I wonder what percentage of people in California would go bankrupt if LVT were passed implemented there.
Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.
Places like AZ and Florida already solved this issue. If there is hardship the property tax accumulates as a lien on the property to be claimed when the property is sold.
You could certainly phase in an implementation over 20-30 years to give the economy time to adjust. Just interpolate the taxes.
In a state with fully implemented LVT, you would expect most people in dense cities to be living in multilevel housing that makes more efficient use of land. Eg if your condo building has 5 floors, you're splitting your land tax 5 ways.
Sprawling single level houses would be a relative luxury.
Isn't it easy to implement a threshold so it's only effective on holdings above a certain value, or exemptions for primary abode or something along these lines?
It's not difficult conceptually to come up with schemes to tax wealth which doesn't unduly harm non-wealthy individuals (however you would define that level for these purposes). It's just that for one reason or another these schemes are not implemented, and one of those reasons is (plausibly) the political influence of wealthy individuals
Problem is land value tax makes gentrification issues even worse, it's the exact opposite of prop13. Rich people move in around you or a highrise gets built and your tax rate increases extremely quickly.
Flat out wrong. Your choices aren't single family home or highrise. There are numerous other options in between. Duplexs, triplexs, fourplexs, mother-in-law suites, townhomes, live-work homes, cottages. There is a gulf of options in between single family home or NYC highrise.
Sure but when neighbors improving the land next to you results in your tax rate increasing significantly people obviously tend to be against that.
You're gonna fight hard against your neighbor adding a Duplex, triplex, fourplex, etc. because with an LVT your taxes very likely go up as a result.
Imagine the uproar when a developer comes in and converts some of the SFHs next to granny's house into a 4-plex and now granny's social security doesn't cover her taxes and she has to move to the old folks home. Sure she can theoretically take out a mortgage or second mortgage against the theoretical increased land value but now you're forcing granny into debt.
You pay tax based on unimproved land value so what your neighbor builds doesn't matter. In your scenario, for what you're talking about to happen, everyone in the neighborhood needs to be building fourplexes and opening local businesses which would change the makeup of the entire neighborhood and taxes would adjust accordingly. So no, your neighbor building a duplex doesn't spike grandmas taxes. Under the current system, grandmas neighbor building a fourplex can increase her property value and have her paying a higher property tax anyway.
It would take more than just your neighbor developing their land for your land to increase in value. land value taxes calculate the value of the undeveloped land as in land in denser areas is more valuable than suburban land. Unless all of your neighbor are putting up fourplexes changing the entire makeup of the neighborhood, your land value is unlikely to increase. This can't be said of property value where if your neighbor improves their property, your property value and property taxes might increase as a result.
I can't believe so many replies are struggling with the easy answer: privacy, security, "local first", "open source", "distributed", "open format" etc etc etc are developer goals projected onto a majority cohort of people who have never, and will never, care and yet hold all the potential revenue you need.
Is local-first bad / more difficult for collaboration because of conflict resolution? (E.g., two users edit the same document when they're offline and then, during syncing, they find that their versions diverge too much for them to be merged cleanly.) If so, isn't it possible to mark certain assets as "undivergable" which would effectively mean that the program would act like a traditional cloud-first type of app for that specific asset? This middle ground could introduce too much complexity and some inconsistency, but it could prove useful in certain cases.
Merge conflicts arise just as easily in a cloud-first app than in a local-first app once you go beyond any simple "last edit wins" consistency model (and if you have that model, it's also no problem for local-first). What counts as a conflict depends entirely on the data domain in both cases, and that's the hard part.
It's just easier to implement cloud-first because it's just CRUD with a centralized database on a server. It's still extremely hard to reliably connect two apps directly peer to peer without some centralized server as an intermediary and since you need a centralized server anyway and in addition have to do the peer to peer syncing, "local first with syncing" is inherently more complex than just syncing to a master database. But potential merge conflicts are the same in both.
No you don't. There are plenty of games you can buy and go into the wilderness and play just fine offline. Just because game developers WANT you to be online so they can get data doesn't mean you NEED to be online.
That's what confuses me about this whole topic. If you want a local app, make one. Nothing "requires" online if the features don't drive it.
We drove everything online for logistics and financial reasons. Not because the tech requires online connections for everything. it isn't changing because people don't see always-online as a big enough deterrent to change their habits.
There are currently tens of thousands of games that are unplayable due to requiring pinging to a network/patch server which long ago was deprecated.
Forsaking patch requirements, just as many games are no longer playable due to incompatibility/abandoned OS, codebase, gamebreaking bugs.
In both of these scenarios, my "lifetime license" is no longer usable through no action of my own, and breaks the lifetime license agreement.
I shouldn't need to be into IT to understand how to keep a game I bought 5 years ago playable.
The solution to this "problem" for user, as offered by the corporate investment firms in control, is to offer rolling subscriptions that "keep your license alive", for some reason. Rather than properly charge for a service at time of purchase.
TLDR: Why move the goal posts further in favor of tech/IT/Videogame Investment firms?
I think this thread is an example of a fascinating class of miscommunication I've observed on HN, but I want to say it out loud to see if I'm understanding it.
Two people meet in an HN thread, and they both dislike the status quo in a particular way (e.g. that copyright is awful, DRMed games suck, whatever). They both want to fight back against the thing that they dislike, but they do it in different ways.
One person finds alternatives to the mainstream and then advertises them and tell people: Look, here's the other way you can do it so you can avoid this terrible mess! That messaging can sometimes come across as downplaying the severity of the problem.
The second person instead wants to raise awareness of how awful the mess is, and so has to emphasize that this is a real problem.
The end result is two people that I think agree, but who appear to disagree because one wants to emphasize the severity of the problem and the other wants to emphasize potential solutions that the individual can take to address it.
Concretely, I think that's what happened here. I think everybody in this thread is pissed that single-player games would have activation and online DRM. Some people like to get around that by buying on marketplaces like GOG or playing open source games, and others want to change the policy that makes this trend possible, which means insisting that it really is a problem.
Sorry for all the meta commentary. If I got it wrong, I'd be interested to understand better!
Indeed. Most often due to divergence in definitions, scope, prior knowledge, assumptions, time frame, budget, share of burden, objective and/or incentives.
I don't agree with any of this outside of having a standard screen and networking modem. The rest of this is why I think Linux phones are being held back.
I mean that is what it is. Is there some rule that you can't call it that? Or is it just fascist don't like being called fascist and might go after people who call them fascist? Which is very fascist thing to do by the way.
I am not american and for various reasons I am not fan of current White House occupant.
Having said this, I find it weird people calling some govt facist (and by extension socialist), my observation is all of them are- reading Gramchi's facist manifesto, he says (from memory so not word to word): everything in state, nothing outside of state, nothing against the state. To my knowledge whole world is now ran by this principle, we are forced to be part of the system and pay taxes, we will be punished if we don't.
Taking this under account I come to sad conclusion that it's difficult to find a country that is not facist, certainly not the EU (a.k.a. another "thinker" Spinelli who came with his own communist manifesto which was adopted as EU's cornerstone, one of the main EU buildings carries his name), not the country I live in, I don't know about real USA posture but I guess it's similar- try to hire somebody or be hired without letting the state know and you'll face massive problems.
When people say fascism are speaking more of an authoritarian nation where corrupt officials use the state to suppress opposition. Modern day Hungary is a good example
