Obligatory monthly "what's your hot take?" question
-
Mine's that people who insist on correcting others grammar on internet forums are little shits who peaked in grade six as a teacher's pet and get off on exerting their "superiority" on others.
Fuck you "less than" is just better than "fewer then." Think I'm wrong, tell me what these symbols are called "< >" that's what I thought loser.
I don't think pineapple belongs on hamburgers either. It tastes okay, but there's so much extra liquid that it's like holding a bun full of soup.
-
Mine's that people who insist on correcting others grammar on internet forums are little shits who peaked in grade six as a teacher's pet and get off on exerting their "superiority" on others.
Fuck you "less than" is just better than "fewer then." Think I'm wrong, tell me what these symbols are called "< >" that's what I thought loser.
For some reason, people using the contraction "everyday" as a noun drives me insane. "Everyday" is an adjective (e.g., an everyday activity), "every day" is the noun (e.g., I do this activity every day).
It doesn't matter. It doesn't.
-
We pivoted from social justice causes like child labour to systemic racism (but only in the first world, not where our actual daily racism is practiced) and transphobia etc because the former requires personal sacrifices while the latter mostly "requires" snarky takes on social media.
Armchair activism. The least you could do -- literally.
-
My hot take of the month:
Nobody should own land but the government. You should lease it directly from the government. In order to lease land, you should bid for it in an auction based on the monthly amount you will pay the government for it, plus a fixed cost for any buildings already on the property that is set by a government assessor.
The monthly amount should then be regularly updated (probably yearly) based on the value of the property (using effectively the same method for valuation we have for doing property tax assessments already)
If you build a building on land you are leasing, the building is effectively owned by you for the duration you continue to lease it. When you decide not to live there anymore, you don't sell the land or the buildings to anyone though, the government just takes control of them. The government can then assess and auction that property off to a new leaser and then transfers the fixed building assessed amount to the previous owner. The government makes no money off the building components transaction, and therefore has no reason to under or overvalue the amount.
The total amount the government leases ALL land should replace all current Property taxes, Income Taxes, and Sales taxes (remove those three taxes entirely) currently being collected, and then on top of that fund a universal basic income (including a partial amount for kids). This factors into the yearly updates to the pricing.
Business taxes should be re-imagined around this new paradigm, but would require some more thought in order to handle businesses that use zero land (foreign entities) or have a limited footprint in the country.
Renting (from an existing landlord who is leasing the property from the government) still exists, but landlords can no longer make money by just waiting for property values to increase over time. They have to pay the same amount per month as every other land owner based on the same amount of land in the same area. They become essentially just a long-term hotel business where you pay for the convenience of not having to pay upfront for the building or deal with the maintenance.
In terms of a transition over, current owners should be given a monthly number from the government to keep their current property rather than having to go through an auction process. The value of their building can be reimbursed if they move under the new system. Current owners essentially lose the entirety of the value of their land, which for a lot of people would actually be quite significant, especially those who have had the land for a long time, have too much land, or have too much land in a desirable location, or some combination of the above. Condo or other high-density owners, despite "owning" a portion of the land would actually not be impacted very much, since the monthly amounts are scaled on land, not the buildings.
This whole system has some serious benefits for everyone involved (except current owners of signficant land)
First, the removal of private land owners removes the massive drain that real estate is having on our economy. It's mostly non-productive capital sitting there earning money without doing a damn thing, and removing the incentives around investing in it will make it massively property ownership affordable.
Second, the removal of income and sales taxes is a huge economic boost for the population. You work for $20 an hour, you get to keep the vast majority of it (still probably some minor stuff for union dues, employment insurance, etc.)
If you choose to spend that renting more housing, great, you're paying into the tax base to make life easier for everyone. If you are happy with a smaller property, then great you are leaving more space for others and get to keep more of your money.Third, the pricing of land and it's return via a basic income (including kids) will drive people to be more likely to use the correct amount of land. Fuck the Boomers with their 3500 square foot 5-bedroom house on a 10,000 square foot lot in town that they raised 2 kids but that currently only has 2 occupants. Move your ass out to something more reasonable, and make a space available for a family that's raising their kids now.
Tl;dr: Private ownership of land shouldn't exist, burn it to the ground and make things better for everyone by taxing property properly.
Disclosure: I own a home, this would hurt me. I still think it's a good idea because my kids will not be able to afford a home at the current prices, let alone at the prices in 10 years when they start looking, and that's more of a problem than the pain implementing this would cause me.
How does farming fit into this picture?
-
I don't think pineapple belongs on hamburgers either. It tastes okay, but there's so much extra liquid that it's like holding a bun full of soup.
You have to grill that pineapple ring for a bit. Slightly less liquid, much sweeter
-
I think this is a dialectical thing! Iirc, in the US it’s more common to say “on accident” and in the UK it’s “by accident”, but I’m not certain
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not sure I've heard someone say on accident it's always by accident in the PNW (West Coast USA)
-
I'm not sure I've heard someone say on accident it's always by accident in the PNW (West Coast USA)
PNW here as well, I only hear 'on accident'. It makes more sense than 'by accident' since we also say 'on purpose' and not 'by purpose'.
-
I'm not sure I've heard someone say on accident it's always by accident in the PNW (West Coast USA)
Repping East Coast, that's what we say, or simply, "accidentally."
-
Mine's that people who insist on correcting others grammar on internet forums are little shits who peaked in grade six as a teacher's pet and get off on exerting their "superiority" on others.
Fuck you "less than" is just better than "fewer then." Think I'm wrong, tell me what these symbols are called "< >" that's what I thought loser.
My hot take: Thor/PirateSoftware is right about some aspects of Stop Killing Games and the damages it could cause to the games industry. He's wrong about a lot of it because he clearly has still never properly researched SKG and loves to speak before he thinks, but I do tend to agree with his concerns about the business side of things and how studios will be affected.
-
My hot take of the month:
Nobody should own land but the government. You should lease it directly from the government. In order to lease land, you should bid for it in an auction based on the monthly amount you will pay the government for it, plus a fixed cost for any buildings already on the property that is set by a government assessor.
The monthly amount should then be regularly updated (probably yearly) based on the value of the property (using effectively the same method for valuation we have for doing property tax assessments already)
If you build a building on land you are leasing, the building is effectively owned by you for the duration you continue to lease it. When you decide not to live there anymore, you don't sell the land or the buildings to anyone though, the government just takes control of them. The government can then assess and auction that property off to a new leaser and then transfers the fixed building assessed amount to the previous owner. The government makes no money off the building components transaction, and therefore has no reason to under or overvalue the amount.
The total amount the government leases ALL land should replace all current Property taxes, Income Taxes, and Sales taxes (remove those three taxes entirely) currently being collected, and then on top of that fund a universal basic income (including a partial amount for kids). This factors into the yearly updates to the pricing.
Business taxes should be re-imagined around this new paradigm, but would require some more thought in order to handle businesses that use zero land (foreign entities) or have a limited footprint in the country.
Renting (from an existing landlord who is leasing the property from the government) still exists, but landlords can no longer make money by just waiting for property values to increase over time. They have to pay the same amount per month as every other land owner based on the same amount of land in the same area. They become essentially just a long-term hotel business where you pay for the convenience of not having to pay upfront for the building or deal with the maintenance.
In terms of a transition over, current owners should be given a monthly number from the government to keep their current property rather than having to go through an auction process. The value of their building can be reimbursed if they move under the new system. Current owners essentially lose the entirety of the value of their land, which for a lot of people would actually be quite significant, especially those who have had the land for a long time, have too much land, or have too much land in a desirable location, or some combination of the above. Condo or other high-density owners, despite "owning" a portion of the land would actually not be impacted very much, since the monthly amounts are scaled on land, not the buildings.
This whole system has some serious benefits for everyone involved (except current owners of signficant land)
First, the removal of private land owners removes the massive drain that real estate is having on our economy. It's mostly non-productive capital sitting there earning money without doing a damn thing, and removing the incentives around investing in it will make it massively property ownership affordable.
Second, the removal of income and sales taxes is a huge economic boost for the population. You work for $20 an hour, you get to keep the vast majority of it (still probably some minor stuff for union dues, employment insurance, etc.)
If you choose to spend that renting more housing, great, you're paying into the tax base to make life easier for everyone. If you are happy with a smaller property, then great you are leaving more space for others and get to keep more of your money.Third, the pricing of land and it's return via a basic income (including kids) will drive people to be more likely to use the correct amount of land. Fuck the Boomers with their 3500 square foot 5-bedroom house on a 10,000 square foot lot in town that they raised 2 kids but that currently only has 2 occupants. Move your ass out to something more reasonable, and make a space available for a family that's raising their kids now.
Tl;dr: Private ownership of land shouldn't exist, burn it to the ground and make things better for everyone by taxing property properly.
Disclosure: I own a home, this would hurt me. I still think it's a good idea because my kids will not be able to afford a home at the current prices, let alone at the prices in 10 years when they start looking, and that's more of a problem than the pain implementing this would cause me.
That is indeed a hot take.
Why would people ever develop/improve (aside from maintenance/keeping living standards) on their land, build more, change zoning, generation house on the same lot, etc, when that would only result in their government rent (aka tax) going up?
Wouldn't rich people be able to rent a lot of land for higher prices than normal people, driving the prices up until they control most of the government rentals, then rent it out to the rest of us for insane prices (kinda like now, except their whole revenue has to come from tenants, without the security of being able to sell the land and recoup the losses that way)...?
You say the government makes no money from the transaction of the specific buildings on the lot so they have no reason to overvalue it, except that you said the lots value would depend ont he buildings on it, so the government would receive higher rent fron higher valued buildings in lita so they have incentives to value it higher to collect higher rent...
-
PNW here as well, I only hear 'on accident'. It makes more sense than 'by accident' since we also say 'on purpose' and not 'by purpose'.
The rules of the English language have never had anything to do with making sense.
-
My hot take: Thor/PirateSoftware is right about some aspects of Stop Killing Games and the damages it could cause to the games industry. He's wrong about a lot of it because he clearly has still never properly researched SKG and loves to speak before he thinks, but I do tend to agree with his concerns about the business side of things and how studios will be affected.
Thor/PirateSoftware is right about some aspects of Stop Killing Games and the damages it could cause to the games industry.
For example?
-
I'm gonna start saying "on accident" by purpose from now on
You're just saying that because you know you're going to do it on accident anyway, and you're trying to get ahead of it
-
We pivoted from social justice causes like child labour to systemic racism (but only in the first world, not where our actual daily racism is practiced) and transphobia etc because the former requires personal sacrifices while the latter mostly "requires" snarky takes on social media.
We pivoted from real activism to bumper stickers and yard signs and campaign donations to candidates who signalled the right wealthy class social virtues in the 90s and haven't looked back
-
Mine's that people who insist on correcting others grammar on internet forums are little shits who peaked in grade six as a teacher's pet and get off on exerting their "superiority" on others.
Fuck you "less than" is just better than "fewer then." Think I'm wrong, tell me what these symbols are called "< >" that's what I thought loser.
I've got a spicy one.
Despite all the patches and updates, Cyberpunk 2077 is still a meh game. I hate the UI, the RPG combat system with damage numbers, the edgy aesthetic and slang words, the lack of vehicle customisation, and the overall lack of non-mission side activities to do in the world.
The ratio of style to substance is heavily weighted in favour of style.
-
When asking an open-ended question on the Internet, OP should put their own response as a comment, not in the post body, so people can judge it separately from the question and it's not elevated above other responses.
That's it. That's my hot take.
Yeah that's probably good advice
-
It's "fewer than" not "fewer then"
I'm shaking and crying rn
-
This is peak
Or is it pique?
... Probably both. Peak pique.
-
Mine's that people who insist on correcting others grammar on internet forums are little shits who peaked in grade six as a teacher's pet and get off on exerting their "superiority" on others.
Fuck you "less than" is just better than "fewer then." Think I'm wrong, tell me what these symbols are called "< >" that's what I thought loser.
Family and blood relation means absolutely nothing.
It's just that people decided that due to blood relation and marriages a certain set of people should not only know each other, but like each other and put up with each other's bullshit for far longer than for other groups like friends.
Meanwhile these relations are no different from being coworkers.
Similarly, lacking this blood relation doesn't matter aside from family anamnesis (and perhaps organ/bone marrow transplants), in case of adoptions.
I don't understand why people go through so much struggle for their kids to be "their own" while there's many waiting and hoping to get adopted. People don't think anything special about adopting a cat or dog, after all, there is no other way, and yet they'll fully love their pet. But suddenly when it's small humans, which is even the same specie, it matters a lot.I don't understand if people really feel something towards having really similar DNA, but I don't see any logic in it.
-
Family and blood relation means absolutely nothing.
It's just that people decided that due to blood relation and marriages a certain set of people should not only know each other, but like each other and put up with each other's bullshit for far longer than for other groups like friends.
Meanwhile these relations are no different from being coworkers.
Similarly, lacking this blood relation doesn't matter aside from family anamnesis (and perhaps organ/bone marrow transplants), in case of adoptions.
I don't understand why people go through so much struggle for their kids to be "their own" while there's many waiting and hoping to get adopted. People don't think anything special about adopting a cat or dog, after all, there is no other way, and yet they'll fully love their pet. But suddenly when it's small humans, which is even the same specie, it matters a lot.I don't understand if people really feel something towards having really similar DNA, but I don't see any logic in it.
Eh, the people you have the strongest emotional bonds with are likely the people you've spent the most time with. Logically that would be family for most people. Kinda weird obsession with blood ties their mate, don't have to be related by blood to be family.
