Fine work here Comrade. One question. Have you looked at a person? Do you know how laughable your tax rates, motivational assumptions and standards are? You sound like the 4chan chuds of 2015 planning how to get a girlfriend by Stockholm syndrome and Costco bulk eggs
edit: just looked at a person, realized I am laughable, editing my original comment.
Quick question: do you have any criticism besides "your plan sounds silly because a 30% tax rate is high"? have you ever heard of georgism? Why do you equate my desire to improve cities for rich people and make welfare more efficient with incel misogyny? #NOTALLAUTISTS
I like the city of refuge idea, and maybe figuring out somehow to reverse the Great Migration is in order. Grants to become small farmers or something.
And simply not building public housing where the population is dense is an excellent idea. Trailer parks are definitely better than high rise HUD monstrosities.
For the bums who ruin public spaces, I think homes based on medieval monasteries is in order. You get rustic free food and shelter, but if you want to drink, you need to do some work. Brew the beer yourselves.
Isnt having mid size density below 10,000 per square feet make the country into LA county and Staten Island the most inefficient of both worlds. Not enough density for transit and turns it into traffic hell hole. Also homeless is worse in mid tier non dense west cities than on east coast.
I have no clue what you're saying. The people leaving the cities, in my plan, have no jobs. They don't do anything, besides janitorial and restaurant work. They don't need cars. There will be no traffic. This isn't really a plan to make homelessness disappear, it's a plan to make cities nice.
I'm not sure what you mean to imply by "absorbed by the landlords." Yes, all property taxes are paid by land owners. 10% to 40% of people would leave the city under my plan, which would massively decrease demand for land. The price of housing would still probably slightly increase because of the massive taxation. Is this a problem?
I just mean that when you tax most things, the price goes up. But this isn't the case for land, where the supply is fixed, meaning that landlords cannot pass the additional cost onto renters. A land value tax or property tax would be very effective in bringing house prices down and promoting more efficient use of land.
Although I might be missing something - a lot of people seem to assume a land tax would somehow increase the price of land.
Oh sure, I see what you're saying. I would say that under my plan, New York would be a much nicer place to live, which might actually put upward pressure on prices. The base cost would almost certainly decline, but the taxation might mean that effective rent is more expensive. It depends on how much you think prices would drop -- if it would be more than the total cost of taxation.
Alternatively, just give everyone UBI and watch people leave to places with low cost of living.
Btw: if you're going to stop subsidizing transit, please also stop subsidizing car travel. Which starts with charging market rate for parking and continues with internalizing externalities such as air, noise pollution. And includes not only the construction and maintainan e of roads, but also their equivalent LVT.
I think UBI is cool, but poor people will still stay in cities as long as welfare spending is localized. I'm arguing for de-localizing (federalizing) welfare spending, especially as pertains to housing.
Regarding the cost of parking: my plan includes a land tax, which means that building and owning a parking lot would be much more expensive than it currently is. This is an effective tax on car ownership. And I totally agree we should tax cars for pollution, including nose pollution, and car owners should pay the entirety of the cost of road construction and maintenance. I will probably get around to the car article in 5 months.
You're absolutely correct that zoning laws are a tax on housing. But I am advocating that we increase this tax, not decrease it.
Not all cities need to be "livable." The present conditions of our big cities is intolerable and an insult to the dignity of this country. Big cities should be luxuries for rich people to enjoy. If you are not rich, that is fine, there are many small and mid-sized cities where you can live. You will be paid handsomely, thousands of dollars, to voluntarily move.
The density that I describe, 10k per square mile, is targeted at the top 20 cities in America, which are overburdened, overcrowded, polluted, and congested. I take the problem of congestion seriously. Congestion is inefficient and a tax on the nation. My plan would solve congestion. Your policy of "policing and building more apartments" would not.
Cheap restaurants are not necessary, and plumbers can just be paid more. Anyone who does useful work will just be paid higher wages. Rich people will be willing to pay higher costs because they enjoy not being surrounded by trash, filth, crime, and other undesirable elements.
I am not personally concerned about "criminal acts," although my plan would reduce crime. I am concerned with people spitting, shuffling down the street wearing blankets and rugs, doing drugs, being schizophrenic. None of these are crimes, but they are ugly and should be removed. Right now I am staring outside the window watching a man break into a giant metal box labeled "clothing donation." I don't want him put in a prison, I just want him to live in Kansas.
Fine work here Comrade. One question. Have you looked at a person? Do you know how laughable your tax rates, motivational assumptions and standards are? You sound like the 4chan chuds of 2015 planning how to get a girlfriend by Stockholm syndrome and Costco bulk eggs
What difference would that make?
edit: just looked at a person, realized I am laughable, editing my original comment.
Quick question: do you have any criticism besides "your plan sounds silly because a 30% tax rate is high"? have you ever heard of georgism? Why do you equate my desire to improve cities for rich people and make welfare more efficient with incel misogyny? #NOTALLAUTISTS
Delightfully fascist!
I'm not sure that importing black people to Kansas and giving them free housing is fascism, but go off.
I like the city of refuge idea, and maybe figuring out somehow to reverse the Great Migration is in order. Grants to become small farmers or something.
And simply not building public housing where the population is dense is an excellent idea. Trailer parks are definitely better than high rise HUD monstrosities.
For the bums who ruin public spaces, I think homes based on medieval monasteries is in order. You get rustic free food and shelter, but if you want to drink, you need to do some work. Brew the beer yourselves.
Hah. Have you talked to any Kansans about your grand plan? Yikes.
I'm not a populist.
Neither are you sane. LOL
Hunter Biden for president! Yeah, that will go over really well.
Almost as well as Kamala.
Maybe you are just a jester pulling the Left's leg. In which case, carry on! :-)
In all seriousness, I like portions of your proposal. Other bits make me go "yikes!"
Isnt having mid size density below 10,000 per square feet make the country into LA county and Staten Island the most inefficient of both worlds. Not enough density for transit and turns it into traffic hell hole. Also homeless is worse in mid tier non dense west cities than on east coast.
I have no clue what you're saying. The people leaving the cities, in my plan, have no jobs. They don't do anything, besides janitorial and restaurant work. They don't need cars. There will be no traffic. This isn't really a plan to make homelessness disappear, it's a plan to make cities nice.
The land tax would be absorbed by landlords as the supply of housing is inelastic
I'm not sure what you mean to imply by "absorbed by the landlords." Yes, all property taxes are paid by land owners. 10% to 40% of people would leave the city under my plan, which would massively decrease demand for land. The price of housing would still probably slightly increase because of the massive taxation. Is this a problem?
I just mean that when you tax most things, the price goes up. But this isn't the case for land, where the supply is fixed, meaning that landlords cannot pass the additional cost onto renters. A land value tax or property tax would be very effective in bringing house prices down and promoting more efficient use of land.
Although I might be missing something - a lot of people seem to assume a land tax would somehow increase the price of land.
Oh sure, I see what you're saying. I would say that under my plan, New York would be a much nicer place to live, which might actually put upward pressure on prices. The base cost would almost certainly decline, but the taxation might mean that effective rent is more expensive. It depends on how much you think prices would drop -- if it would be more than the total cost of taxation.
Alternatively, just give everyone UBI and watch people leave to places with low cost of living.
Btw: if you're going to stop subsidizing transit, please also stop subsidizing car travel. Which starts with charging market rate for parking and continues with internalizing externalities such as air, noise pollution. And includes not only the construction and maintainan e of roads, but also their equivalent LVT.
I think UBI is cool, but poor people will still stay in cities as long as welfare spending is localized. I'm arguing for de-localizing (federalizing) welfare spending, especially as pertains to housing.
Regarding the cost of parking: my plan includes a land tax, which means that building and owning a parking lot would be much more expensive than it currently is. This is an effective tax on car ownership. And I totally agree we should tax cars for pollution, including nose pollution, and car owners should pay the entirety of the cost of road construction and maintenance. I will probably get around to the car article in 5 months.
You're absolutely correct that zoning laws are a tax on housing. But I am advocating that we increase this tax, not decrease it.
Not all cities need to be "livable." The present conditions of our big cities is intolerable and an insult to the dignity of this country. Big cities should be luxuries for rich people to enjoy. If you are not rich, that is fine, there are many small and mid-sized cities where you can live. You will be paid handsomely, thousands of dollars, to voluntarily move.
The density that I describe, 10k per square mile, is targeted at the top 20 cities in America, which are overburdened, overcrowded, polluted, and congested. I take the problem of congestion seriously. Congestion is inefficient and a tax on the nation. My plan would solve congestion. Your policy of "policing and building more apartments" would not.
Cheap restaurants are not necessary, and plumbers can just be paid more. Anyone who does useful work will just be paid higher wages. Rich people will be willing to pay higher costs because they enjoy not being surrounded by trash, filth, crime, and other undesirable elements.
I am not personally concerned about "criminal acts," although my plan would reduce crime. I am concerned with people spitting, shuffling down the street wearing blankets and rugs, doing drugs, being schizophrenic. None of these are crimes, but they are ugly and should be removed. Right now I am staring outside the window watching a man break into a giant metal box labeled "clothing donation." I don't want him put in a prison, I just want him to live in Kansas.