I thought the argument from the right is always that it’s the person not the tool that’s at fault?

It isn’t the same thing, the scale and level of violence are not even close to comparable. That’s why it’s a false equivalence.

Just because two people steal something doesn’t make them the same, if one person stole a chocolate bar and the other one stole a 10 million dollar jewel they are not equal. They’re both thieves, but they aren’t “just the same”

You said “just like Trump”

That is false equivalence.

The things that happened under Biden and Clinton are nowhere near as bad as what’s happening now.

False equivalency is bad.

They are not the same.

And I agree with them, if you go look at my other recent comments I’d actually like to see:

Communism for land ownership, Socialism for necessities, and Capitalism for supplying additional options to necessities, and all luxuries.

Capitalism has many market failures. Long term planning is one of them.

This is really a problem with Shareholders giving the wrong incentives to management via bonuses on short term value gains.

Really Rich people? Millions to tens of millions.

All economic systems lack something, the question really comes down to which one is the least bad and how to drive it properly. Socialism (government ownership) and Communism (public ownership) both suck at producing variety and innovating for example and need to be specifically forced/controlled to do those activities.

Capitalism is not logic challenged, that’s part of the problem, people misunderstanding it.

Capitalism is just a concept, a method of doing things. There’s no reason why we need to allow it to operate freely. We choose what rules it plays by, and how to enforce those rules.

The government already regulates plenty of things so that Capitalism chooses a slightly better direction. The trick we need to pull off is regulating capitalism in a way that is beneficial for society, rather than just specific people which we’re doing a pretty shitty job of right now.

Lots of people have talked about this.

The first problem is that “it’s someone else’s problem” since the market doesn’t change that fast.

The second problem is that there are still rich people who own the robots that can buy things.

The final piece of the puzzle is that Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about individual people unless their existence is maximizing profit somehow. It would happily(I say this knowing capitalism isn’t a person and has no emotion) allow the population of the earth to drop down to 1 million if that optimized profit for shareholders.

A single person, or small group, control everything.

Dissention is not allowed. Those people are removed via various methods from threats, to the jailing, and potentially all the way up to accidentally falling out a window or off a balcony.

I mean, half the people who work for charities are technically doing some sort of Marketing.

Most IR pass through filters are for 890-900nm not 940.

I ran into this issue myself for a slightly different use case.

The thing I found worked surprisingly well was a scrap piece of car window tint. I literally just walked into a local shop and asked for a small piece of scrap.

Prosecco

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.