You must log in or register to comment.
The more properties you own, the more tax you pay on the price of the next one - excluding if you only own one, but escalating quickly after like 3 or 4.
Linear housing, quadratic taxes
This is so obviously what needs to happen. The fact that it hasn’t says everything you need to know about current governments.
Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.
Ok now it’s starting to get confusing enough to fit into our tax system. Can we add more variables? Lol
Texas is that way to a point. Your primary residence gets enormous tax breaks. Any property after that, fuck you, pay up. The downside to that is that it contributes to the high cost of rent as the owner passes it along to the tenant.
Does it increase per property owned though? They can’t keep passing on the tax increase to the tenant if at a certain point they own 1000 houses and now their tax on the last one is 7 times higher than the rent on it.
That’s what we should be doing any house after your second gets increased a ton per house. Make it untenable for people to own rental properties. I don’t mind someone having a vacation house or two if they can afford it. But nobody needs 10 vacation houses, they’re rental or investment properties at that point so fuck them.
Are you talking about a homestead exemption? I think most places have something like that but it’s just a discount on the house you live in so not an increase on the other properties. They would just get normal tax rates for any additional properties. I think making it an exponential tax would make a huge difference.
Yes homestead. I’m not sure how other states do it.
Texas increased from ten thousand to twenty five thousand to forty thousand to a hundred thousand in a short period.
So semantics. I say increase for other houses, you say discount for primary house. Either way you choose to phrase it, you pay less for your primary residence and more for other properties.
My city somewhat does this. You get a significant tax break on your primary residence, so if you rent out your house you pay more.
But if you rent out 1000 houses you pay the same tax rate and if you were to rent 3. Op was saying that it should go up per house. So by the time you have like 3 or 4 you can’t afford more.
Serious question, couldn’t you bypass this by just setting up different LLCs that only have one or two properties under them?
They already do this. In my old job, the boss had 0 properties, he just used company money, company cars etc and had multiple of them
Any and all type of marketing completely banned.
I think you should be allowed one sign on the building itself and a listing in some sort of directory and that’s it.
Yea as much as we hate marketing it’s necessary to some degree for us to even know that things exist. How do you think new medications for yet untreated diseases get spread? Those companies pay a ton in marketing to get the meds out into the world and in the hands of doctors. Lots more people would be dying of stuff we have the cure for if they couldn’t advertise meds.
Directories for specific products would be good though. If I need a kitchen gadget I can go to a directory of kitchen or food goods and look around. Between that and word of mouth we would be covered.
you get one research paper too but the sample size of the study should be in the title.
Yes please
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
They do this in India. You’re allowed 2 homes, 3rd onwards you have to pay Income tax for deemed rent received if it’s empty.
After a while, it’s just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn’t actually mean much if you’re rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it’s a fuck you tax.
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
The issue then is that all the investors that have already bought a ton of places can still leave them empty.
It’s not just another cost of doing business though, it’s specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don’t change behavior and just eat the cost, then that’s more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
You do, it’s called property taxes.
But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented
I don’t see this working. Not only the property owners would transfer this cost to your monthly payments, the government would need an enormous bureaucracy to actually control and enforce this law. I don’t believe this is technically possible to achieve.
They pass on a tax that doesn’t apply if you’re renting it?
Eventually somebody will rent it, and the monthly price will be higher to recoup the tax.
No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.
My dad inherited my grandma’s ancient house recently and is practically forced to find a way to remodel it to be rentable because there is a imputed rental value tax where I’m from.
What’s the alternative, just leave it empty?
I would think it could also be acceptable to transfer ownership to a relative who doesn’t already own a home. It just seems like a waste to have a house with nobody living in it while so many people are unhoused.
I guess he could sell it but then its pretty likely that it’s brought by a property developer, as we can’t afford to buy it off him. As it stands, the house isn’t really suitable to live in
Motherboard front panel connectors should be officially standardized. These fucking things have been basically the same since the 90s, but we still have to line up all the individual wires instead of having one plug.
Oh, and fix RGB headers while we’re at it. They’re the flimseist fucking thing, and you shouldn’t be able to use a 4 pin plug on a three pin header.
They said dumb ideas.
Also modular power supplies while we’re at it thanks. 20 years and the cables still can’t be reused/you have to remanage the whole damn case when doing a swap
That’s already a thing? I have several power supplies that have completely detachable cables allowing the psu to be swapped directly. Not sure how standardised the psu side of the cable is between manufacturers, but this does exist in some form.
They’re talking about standardisation. Unfortunately, many manufacturers use different pinouts on the psu side. Sometimes they’re identically shaped but have the polarity reversed, or 12v on a 5v rail. Pure evil…
Make the manufacturers comply with standard rgb headers. I’ve got several accessories that came with rgb headers that I have no idea what the hell they were supposed to connect to other than maybe some proprietary controller. Absurd when most any decent common mobo all use the same connector type.
All adult sex work should be legal across the board. Anyone, of legal age, should be allowed to not only sell their services but they should be able to pay taxes and be allowed to unionize and collect benefits from any organization they work for (brothels).
A lot of the people in this world who are messed up in the head just need to get laid, and those doing to dirty work should be celebrated and rewarded for their efforts. I genuinely think this would make the world a better place.
They said dumb ideas, not smart ones.
That is pretty much how it is in Germany. Illegal (outside of the regulation avoiding taxes) and forced prostitution is still a huge problem. There is just way too much money to be made in that business…
I personally prefer the Nordic models therfore.
The problem in the countries that generally allow prostitution is that, though it has been legalized, it is still horribly stigmatized. Which creates that gap where forced prostitution can flourish. If a “business” is using illegal immigrants as forced labor, who can they turn to for help? That’s a double dose of stigma right there. But even a native person who’s being coerced would likely get little in the way of help since “upstanding” society looks down on their chosen profession.
Our collective worldly society needs to stop looking down their nose at sex workers as some kind of deviancy.
But then, seeing how religious extremists seem to be gaining power all over, I doubt we’ll see any positive change on any of these things.
The pimps that are trafficking over don’t care about stigmas and the women aren’t afraid about getting stigmatized, but about getting send back to their home-countries.
You’re reading comprehension is lacking. The people I am referring to having a stigma against prostitution are not the pimps or the girls who are performing. It’s the law and the society of people who think prostitution is a lowly profession for degenerates.
people…just need to get laid
A Hollywood induced fantasy.
People need therapy, and substituting that with sex is enabling the messed up folks to stay messeed up.Nope. In germany you can actually get a prostitute paid by your healthcare provider if you are disabled because it has so many benefits for your mental health. If you never even experience that important part of human life you can easily get depressed.
Ex-JW here. 100% agree. I’m still fucked up from that shit.
deleted by creator
Sexual surrogacy is a thing for a reason. Licensed therapists work with patients and sexual surrogates.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-sexual-surrogacy
So sex can be part of therapy.
Now that would make about 95% of all BMW drivers wonder why their steering is broken…
It’s not just BMWs anymore. Probably only about half the people on the road with me use turn signals and it doesn’t matter what they drive.
Sadly yes
Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.
Realistically, they still drive. They just don’t have insurance so the second person they hit is fucked.
I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.
I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn’t have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
Respectfully, so what? If you drive for your livelihood then it’s your own damn fault if you get banned from it for doing something illegal.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Imagine a kid runs out on the road suddenly… What a dumb fucking idea!
Correct. A dumb idea is exactly what she was asked to produce.
They also asked for ideas that would make the world a better place, which this wouldn’t. So it’s just a dumb idea with mainly negative side effects.
I think they weren’t asking for an idea that would actually make the world a better place but rather one that somebody on some level believes would make the world a better place. Hence it still being a stupid idea.
If it were somehow magically possible to force people to use turn signals but only when they turn at intersections or change lanes, I think it would, in fact, make the world a better place. Because it would mean less car crashes.
But it’s not possible, which is why it’s a dumb idea.
The blood of children must be sacrificed if we want to live in a world with good driving etiquette
Or a road with a bend in it… 😅
The smarter version of this idea is the turn signal comes on automatically in the direction you turn.
It’s not. The point of a turning signal is to give a warning to fellow drivers in advance. Turning it on right when you’re turning is way too late. Just learn to drive properly for fucks sake!
The smarter version of a dumb idea is still a dumb idea. No one is advocating seriously for any of this because of the obvious flaws.
haha imagine… cars having brakes! LOL wtf amirite?
I still like to think the thing from Fight Club where they blow up all the central banks would be cool.
The idea of “destroy the banks and free everyone” is in so many movies and shows. Sneakers, Mr. Robot, Fight Club. Hell, even Tuvok had a gang of teenage hackers “ethically distribute” money in SeaQuest.
I’m destroying war, corruption. I’m ripping the heart out of greed! [as they both battle to hack into and out of the world bank]
It does have some historical precedent. In the ancient Near East it was common for all debts to be destroyed every decade or so.
Mr Robot definitely had my favorite execution of the idea. Destroying the tape backups with their own environmental control system was just the best. I still feel bad about the nice security guard guy though :(
That movie is wilder than I remember….
We don’t talk about it…
Texas would come to a grinding halt.
Car companies cry in bankrupt
If you brake check, the car will eject you through the sunroof. If you don’t have a sunroof, you do now.
Always puzzled me, let’s say the dude behind failed the check and hit your car, what the hell did you gain from this?
At least in the US, a lot of fault hinges on rear impact. Not worth a damn, however, with how many dashcams people have now. These idiots still try though.
Fun fact, in a lot of states even if they slam the brakes if you hit them you are still at fault. You should have been at a safe following distance, and no one knows what that actually means. People will argue that a distance of less than 2 seconds is totally fine and safe because they do it all the time. But a safe following distance means that at your current speed of travel if the car in front of you came to an impossibly instantaneous stop you should have time to notice and stop without hitting them.
At freeway speeds this is a minimum of 4 seconds following distance in dry condition. As in when the back of their car passes a sign that you should be able to start counting Mississippi’s and not reach that sign with the front of your car for at least 4 Mississippi’s
Now, if they come up from behind you swerve over and then instantly slam on the brakes obviously you’re fine(if you have a dash cam) there was nothing you could have done, but if you have just been riding their ass and then they slam on the brakes? You’re totally a fault as far as the law in many states is concerned
That’s exactly the mechanism being exploited, yes.
Oooh, I didn’t understand what you were talking about until the last paragraph. I always thought “brake checking” was a specific move when you change lanes in front of the car and slam on the brakes, just a type of road rage. So, when you said that you’d be at fault if you hit them in the rear, I was really confused.
On the other hand, if you “ride their ass” and they check you, that’s completely fine in my book. Personally, I always keep the safe distance and it makes me really nervous when someone follows up close as I like to be in control of the road situation around me. An animal could run onto the road, something could fall out of a nearby truck etc. I mean, what is the person behind going to do? Anyways, I don’t usually check them, but rather slow down gradually so they also have to, and then speed up. They usually get mad, but if you’re going to drive like a dick, expect someone to react.
This isn’t true, if they can stop at an impossibly fast speed, why can’t you? Let’s say they stop in 3 seconds, that means their brakes can get them from 65 to 0 in 3 seconds. If you’re 2 seconds behind them, you have 5 seconds to stop. If you react within 2 seconds, you should be able to stop in 3 seconds. The only reason you would not be able to, is if you didn’t do maintenance on your brakes,
There’s almost no person in the world who can’t react in 2 seconds.
What if they slam into a truck at highway speeds? Instantly they’ve gone ftom 100km/h to 0, and you have to stop your car before you slam into them. How much space do you need between you in this scenario?
With 2 seconds worth of space, you have about 55 meters between you, and a normal reaction time would be about 250ms, which leaves you 1.75 seconds and 48 meters to come to a complete stop. And hopefully the person behind you reacts accordingly and doesn’t slam into you as well.
This is the answer, and is exactly what happens when you see those accidents involving like 6 Plus cars. Too many people riding way too close together at high speeds and none of them were able to stop in time when the first car suddenly stopped
- The front of the car has a lot more expensive stuff to damage.
- The back car is usually called at fault so has a lower chance of changing this
- I knew an asshole who kept his trailer hitch in, just so he could potentially do more damage when brake checking someone
It’s their fault, so life insurance pays up.
Even so, it’s still a huge waste of time to get it covered and lose your car for days or weeks
??? Life insurance is the thing that pays money if you die young (and don’t do it intentionally). Assuming that’s what you’re getting out of it you don’t have to worry anymore.
How would the car know the difference between that and breaking for an emergency?
I don’t know, that’s someone else’s job. I’m just the idea guy.
Make me your leader and I will solve all problems big and small.
What about roads that curve? A signal could be misleading in such a situation.
I’ve 100% turned on my blinker for a curve in the road, and I feel like a fucking idiot when I do it. So fortunately I’ve seen other people do it and I know there’s at least a couple of us out there. The worst part is it’s been the same curve multiple times. There’s nowhere else to go either, the road just bends right, but sometimes I just hit the old blinkety-blink.
Slight disagreement:
This will give assholes who thinks a turn signal gives them the right of way more ammo to be jackasses in traffic.
I’m thinking more likely accidents are going to occur when people try to avoid road hazards or go around corners and they don’t remember to turn on their turn signal and the car just goes straight and barrels into something…or someone.
What about just needing to steer along a windy road?
They’re already assholes though at least this way we know what they’re doing.
