit to pay for housing, because that's just going to push lower rents up and force other people out.

There are some examples in places like Russia where things like the privatization of the food system has led to more options for citizens, but it was a rough transition and much of the privatization just ended up in more corrupt systems.

May as well just cut off your ears at this point because a lot of people are going to be very rude to you anywhere you try to spout this shit outside of the Klan rally the commentor mentioned.

Stop worrying about what's in other people's pants, you'll have a much more relaxed life.

As with Rome, the limitation is often communication and transportation.

You'd have a hard time even keeping Mars part of unified empire with Earth given our current technology level. We simply can't move things back and forth easily enough until we figure out fusion reactors (or some other power source) to a much higher level than we currently have.

Any sort of empire spanning more than a single solar system would require faster than light travel and communications.

Agreed, this isn't complicated. We either want it to exist and we pay for it, or it goes away.

I don't even think they could be legally prosecuted in Canada at that age, let alone placed in a detention facility.

Even if they murdered someone they may just get handed to a mental healthcare situation rather than juvenile detention.

If you don't want to meet her with the kids, there's little point in meeting her at all. You aren't going to be hanging out regularly because she will have kids that need to be tended, so why push.

As a parent, we only hang out with other parents at this point, and generally only those that we have developed a relationship with via kids activities (school, sports, etc) because it's much easier to maintain that relationship when you see them 2-3 times a week for

<insert sport>

<insert kids event>

A realistic take on the situation.

I fully agree, despite how much people hate AI, training itself isn't infringement based on how copyright laws are written.

I think we need to treat it as the copier situation, the person who is distributing the copyright infringing material is at fault, not the tool used to create it.