Your unpopular (non-political, non-offensive) opinions!

[Donut417]

40 minutes ago, Bitter said:

public infrastructure and resources than individuals? My car damages the road less than a semi truck. Fighting a fire at my house costs less than at a chemical plant. Do we just start charging everyone a bill for their use of services? How do we make that fair? Can't pay eye firemen they just let your house burn?

I said give up Income tax not property tax due. Learn how taxes work. Property taxes as well as the extra millages applied are what funds fire, police and other city and country services. Also there is a thing called gas tax, registration fees, license renewal fees and Marijuana tax (Michigan). 

 

41 minutes ago, Bitter said:

how do you manage business expenses and deduction? I

You dont get a deduction. You pay like everyone else. NO MORE DEDUCTIONS. 

 

43 minutes ago, Bitter said:

does it get taxed twice or once?

Well if I sold my car to someone right now I paid taxes on it when I bought it and the person would have to pay taxes on it when they register it in their name. So shit is taxed as many times as the government can collect tax on it.

 

44 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Do we just start charging everyone a bill for their use of services?

There are parts of the US where you pay a monthly fee to the fire department for fire protection services. If you dont pay they dont put out your houses fire. They will come out to ensure the fire wont spread but not a ounce of water from their truck will prevent your shit from burning down. Just like how my sister and brother in law have to pay a separate fee for trash service. Or how some people have to pay to have water trucked in. Or how people have to pay to empty a septic tank.  

[IPD]

^ Precisely.  The lack of change in tax code and the status-quo has more to do with lack of imagination and vision...than it does with the logistical hurdles and actual feasibility of change.

[IPD]

-Excise taxes should be heavily levied against the textiles industry.  When a stratospheric amount of clothes gets destroyed, shredded or incinerated in order to "keep up with fashion trends" or "to preserve brand exclusivity"--we are wasting vast fortunes of money and polluting the environment--for zero benefit.  By using excise taxes, produced goods are taxed, not just the goods sold.  So that will help keep waste in check.

 

-I favor Georgism and a land tax.  It is the only tax that has been shown to have zero recessionary effects; taxes on consumption, labor, wealth, etc--all form negative incentives.  Yet a land tax has none of this drawback--given its finite nature.

[Donut417]

25 minutes ago, IPD said:

-Excise taxes should be heavily levied against the textiles industry.  When a stratospheric amount of clothes gets destroyed, shredded or incinerated in order to "keep up with fashion trends" or "to preserve brand exclusivity"--we are wasting vast fortunes of money and polluting the environment--for zero benefit.  By using excise taxes, produced goods are taxed, not just the goods sold.  So that will help keep waste in check.

Never thought about this. But you do have a valid point. I myself dont take much cares in my clothing, as long as it covers my body thats all I need. I dont care about fashion trends. In my opinion this could also apply to a lot of industries who produce excess waste. I recall a town or state in the North East of the US started taxing companies who choose to use plastic packaging. All to cut down on plastic waste and reduce the amounts going in to land fills. Which makes a lot of sense. 

 

29 minutes ago, IPD said:

Yet a land tax has none of this drawback--given its finite nature.

The problem is the government always finds a way to give a tax drawbacks. The problem with land taxes as as property values go up the taxes go up. That can negatively effect owners of that said property. Even if you don't own the property (renters), the taxes can negatively effect you as your rent goes up. Now while these taxes are generally "Regulated" for example my parents bought their house in the 80s, so they are locked in to a lower tax rate. As time goes on those taxes still increase. If a new person buys my parents house they would have to pay todays tax rate. My parents pay maybe $1,600 a year in taxes vs some of these newer residence paying $5,000 a year. Also everyone always has their hands out when it comes to these taxes. Police, Fire, education, city, and county budgets are all funded to an extent on these taxes. Every other election we have a mileage proposal on the ballot because someone needs more funding. 

[IPD]

@Donut417

 

True.  But you also have people who want to hold onto excessive pieces of land for little reasons.  And the tax isn't based on improvements, it is based on just the acreage.  Undeveloped land and skyscrapers have the same tax for the same size property in the same locality.

 

One of the effects of this is it cuts down on massive lawns and excessive size properties, as the cost of a property goes up exponentially with the more acreage there is. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[Donut417]

25 minutes ago, IPD said:

And the tax isn't based on improvements,

Bullshit. City just raised our taxes $300 for the new garage we had built. 

[IPD]

13 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Bullshit. City just raised our taxes $300 for the new garage we had built. 

Yes.  CURRENT property taxes. That's not how the Georgism tax works.  Georgism doesn't levy additional based on how you improve the property.

 

Current property taxes dis-incentivize upgrades to the property--due to the commensurate hit to the consumer's wallet.  That means land remains undeveloped--because developing it carries additional tax burden.  It's recursive, and a bad system.

 

That's why the Georgism tax makes sense.

[Bombastinator]

19 hours ago, IPD said:

@Donut417

 

True.  But you also have people who want to hold onto excessive pieces of land for little reasons.  And the tax isn't based on improvements, it is based on just the acreage.  Undeveloped land and skyscrapers have the same tax for the same size property in the same locality.

 

One of the effects of this is it cuts down on massive lawns and excessive size properties, as the cost of a property goes up exponentially with the more acreage there is. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

My memory is it’s based on acreage, zoning, and sometimes improvements.  State tax varies heavily by state and even county. In my area improvements ARE counted.  Though perhaps not for federal taxes.

[Bombastinator]

5 hours ago, IPD said:

Yes.  CURRENT property taxes. That's not how the Georgism tax works.  Georgism doesn't levy additional based on how you improve the property.

 

Current property taxes dis-incentivize upgrades to the property--due to the commensurate hit to the consumer's wallet.  That means land remains undeveloped--because developing it carries additional tax burden.  It's recursive, and a bad system.

 

That's why the Georgism tax makes sense.

Depends on the improvement.  It disincentivizes unprofitable improvements. Often though an improvement on the property vastly increases the income of that property.  Look at high rises.  It becomes a question of if the net still exceeds the previous number.

[Andreas Lilja]

Stranger Things is a very good show, but falls short of being great. 

[pythonmegapixel]

The Treehouse of Horror episodes of the Simpsons are almost always the worst episode in the season - clearly some people must like them, or they wouldn't keep making them, though...

[kasugatei]

Expensive engagement rings are colossal waste of money. And that "rule” that you should spend at least 2 salaries on the ring is for fools who like to burn their money on practically useless piece of metal and overpriced piece of carbon which won’t hold its valve in 99% of the cases. 

[pythonmegapixel]

13 minutes ago, Niksa said:

Expensive engagement rings are colossal waste of money. And that "rule” that you should spend at least 2 salaries on the ring is for fools who like to burn their money on practically useless piece of metal and overpriced piece of carbon which won’t hold its valve in 99% of the cases. 

I'm sure I read somewhere that this so-called "rule" was actually invented by a mining company, who ran an advertising campaign to increase sales of diamonds. Not sure if there's any truth in this but it doesn't sound totally implausible.

[IPD]

1 hour ago, Niksa said:

Expensive engagement rings are colossal waste of money. And that "rule” that you should spend at least 2 salaries on the ring is for fools who like to burn their money on practically useless piece of metal and overpriced piece of carbon which won’t hold its valve in 99% of the cases. 

I've heard that it's a tradition from when a woman's "market value" was known to fall off precipitously after having any previous husbands/children.  She was essentially "trading" her youth and good looks for something of tangible value that could be fenced/pawned for a modicum of value--should her chosen suitor turn out not to be the lifelong caretaker he was intended to be.

 

Couple that with the tradition that the bride's family is the one who pays for the wedding/dowry, and it would seem to balance out.  The money spent on a wedding is also a sunk cost that won't have any "value" in 99% of cases.

 

Then there's the fact that rings tend to be "bragging rights".  Like a dick-measuring contest for females.  Think of the banality of comparing business cards in that one scene from American Psycho; something along those lines.  Not that I would personally be interested in someone who was into "bragging rights" of this type--but this is a thing.

 

Regardless of cost, my $.02 is that rings should be appropriately sized to a woman's hand.  Not the finger size (which is a moot point), but the gemstone/s shouldn't be and overprominant feature on a hand.  For example, a 5 carat diamond will look monstrously out of place on the hand of a woman who is all of 5'0".  And too much concern is given to "size" of gemstone by the layperson--rather than focus being on cut, clarity and setting.  Anyone can afford a giant rock that looks like ass when you hold it up to the light.  And setting is a neglected afterthought.  If I were picking a material again--now--I'd either go with electrum (for the sake of being super, super classical and off the beaten path), or tungsten carbide.

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Niksa said:

Expensive engagement rings are colossal waste of money. And that "rule” that you should spend at least 2 salaries on the ring is for fools who like to burn their money on practically useless piece of metal and overpriced piece of carbon which won’t hold its valve in 99% of the cases. 

If one is relying on the quality of the engagement ring to sway one’s intended, there is a problem.

[LargeMan]

Hitting things with metal bats is fun. 

[IPD]

5 hours ago, LargeMan said:

Hitting things with metal bats is fun. 

Alex Delarge, is that you?  Dim, Georgie and Pete say hi.

[Andreas Lilja]

New Resident Evil show isn't that bad. 

 

3/10 on IMDB is ridiculously low, it's like a 5.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Andreas Lilja said:

New Resident Evil show isn't that bad. 

 

3/10 on IMDB is ridiculously low, it's like a 5.

I enjoyed it. But to be fair, I only realize played RE4 on the Wii and 5 on the PC ( games for Windows live sucks ass, glad its dead). RE6 was a dumpster fire when it was released and I tired playing it but it kept crashing and I have sworn off capcom games ever sense. But the show was good. I hope we get a season 2. Oh the point about bringing up the game, Im not versed in the lore around the Resident Evil franchise, so that could be why I enjoyed it. 

[Bombastinator]

20 hours ago, LargeMan said:

Hitting things with metal bats is fun. 

Does make an entertaining “ping” noise.  Iirc it’s why a manufacturer of golf equipment chose that name.  They specialized in aluminum golf club heads originally.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

New Resident Evil show isn't that bad. 

 

3/10 on IMDB is ridiculously low, it's like a 5.

I may try watching it again.  I liked the original  first one. The trailers for the reboot made is seem more horror movie than action/adventure though. I’m not a big horror fan though I do like the odd action/adventure movie though.

[Pickles von Brine]

Air is just boneless water. Change my mind. 

[wseaton]

Marvel is trying to make each new movie part Ragnarok, part Endgame, and part Avengers. The result is they all seem the same and are increasingly mediocre and formulaic. 

[Bitter]

1 minute ago, wseaton said:

Marvel is trying to make each new movie part Ragnarok, part Endgame, and part Avengers. The result is they all seem the same and are increasingly mediocre and formulaic. 

And their CGI effects look so badly unfinished a lot of the time.

[Bryan-10EC]

Coffee is hot black coffee. Any other form of coffee is just a hot or cold dessert. Nothing else.