571–580 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extra Space Storage will buy your self-storage outfit for cash, or give you “ operating partnership units in Extra Space Storage’s REIT [Real Estate Investment Trust].” $5B in closed transactions in the last 5 years. https://www.extraspace.com/acquisition/
That explains why there's half a dozen self storage buildings within 5 feet of my apartment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the wish for a positive solution doesn't pan out, people turn to the spiteful negative. Turn up the pain on others, that will solve things. Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. Presumably to LVT enthusiasts those just aren't high enough. When the right level of pain has created the perfect incentives, wasteful duplexes will vanish and high density arco…
> Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. It's strange, because almost all property tax systems in the US are based on ad valorem taxation. I'm personally opposed to the concept as a matter of fundamental principle. Society can't function if people's property rights are constantly under the threat of being usurped by someone whose intended uses might generate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the wish for a positive solution doesn't pan out, people turn to the spiteful negative. Turn up the pain on others, that will solve things. Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. Presumably to LVT enthusiasts those just aren't high enough. When the right level of pain has created the perfect incentives, wasteful duplexes will vanish and high density arco…
> Never mind that many real estate tax regimes already include a component based on the land value. It's strange, because almost all property tax systems in the US are based on ad valorem taxation. I'm personally opposed to the concept as a matter of fundamental principle. Society can't function if people's property rights are constantly under the threat of being usurped by someone whose intended uses might generate…
Why would a democratic society tax itself needlessly? LVT is by definition limited to a certain proportion.
The entire thesis of my OP is that the last 200 years of protections of property rights are now quickly leading to a "rent-seeking state by a plurality of various oligarchies". At least the political state uniformly distributes power instead of dividing the country between land/home owners and renters.
> People should have a right to use the property they own in the way that generates maximum value for them
A LVT only encourages you to do so efficiently... you could easily move to a rural/undesirable area and have all that freedom and now much lower overall tax rate. If you aren't paying the LVT back to society you are by definition depriving someone else of the very freedom you wanted to protect. It's a fantasy to think that everyone can have the property freedoms you describe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...did you say 'apps'?
I hate the trend that everything must be an app
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is just another instance of how low property taxes and the absence of land value taxes massively benefits low-value businesses Thank god we haven't optimized that fully. This is how small businesses like local cafes, delis, bookstores, and "mom and pop" stores are able to survive in cities. I wouldn't want to live in any capitalist shit-hole where land value taxes force high-value businesses.
> This is how small businesses like local cafes, delis, bookstores, and "mom and pop" stores are able to survive in cities. Nonsense. Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land - hell, a lot of the best of those are run by people who live above the store, meaning the extra land use is zero. The businesses that benefit from a lack of land value tax are parking lots, drive thrus, distribution centres, that…
How about starting with the actual argument to make it less rude?
>Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land
Which is neither here, not there. They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes (the parent even spells it out: "low property taxes and generous loan terms" (...) primarily benefited small businesses, individuals, etc"), and are also what the parent calls "low-value business" (low monetary value, of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*In a healthy competitive market with a consumer-base that's well educated on potential consequences of their purchases. I do agree with the principle that a space-hogging marginally profitable business is detrimental to a community. Just that the opposite is not necessarily true; profitability does not imply beneficiality. Humans do not fit the model of "rational self-interested agent" commonly applied for economic…
> Humans do not fit the model of "rational self-interested agent" commonly applied for economic models. They generally do -- the misalignment comes from analyzing people's behavior according to presumptive interests which have been externally attributed to them, instead of observing behavior in order to ascertain what people's interests actually are. > Gambling and addictive substances are two hugely profitable busin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your comment is that you're appealing to a phrase, "land value tax", that isn't original to you. The definition you want to give to it is not compatible with the definition that everyone else uses. (And indeed, isn't even connected to the concept of "land value", making it unclear why you'd want to use those words.) This allows you to avoid the logical inconsistency in what counts as land value that…
Land value tax already has a specific meaning as a class of tax systems. If it's poorly named from your point of view, I'm sorry - but I had nothing to do with the naming.
Yes, that's my point. Your use is incompatible with the existing use. You are not responsible for the conventional use of the phrase "land value tax", but you certainly are responsible for presenting your own ideas under the same name and acting confused when people assume you're using the ordinary sense of the phrase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is how small businesses like local cafes, delis, bookstores, and "mom and pop" stores are able to survive in cities. Nonsense. Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land - hell, a lot of the best of those are run by people who live above the store, meaning the extra land use is zero. The businesses that benefit from a lack of land value tax are parking lots, drive thrus, distribution centres, that…
> Nonsense How about starting with the actual argument to make it less rude? > Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land Which is neither here, not there. They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes (the parent even spells it out: "low property taxes and generous loan terms" (...) primarily benefited small businesses, individuals, etc"), and are also w…
Don't conflate two very different things. A business is affected by land value taxes to the extent that it uses expensive land (that's the point). A business that takes up zero land, such as one that can be run from the same building you live in, ipso facto pays zero land value tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an overabundance of sugar in the diet That's literally the first point I listed. > and lack of anything that resembles a decent food culture. Yep. I mean, I'm European so I'm a bit biased - here over the pond, we associate American food culture with "tons of fat and sugar". > It is absolutely possible to maintain a quick and healthy diet on low budget - there are infinite reddit threads and substack articles on the…
> They can afford to buy in bulk when stuff is on sale, they can afford to store bulk supplies without them going bad, they can afford to drive a lot just to get the best deals. In my experience, none of those three are that key at food cost cutting anyway. The key is choosing what to eat. If you make food at home out of cheap, nutritious ingredients, you will do well. The bag of beans that is only 1 lb and is at the…
You're still ignoring the point that it can be very hard to even get access to basic staples, and I'm not just talking about the financial aspect but moreso about "how to get to a grocery store", especially in areas with no or derelict public transportation.
> but acnowledge the real poverty is primarily cultural, not monetary
Way over half of Americans can't cover an unexpected $500 emergency bill [1]. America's greatest problem is widespread poverty and income insecurity, everything else stems directly from that.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/63percent-of-workers-are-una...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nonsense How about starting with the actual argument to make it less rude? > Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land Which is neither here, not there. They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes (the parent even spells it out: "low property taxes and generous loan terms" (...) primarily benefited small businesses, individuals, etc"), and are also w…
> They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes Don't conflate two very different things. A business is affected by land value taxes to the extent that it uses expensive land (that's the point). A business that takes up zero land, such as one that can be run from the same building you live in, ipso facto pays zero land value tax.
Local bookstores, delis, cafes, specialty shops, and so on, (a) use "expensive land", and (b) are not, usually, run "from the same building you live in".
I'm not talking about rural shops (those are a whole other thing, and die due to other reasons, like the economic decline and abandoment of rural areas).
I'm talking about beloved shops in major cities, replaced by expensive real estate getting them demolished to build whatever luxury mega-crap, and driving up rents contributing to gentrification.