I hate having anything inside the sink when it’s not actively being washed. Anything dirty that doesn’t directly go in the dishwasher sits on the counter to the right of the sink until such time as it can be washed.

My in-laws house is terrible for this, both sinks full of dirty dishes all the time. You have to remove them all before you can start the washing process, it’s absolutely stupid. You can’t even wash your hands in the sink properly because of it.

Not necessarily its just the economically most efficient option. Also the government doesn’t necessarily need to provide the housing, it could only socialize the land and rent it out.

I can’t think of a single place where they didn’t do that option.

What’s the difference between socializing the land and renting it out, and just charging property taxes? Why make things more complicated than just changing the amount of an existing tax?

It’s better then disabled people not having a house they can properly live. Also this isn’t something that has to be done and I personally don’t of this happening (if it did, that society likely didn’t have good support for disabled people in general, so disabled people would likely have had trouble affording a house at all regardless of housing system)

You’re right that it’s better than nothing, but that’s not what we’re comparing it to. And again, nothing HAS to be done a particular way, it’s just what has been shown to happen repeatedly. Buildings for disabled people offering discounted rent and run by the government already existing in my fairly small city. They’re just going to keep doing that if that’s the choice we go with.

Housing markets without out enough units exist in a non socialised housing market as well and then they just slap the highest paying (most wealthy) person into the unit. Not much better if you ask me.

It’s still possible to move to other areas though, further out, or different cities. If you look at Vienna for example, which has one of the highest percentage of socialized units available right now, you aren’t even eligible for a unit until you’ve lived in the city for a few years. Then you need to get on a waiting list for a few more years. Then you can’t move once you get a unit unless you wait a few more years.

Allowing people to still own and sell/move and renovate all without stupid restrictions while still reducing overall housing costs through taxation policy just makes everything easier to implement and more palatable to people.

Do you only have a single sink? Most homes here come with double sinks (left and right)

I put hot soapy water in the left, and then pull things out and wash, then rinse in the right.

The soaking makes it significantly easier to scrub/wash grime and grease off.

https://www.consumerreports.org/home-garden/cleaning/best-way-to-hand-wash-dishes-a1749842004/

First, the housing units:

If the government is the one building housing, they aren’t going to produce a massive variety of different types in various locations. They’re going to pick a bunch of standard types and produce those repeatedly.

This is evident in pretty much every country that has any amount of socialized housing.

Secondly, the “ownership” piece as it relates to improvements:

If everyone is renting from the government, they’re not going to be doing things like renovating their kitchen or bathroom the way they want. It either won’t be allowed, or even if you’re allowed then if you go ahead and do it then need to move you’re just out the entire value despite making improvements for the next tenant.

There are all sorts of scenarios where socialized housing already has issues, like when they make an entire building just for disabled people. Sounds great, until you realize that means that people with those disabilities now have extremely limited location choice, and no ability to live in a building with able-bodied relatives or friends.

In socialized housing situations where there aren’t enough total units, which is most of them, it also becomes almost impossible to move because they rarely like playing music chairs and tracking where everyone wants to go to. They just slap the next person on the list into a unit.

See them? Zero

The most common problem I have with other people’s dishes (often relatives) is that they are greasy after it’s been washed because they use the same water for the entire set of dishes and especially if their dish washing order sucks.

When hand washing I always do it in a particular order:

Re-usable Water Bottles, Pot lids which are not visibly dirty, Glasses/Cups, Utensils.

If the water is now greasy, I will drain and re-fill at this point.

Then Plates and bowls, Baking pans that are not greasy, Pots, Frying Pans, then Baking pans that are greasy.

The value is defined the same way we currently do it for property taxes, there’s no real change needed there.

There is already an option to give up land, and yes that should continue. The government can just take it back and sell it to someone who wants it.

Yes, it would discourage the use of land for unproductive purposes. For business purposes (which I assume is what you’re talking about) businesses that need large amounts of land would likely just be further out from the most desirable land locations. In desirable areas, multi-story offices, malls, etc. would be the norm to handle commercial uses. Strip malls and massive parking lots can die a horrible death and I would be pleased as a peach.

As for the income tax thing, that really depends on your jurisdiction. The amount for the UBI would directly be set based on the amount of the tax to offset a “normal” usage of property, a family of 4 in a 3-4 room townhouse in a city shouldn’t pay any more under the new system. A family of 3 in a condo would probably end up with more money, and a retired couple in a detached house near downtown would pay significantly more (or likely sell and move). Some ultra-rich jackass in a mansion 20 minutes from the core would just have to pay to keep the privledge of doing that.

Also this is practically mass expropriation, at that point you might as well sozialise the land and then rent them out/provide universal housing directly

This system doesn’t remove the ownership aspects that come with private property, which means it provides people with choice and control that would be lost with a socialized/government run housing system.

At the end of the day though it encourages more efficient use of land, removes investment in land for speculative purposes, and by both reducing prices and removing income taxes and/or UBI benefits working people over investment/capital.

People can own houses, I have no issue with that.

What should happen is a land value tax, which only applies to the land and not the building. It should be a very large percentage of the value of the property each year.

This does 2 things,

First it drops the value of homes. Significantly. People will not be willing to buy a million dollar home if the yearly tax is $150,000 so the seller is likely only going to get $200-300k, and the tax will be more like $30-50k a year at that point. The tax dollars should be offset by either reducing income taxes or providing a basic income. That way even though the tax seems stupidly high, it’s partially balanced out by tax savings.

Second thing it does is massively encourage development of desirable properties. Since the tax is on land and not the building if you have an apartment you’re going to pay a much smaller amount of tax than on a detached house.

Obviously the value of land is higher in cities already so detached houses in rural areas are less affected for those that choose to live in less desirable areas.

Tongue depressor is a common example of this use case.

Yes it is.

Even if they never sell and die in the home the children still inherit it and then often sell it off.

However most people sell and downsize or move into a home and use that money they made to fund their retirement partially.

“The Capitalists want it all”

You’re right, but you’re probably also imagining the wrong people.

The US residential real estate market is valued at around 60 TRILLION dollars.

And around 65% of residential properties are owned by the family that live in them.

The vast majority of that wealth is owned by Grandpa and Grandma if they’re still alive, or Mom and Dad if they aren’t.

In comparison, the total wealth of all billionaires added together in the US is just 8 Trillion.

We need to understand that in order to fix the cost of living issues, we need to DESTROY the real estate market as an investment, both for super wealthy people and corporations, but MORE importantly for regular everyday people.

George was right, we need Land Value Taxes.

https://frigate.video/

You can absolutely use your external IP rather than a domain, your ISP likely keeps your IP the same for long stretches of time. Mine only ever really changes during long power outages.

You can get around that the IP issue by broadcasting your ip from your local machine to a known service, there are some free ones but they aren’t the most stable things in the world if it’s critical. Google Dynamic DNS

You are not alone.

Affected, not effected.

Is there a specific location where you’re worried? Kitchen? Bathroom? Public transport? Work/school?

I just have it running in a docker container…

The administration of a basic income sitting outside of the government?

The government already has a list of every citizen registered via birth or immigration, and provides identification for people. They’re always going to need to do that. There’s really no reason to replicate that level of information outside of the government.

Most people would just go online and register where you’d like your money to be sent (Direct deposit, Mailed cheque)

However, you would still need a few call centers to handle issues, and If someone needs in-person support, the government already has common government service offices like DMVs and service centers that can provide in person service if required, saving significant money on needing dedicated service locations just for this one service.

Tl;dr Economies of Scale matter, and it doesn’t make any sense to replicate the parts that the government already does and has to continue doing.

It depends on what you mean by social welfare programs.

A basic income system requires very little administration, and what parts of it are required wouldn’t make sense to have it sitting outside the government.

I’d rather see a basic income than need non-profit food banks needing to exist. Grocery stores already exist, are reasonably competitive, and are enormously more efficient if people have the money available to use them.

For things like helping people with disabilities, where economies of scale are mostly irrelevant, ngos and non-profits can make more sense because they can specialize according to the need.

Improving your input, and the system message can also be part of that. There are multiple optimizations available for these systems that people aren’t really good at yet.

It’s like watching Grandma google “Hi, I’d like a new shirt” back in the day and then having her complain that she’s getting absolutely terrible search results.

Because you can’t really have parts of both.

Either you have wealth redistribution, or you don’t. A lower amount is still wealth redistribution.

You can have a government, or you don’t. A smaller government is still a government.

So if someone wants some wealth redistribution, and some government. They are just arguing how much of a Libertarian Socialist they are, not how much of a anarcho-capitalist they are.

I personally am a Social Democrat. Capitalism is good most of the time, just make sure you’re holding the reigns tight so it goes in the right direction. Skip capitalism altogether for specific industries where it just doesn’t do very well and have the government run those ones directly.

I’m neither a libertarian socialist, nor an anarcho-capitalist. Not even close to either of them, because again, it isn’t a spectrum.

Agreed, mostly.

I don’t really care about a balanced budget. I’m fine with running deficits forever, as long as they keep the debt to gdp ratio at a reasonable value.

As you mentioned though, I care a LOT about what they spend it on. If they’re dumping it into systems that don’t provide stimulus to the economy that is sustainable long term, that’s bad.

Even bombs can be important by stimulating local wages, resource production, manufacturing, etc. however I’d like to see more investment in productivity improvements in my country (Canada) because we’re falling behind. My preference would be to see more government investment in education, transportation, renewables, and supporting tech. Less investment in oil and gas.