How is that LVT "rent" different from any other traditional property tax being "rent"?
As near as I can tell, it is just a different way of deciding how the property tax burden is levied.
Downtown property gets taxed much more. Un-developed speculation property that doesn't contribute to the community (and derives value from other people's contributions) get taxed at the same rate as nearby developed property.
Property taxes have to be set high enough to fund services: Voters want more services, they pay more property taxes. The policy goal is delivering services the voters want to households and businesses.
LVT is designed to achieve a different policy goal: Maximize the efficiency of land use. So its rates have to be set to achieve that goal and, for example, force grandma to move out of that condo in a newly revitalized downtown so a young tech kid who can pay more & benefit from it more can move in.
Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.
Vietnam wasn't a war of defense, so it's not a great comparison. Maybe better to compare UK conscription in WW2. Which I can't really say whether it's immoral or not.
> Calling everything that doesn't paint Ukraine in a good light "Russian propaganda" is tiring.
It doesn't make it less Russian propaganda though, and from the same blend of the gay Nazi biolabs nonsense that's constantly spewed around. A telltale sign is the duality of criteria.
You have a lot of really bad takes such that I think you're intentionally trying to misunderstand or dishonestly represent an unbalanced take.
I don't know what your motivation is but I hope you'll stop. It will be more convincing as well if it looks like you're making a fair point in earnest.
User A: forced conscription of men is authoritarian and should be critiqued.
User B: that is russian propaganda!!
What am I misunderstanding, or dishonestly representing? If you don't want to have a discussion, you don't have to participate, but those cheap takes contribute nothing to a discussion.
How much would you pay to not get Ebola or another haemorrhagic disease, should it find it's way into your community? How much are you willing to pay to hedge against that risk by squelching outbreaks near the source?
Absolutely willing to pay for this. What % of the budget goes to that? Do I need to accept everything else to get this service or can I just whitelist this line item?
> Do I need to accept everything else to get this service or can I just whitelist this line item?
It's a bundled deal, sorry. It's not just governments that avoid admin overheads - no auto insurance I know will let you pick which specific impacts to insure against a la carte, just to reduce your premiums.
Also, no 2 people will ever agree on the same government spend (to the nearest million), so I don't see the point of your exercise to personally quantify how ones tax dollars should be directed. The point of having a representative government is so that individual citizens don't need referendum on how much to pay for toilet paper at an USAF base in Japan, or disease reconnaissance in central Africa - but both things benefit US citizens (broadly speaking) and need to be done, so congress allocates the money.
Um yes? I am convinced you’re a child with how you think everyone can line pick their own items and only those and somehow that works or would provide enough for the causes lmao. It’s like the people who only wanted 1 or 2 channels and they then realized how much those actually cost without everyone subsidizing.
Yes it's called private services. For instance there are no public roads for miles where I live, so I rented backhoe and made them. There is no police, so I learned how to defend myself. There is no water, so we drilled a well. The whole of public services can be privatized into line items.
Before the node-size race we also had the clock-speed race. Eventually it was common for processors reach 2-4ghz, and after that the clock speed gains stopped being practical because as you increase clock speed you also increase energy requirements and heat.
I think the implication is that clock-speed could start increasing again. It would probably require a completely new manufacturing process, but if we assume this superconductor is legit, perhaps an older process could manufacture it.
If so, maybe we could have (just spitballing here, I have no idea) 28nm super conducting CPUs that run at a 1thz instead of 4ghz. That would be quite an improvement over today's CPUs, even with fewer transistors, I think.
There are other losses and limitation in increasing clock-speeds aside from just resistive losses, but I think they are a significant part of the current bottleneck. Other losses involve transistor switching losses, and inductive losses but I don't really know the details, and I think those details change with superconductors.
We stopped chasing clock speeds because of the physical timing limitations of gate and signal propagation. Not because of heat. Suppose you are using a 5GHz clock. Every cycle is 0.2ns. Light can only travel 6cm in that time. Electricity propagates a little slower through a conductor (and even slower through silicon). So if you are using some insanely fast clock, you are just wasting cycles waiting for signals to move across the chip.
Current processors are no longer synchronous, each part now works asynchronously and there can be several instructions waiting to be completed at once, average Intructions Per Clock are already over 1, so there is no problem waiting a little more for signal to propagate.
I suspect it does matter because the inability to understand arithmetic likely effects higher level learning. For example, If you want it to learn statistics, it likely needs a good understanding of arithmetic.
All tasks that rely on it will perform worse than expected.
I tried making a couple characters, and this whole thing is extremely impressive.
First I made a rabbit that lives in my backyard. It was able to talk about the neighborhood animals and its activities. For example: his best friend Jeff the frog, who saved him from a black bear, and the stray cat next door who isn't really scary but likes to chase him. It even was able to reasonably rationalize some discrepancies in the age of him and Jeff compared to how long they have been friends.
Those are details I discovered through a normal conversation.
You dismiss the "strongtowns" argument as if there is some consensus that it has been debunked, but I don't think there is such a consensus, so you'd need to support that claim.
Further, the worst case is not that property taxes increase, it is that other people, usually less fortunate, end up subsidizing them further through federal, state, and county funds, rather than their own local taxes.
There are typically two kinds of roads these speeds are reached in the US:
1. Expressways, where pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed. They are walled off with specific entrances and exits.
2. Country highways, where pedestrians and cyclists are nearly unheard of, and are typically very easy to spot from a distance and adjust accordingly.
There is a third area where these speeds are sometimes reached in urban areas that Strong Towns calls "stroads", and these have a whole host of problems. Going 10mph over the speed limit in these areas probably doesn't make a huge difference, because the are already so pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly to begin with. Not Just Bikes has a great video about them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
It's not uncommon to see people go 20 over on country roads (including mountain roads) in Virginia. That means 55 in a 35, or 60 in a 40. Those roads don't have great visibility, and I've had more than a couple of unnecessarily close calls because of recklessly speeding drivers.
Edit: The upstream thread even has an article where the author describes doing 93 on a 55 backroad in VA and subsequently getting arrested[1].
The comment that this thread branched off of is about the relative difference in danger of 10mph with a modern vehicle, not 20, 30, or 40mph. I don't think I agree with that user's overall point, but I also didn't think your response to it was particularly on point either.
I think our transportation infrastructure needs a massive overhaul to be more pedestrian, bike, and even motor-vehicle friendly, but I think speeds limits are such a poor answer to that problem that arguing about +10mph is merely a distraction.
I don't see the rhetoric you are talking about used by mainstream climate change activists; I see reasonable changes:
1) Power most things with electricity instead of fossil fuels.
2) Generate electricity with sustainable technologies like solar, wind, geothermal. (There is division on nuclear power, but many still support that, too).
3) Reduce the amount of power wasted overall. Most people don't need huge trucks. Fewer people don't even need personal vehicles. Very few people are saying "Take away your choice", most people are saying, "stop subsidizing the bad choice, and make the public transport option at least an actual option by fixing the way we build cities".
This also extends to "stop subsidizing rural lifestyles" where people waste energy on driving 20 miles to the grocery store and back and every trip they make, and deliveries, and all of their infrastructure which has a much higher per-capita cost, while cities subsidize them. If people want to live there fine, but make them pay for it, or at least make those costs more transparent.
In other words, subsidize for the public good (environmentally sustainable things) instead of the externalized costs (environmentally disastrous things), and let the market drive consumer choice.
In most cases, really, it comes down to: STOP subsidizing bad behavior and things will probably get a lot better. That is what I think most experts expect.
It's not an extreme position; there are various activists extolling the benefits of an Intermittency Economy that would spring up in society once power companies introduced load-shedding and brownouts when renewable power sources become unavailable unexpectedly.
"For a while, let’s eat a cold dinner here and there. Continuity costs too much. Climate change kills, and it kills vulnerable people first. Intermittency saves lives, and it saves vulnerable people first. Let the pause take its place in continuous climate activism."
It's not really a big deal in the bigger scheme of things; it's just asking people to adjust their lifestyles and habits to take into account the available resources at a given moment against the background of a deadly threat to humanity. It's certainly nothing that a billion or more people in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Lebanon don't already have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
I think you are right: A city government or business wouldn't do this because they would have to take on the entire cost themselves because they don't have any control over the other end of the more global balance sheet: the rural and suburban areas.
A state-level entity could mandate it as part of construction code for 2 reasons:
1) Even the higher construction-cost apartments would be more financially solvent over the long-run than continuing to subsidize the alternative rural or suburban lifestyles.
2) Having nicer attractive apartment lifestyles would entice more people to move to more sustainable urban areas rather than the environmentally and economically unsustainable rural and suburban areas.
As near as I can tell, it is just a different way of deciding how the property tax burden is levied.
Downtown property gets taxed much more. Un-developed speculation property that doesn't contribute to the community (and derives value from other people's contributions) get taxed at the same rate as nearby developed property.