Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Left with Nothing

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 287 posts

Re: Left with Nothing

#121

Post by wpietri »

wmil wrote: post #3
Winst wrote: post #2

Does anyone have any idea how much it costs a traditional newspaper to produce an article like this? They've listed 15 people in the "Credits" section at the bottom. Seems cost-prohibitive. Written by Michael Sallah, Debbie Cenziper, Steven Rich / Graphics by Ted Mellnik, Emily Chow, Laura Stanton / Photos by Michael S. Williamson / Editing by Jeff Leen, Steven Kress / Research by Jennifer Jenkins / Production by Chr…

The "producers" are likely just management and several of the rest may in fact be unpaid interns trying to break into the industry. But researched articles like this are expensive to produce. That's why PR firms are so successful. Reporters need others to find and research stories for them.

Production has a different meaning in publishing than in movies, which is what I think you're referring to.

In print, production is the act of taking the raw inputs (copy, graphics, layout) and getting it out the door. E.g., the print production managers I know manage the physical details of the print medium. There is a similar meaning in advertising. [1]

Looking at the resumes of the first couple producers, one's a designer, the other lists himself as "Nerd". So I think they are using the meaning from publishing: people who produce the final product.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_agency#Production

Re: Left with Nothing

#122

Post by ksrm »

rwmj wrote: post #38
rch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has always seemed to me that property taxes are a completely incorrect idea; far more onerous than, for instance, the estate tax. Have there been any serious efforts to get rid of them?

Property taxes are very progressive and we should absolutely have more of them (fair ones, not like the one in this article where you lose your home if you fail to pay some trivial sum). The reasons are best described in the article below, but in summary, we all pay to defend and enhance your property (by supporting the police, roads, local services, etc). It's fairer for property owners to take a larger share of thi…

Absolutely! A land value tax (on the base value of the unimproved land) is an idea that goes back hundreds of years. It has many attractive properties when compared to other taxes like sales and income tax. It's a shame it hasn't really ever taken off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Re: Left with Nothing

#123

Post by dnautics »

mistermann wrote: post #67
wwweston wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a (limited) Rand fan -- I think she inadvertently explored some interesting ideas, particularly about the limits and problems of wealth/power in The Fountainhead, lost on most of her acolytes though they seem to be -- and my suspicion is that Rand would be pretty much fine with this outcome if we could just get government actors out of the equation and have private parties taking homes from people. For an exampl…

> my suspicion is that Rand would be pretty much fine with this outcome if we could just get government actors out of the equation and have private parties taking homes from people. Absolute nonsense....I can't think of a single Rand writing that would support this notion in the slightest. One of her primary principles was that the desire for the unearned was a "sin" (or whatever equivalent word she used). Taking som…

>I can't think of a single Rand writing that would support this notion in the slightest.

I could see it if MAYBE the HOA had that as part of a written agreement consented to the homeowner at the time of home puchrase. Of course, that's exactly not how government works.

Re: Left with Nothing

#124

Post by wpietri »

snitko wrote: post #118
wpietri wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they should keep saying that. I agree that some portion of government operations are dubious. I believe the portion is pretty small. The people I know who work in government are there because they want to make a difference. They would be just as outraged by this as anybody. More so, really, because they see stuff like this as shaming public service everywhere.

I have no doubt that most low-ranking government employees believe they are doing good and I don't blame them. But it doesn't matter and it doesn't change the fact that they are involved in extracting money from people with a threat of force. If you can't convince people to finance something, whatever it is, and you still collect money from them, you are stealing.

Ah, maybe the difference is that I live in a democracy, where we vote for people who set budgets, and often vote directly on the taxes ourselves. So the only people threatened by force here are those who try to be free riders on the system that the people have jointly set up. It may be different where you are.

Re: Left with Nothing

#125

Post by dnautics »

wwweston wrote: post #103
mistermann wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my suspicion is that Rand would be pretty much fine with this outcome if we could just get government actors out of the equation and have private parties taking homes from people. Absolute nonsense....I can't think of a single Rand writing that would support this notion in the slightest. One of her primary principles was that the desire for the unearned was a "sin" (or whatever equivalent word she used). Taking som…

"Earned" is a slippery concept that can take some funny turns depending on who's using it. If someone who's halfway through paying their mortgage stops making payment, has the bank earned the equity the borrower has put in? You might argue they haven't, but this isn't absurd. If nothing else, advocates for the lender -- and, in general, libertarian voluntarists -- would argue that if both parties have agreed on the c…

'Well, why not the same thing for an HOA? Nobody held a gun to your head to move into a property that's part of a private collective.'

Exactly, and that's the difference. Nobody held a gun to you head to move into the HOA collective. You knew the terms and consented to them when you moved in. Conversely, you are held to the laws of the state by the force of, ultimately, guns.

Re: Left with Nothing

#126

Post by harrytuttle »

yannis wrote: post #110
harrytuttle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an English atheist, possibly surprisingly, I think Islam is right regarding interest. Unfortunately wrapping it up in mumbo jumbo doesn't give it any credibility. Also it isn't really related to the article.

If you want to borrow money to buy a car for example from an Islamic Bank they 'buy' the car and the sell it to you in so many installments at a profit. Same as charging interest by wrapped in 'profit' which is allowed in the Koran. Pathetic and hypocritical and the first to lock you in if you can't pay.

I said I agree with the idea, not necessarily the implementation of it!

Re: Left with Nothing

#127

Post by robk »

rwmj wrote: post #55
bolder88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just go the whole hog and tax all property. eg you buy a laptop, you have to pay the government a tax each year to keep it. Why just apply it to houses? May as well just prohibit people from owning property. Personally, I think such taxes are a massive disincentive for people to do well. As soon as you have enough money to buy a house, you are penalised for it. Luckily in the UK, we don't have property tax, a…

In effect we do have a property tax on laptops, but for convenience you pay it up front (VAT @ 20% of the value). It pays for all the same things such as helping the police to defend your laptop from being stolen, and paying for the ports and roads along which your laptop was imported (as well as the national debt which was increased when you imported it). Council tax is the UK property tax. It's a very low-rated and…

Good luck getting any value from the UK police of your laptop is stolen.

Re: Left with Nothing

#128

Post by dnautics »

rwmj wrote: post #38
rch wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has always seemed to me that property taxes are a completely incorrect idea; far more onerous than, for instance, the estate tax. Have there been any serious efforts to get rid of them?

Property taxes are very progressive and we should absolutely have more of them (fair ones, not like the one in this article where you lose your home if you fail to pay some trivial sum). The reasons are best described in the article below, but in summary, we all pay to defend and enhance your property (by supporting the police, roads, local services, etc). It's fairer for property owners to take a larger share of thi…

>Property taxes are very progressive and we should absolutely have more of them.

The naivete, here, is of course, that the wealthy don't have more resources to protect themselves against property taxes or reduce their burden, or deal with enforcement, or mitigate corruption by the state.

In reality though, there is no "rules scheme" you can construct that will be as progressive as you want. You'll tack on more rules to tweak it to satisfy your conscience that you're not hurting the poor. The wealthy will hack this and find a loophole, and even if they don't, the burden isn't so terrible for them. Slight infraction by the poor will be come down upon disproportionately by the government (because the cost of enforcement against the poor is lower because of lowered risk of having it fought in the courts) and 'an example must be set'.

Although your property tax was designed to be 'progessive', it instead, wound up being a barrier that is difficult to surmount. It is naive to think that the state will be this hyper-logical ultra-fair machination. It's not, and it never will be.

Instead of socially engineering through the state, everyone would have been far better off if you helped the poor by reaching into your own pocket. But, of course if one is selfish, that's not going to happen - and it's far easier instead to project one's own selfishness onto other people, extrapolate onto all of society and use the state to run your charity for you.

Re: Left with Nothing

#129

Post by staccatomeasure »

derleth wrote: post #112
staccatomeasure wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire their own lawyer, or knowledge of the expanding and complicated laws). Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploit…

> a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); Yes, because a single corrupt or idiotic or assholic judge should be able to ruin lives left and right without regard for the law. > the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people i…

I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien.

And yes, any system you make could be gamed, but you could make one that is harder to game than the current one.

Re: Left with Nothing

#130

Post by yannis »

harrytuttle wrote: post #126
yannis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to borrow money to buy a car for example from an Islamic Bank they 'buy' the car and the sell it to you in so many installments at a profit. Same as charging interest by wrapped in 'profit' which is allowed in the Koran. Pathetic and hypocritical and the first to lock you in if you can't pay.

I said I agree with the idea, not necessarily the implementation of it!

Sure, I thought as much. I also agree with the ideal!
Post reply on HN