ItsMonkk

13 ms·

91.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
But this is why the Steam Deck is such a breath of fresh air. Do whatever you want with it.
92.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
To explain this easily I need to move down to Rock, Paper, Scissors. If you are up against a bot that always throws each 33% of the time with no strategy involved, that is called an un-exploitable strategy, but it's also an un-exploiti
93.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
uBlock Filters, but for email. uBlock Filters, but for Twitter. uBlock Filters, but for ... Just let us choose which ones we can activate, and if we want to see the unfiltered list we'll turn it off and refresh.
94.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
You must have an expert or experts. That expert will then make decisions, and use metrics and surveys and intuition to drive their new world view, but it's the expert that is always at the top of the stack. If you then take that model
95.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
> and doled out by the government Not necessary. A land value tax provides a market-based solution to this problem.
96.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
I think this is just a temporary phase until society figures out how to adjust to the new environment. Nothing about remote work enforces isolation. You can work from a coffee shop, you can work from the beach, you can work from a library,
97.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Creating and allowing public use is a positive externality. Negative externalities should be taxed, and positive externalities should be subsidized. Everyone should be able to freely use any public works, and governments should ensure that
98.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
When new technology is introduced people always talk about how existing workflows are cheaper. That's true, but the biggest impacts are always driven by things that were previously cost prohibitive that now become possible. YouTubers a
99.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
I'm pretty sure you can have both if the tax bubbles up. You pay the local tax. That tax money then goes and pays the city tax. The city tax pays the state tax, the state tax pays the country tax, the country tax pays the global tax. Y
100.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Yes, this is true. But as tax money is raised, the local government has a choice 1. They can use the tax money to fund services. 2. They can return the tax money collected as a Citizen's Dividend. If they don't have any need for a
101.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
This is exactly how rejoining an in-progress Heroes of the Storm(another Blizzard title that was built on top of the Starcraft II engine) match worked. You would 'fast-forward' through and it could often take 5+ minutes on a slowe
102.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Ah, this is true. Targeting a certain specific thing in a market will cause distortions. This is why I am for the value of all land being taxed. No distortions.
103.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
> So, say the property is worth 1mil$, and you pay 1% tax. That's 10k. You charge 3k rent. The taxman makes the tax 4%, now you have to pay 40k. You decide to pass 30k to the renter. So now they pay 36k+30k rent per year. 4x tax, 2x
104.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
This works for most goods that people have to constantly buy new, but does not work in the housing market. The people that decide the zoning are the residents of the city. The residents of the city don't need to buy, so they don't
105.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Yep, this is a very natural way to think and why Georgist policies have not been enacted. I'm a programmer, as most are on this website. The thing that mostly interests me is when incremental changes don't lead to global maximums.
106.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
A full land value tax has never been tried. Currently the closest example is Singapore[0], but they have much more central control than what a Georgist would find ideal. 99 year leases are far to long, and shorter leases would have much mor
107.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The value of the land is based on 1. The inherit value of the land - rivers, gold or oil being key examples. 2. The nearby infrastructure 3. The zoning policies 4. The community and commercial services If there is land zoned for another NYC
108.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
If investors are investing in apartments for people to live in there is no problem. If investors are investing in land and leaving it empty waiting for the local city to build valuable infrastructure around them before they sell it, that&#x
109.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Your argument is that places that are zoned lower are worth less, and places that are zoned higher are worth more. That's only true in the existing paradigm. What would be true in the new paradigm is that places would only allowed to b
110.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Yes, land use is one factor. What is interesting is that the dynamic actually flips once there is adequate zoning. Take a look at this[0] video on Tokyo zoning and how he talks about living in an industrial zoned area. He talks about how it
111.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The existing paradigm creates extremes. We have Manhattan filled with 40-100 story skyscrapers, then we have the other boroughs with much less. We've got suburban NJ, CT, and NY. If those areas stopped their restrictive zoning policies
112.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
If I sent you a picture of a home, and I asked you what it was worth, you wouldn't be able to answer me until I first mentioned it was in the middle of SF or if it was in the middle of the Arizona desert. The majority of urban values a
113.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
No. Renters are paying for the value of the land and the improvements. If the rental price of the apartment is above that, they won't pay it and find another place. If there are no places they will go homeless. Since landlords are alre
114.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Renters are already paying for the land value, so if a renter can afford a property, so to can a homeowner. Under a Land Value Tax it is even easier to be a homeowner, as you no longer have a huge upfront cost of buying the land. As we saw
115.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
When people speculate on land it doesn't get used as much as it should. By having people pay for the value of the land, that either forces them to make use of it, increasing housing supply, or get rid of it, which then the next person
116.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Not true, but I'm a Georgist so would be against the GP's targeting non-owner tax. Tax everyone according to the value of the unimproved value of their land. I can show you plenty of places with $3k+ rents in SF with prop 13 prope
117.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Here's the thing - 360 comments is not written by 360 people. 360 comments is written by 36,000 readers only 1% of whom decide to comment. It's not the time it takes to write the comment, it's the time it takes to accumulate
118.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
The Canadian system mostly simply gives it back out evenly to all. That choice is a just one. > Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Nunavat use the federal carbon tax system, the Federal Fuel Charge, which started in 2019
119.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
You need to correctly align incentives - anything else won't work. The way you align incentives is through a Land Value Tax. Currently lower supply means higher prices, which benefits existing owners, so they vote for that. Under a LVT
120.
by ItsMonkk 4y ago
Capitalism relies on the basic system of supply and demand. When the marginal supply is free - the only proper price is zero - anything else isn't pure Capitalism. And so as free would mean no incentives to actually create anything, we

More ›