EyeBRollin
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 10,688
- Reaction score
- 8,630
- Age
- 35
There is crime in every city. Most of them even more per capita.There is crime as well.
There is crime in every city. Most of them even more per capita.There is crime as well.
It does bring into question the concept of "ownership." As in, if you own it, why do you have to keep paying for it forever?The thing that annoys me about the price of housing and real estate going up is that it just means I have to pay higher property taxes, since I have no plans of selling my house.
Because in urban and suburban places, you have access to municipal services such as garbage collection, public utilities, snow removal, police, fire department, schools, parks, local roads, and libraries. How else is that going to get paid for?It does bring into question the concept of "ownership." As in, if you own it, why do you have to keep paying for it forever?
I've always thought property taxes were unconstitutional, because we're basically paying rent to the government.It does bring into question the concept of "ownership." As in, if you own it, why do you have to keep paying for it forever?
I live in a rural area. The town nearest me doesn't have property tax, on neither residential nor commercial properties. The most valuable commercial properties were built on land given for free by the town government. They have all of the services you mentioned, except for municipal garbage collection. The government is funded by various sales taxes. They are on an Interstate highway, so they get to collect hotel and restaurant tax from travellers.Because in urban and suburban places, you have access to municipal services such as garbage collection, public utilities, snow removal, police, fire department, schools, parks, local roads, and libraries. How else is that going to get paid for?
Sales tax are vulnerable to economic cycles. Can’t have essential services dependent on people’s discretionary spending. All the funding dries up during recession.I live in a rural area. The town nearest me doesn't have property tax, on neither residential nor commercial properties. The most valuable commercial properties were built on land given for free by the town government. They have all of the services you mentioned, except for municipal garbage collection. The government is funded by various sales taxes. They are on an Interstate highway, so they get to collect hotel and restaurant tax from travellers.
What do you think America would look like with no local taxes?I've always thought property taxes were unconstitutional, because we're basically paying rent to the government.
I'm not against local taxes, I just think governments requiring what amounts to rent is wrong. Of course, I realize what I think matters exactly jack squat.What do you think America would look like with no local taxes?
The “solution” is that masses of people need to die via war, disease, or famine. The larger a population is, the more infrastructure and social services are needed. Since the population is always increasing, the strain on local infrastructure is also increasing. Thus, the funding requirements increase.Seems taxes always trend higher while quality of service/infrastructure goes the other way. Way too much waste and kicking money to special interest groups. No idea how to solve that problem.
Well that is an idea I guess, not sure how reasonable. More a hope and pray and not sure that would even work, depends what group is eliminated. Think politicians need to be a little more responsible planning and budgeting instead of hoping for some mass extinction event to absolve responsibility. Money should be spent efficiently, entitlements for votes need to be scaled back and corps/special interest groups need to have way less influence. Politicians and officials should not be in the position to be able to be worth 8-9 figures all acquired while working those jobs. The whole system is rotten to the core and don't think there would be any real change unless there was massive turmoil or some collapse. There are no simple answers or solutions. Best you can do is put yourself in a position you can take care of those you are close tooThe “solution” is that masses of people need to die via war, disease, or famine. The larger a population is, the more infrastructure and social services are needed. Since the population is always increasing, the strain on local infrastructure is also increasing. Thus, the funding requirements increase.
It doesn't matter how good-looking you are, how romantic you are, how funny you are... or anything else. If she doesn't have something INVESTED in you and the relationship, preferably quite a LOT invested, she'll dump you, without even the slightest hesitation, as soon as someone a little more "interesting" comes along.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Politicians have little to do with it. Blaming them is a cope. No matter how “efficient” or “inefficient” government is, a large increasing population requires significantly more resources for services than a small population. It is not a linear relationship.Well that is an idea I guess, not sure how reasonable. More a hope and pray and not sure that would even work, depends what group is eliminated. Think politicians need to be a little more responsible planning and budgeting instead of hoping for some mass extinction event to absolve responsibility. Money should be spent efficiently, entitlements for votes need to be scaled back and corps/special interest groups need to have way less influence. Politicians and officials should not be in the position to be able to be worth 8-9 figures all acquired while working those jobs. The whole system is rotten to the core and don't think there would be any real change unless there was massive turmoil or some collapse. There are no simple answers or solutions. Best you can do is put yourself in a position you can take care of those you are close too
What are you talking about lol Not really cope, just an observation on the type of people are in those positions. Your take is also massively incorrect, an aging population growing in percentage without replacement of young people who are productive is basically a slow death. This is well known and proven, correct demographic growth is one of the main drivers of a nations success. This is basic stuff here. Anyway, not going to argue it anymore.Politicians have little to do with it. Blaming them is a cope. No matter how “efficient” or “inefficient” government is, a large increasing population requires significantly more resources for services than a small population. It is not a linear relationship.
Your take is also massively incorrect, an aging population growing in percentage without replacement of young people who are productive is basically a slow death.
That’s actually a separate issue. We were talking about resources for local services (such as infrastructure demands) not nationwide entitlements. A city of 5 million people demands more per capita of its infrastructure to function than a town of 20,000 people. It is not equal.All of the developed world is demographically collapsing. There are fewer people paying into the system, and more people collecting from it. The baby boomers' retirement is taking investment capital out of circulation, and it isn't coming back.
The argument is beyond ridiculous, need to stop engaging but here we goThat’s actually a separate issue. We were talking about resources for local services (such as infrastructure demands) not nationwide entitlements. A city of 5 million people demands more per capita of its infrastructure to function than a town of 20,000 people. It is not equal.
If you want to talk, talk to your friends. If you want a girl to like you, listen to her, ask questions, and act like you are on the edge of your seat.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
The problem is your argument is purely ideological. It has no basis in the reality of actually operating a society. “Corruption” and “inefficiency” in government does not change the fact that a town of 20,000 people does not have the same infrastructure needs as a city of 5 million people. This is not an opinion; this is fact. Does a small town have a subway system with 1 billion annual riders to manage? How about a 14-lane highway that accomodates 350,000 vehicles per day? How about an international airport that has flights arriving and departing every two minutes?The argument is beyond ridiculous, need to stop engaging but here we go
To say political corruption/incompetence has no effect on a countries outcome(or cope) is incredibly naïve.
The problem with your argument is it is purely hypothetical where you are solely considering one variable when there many and not considering the chain of events that would happen after that. Like a 3rd grade thought experiment. Fantasy land. Naïve.The problem is your argument is purely ideological. It has no basis in the reality of actually operating a society. “Corruption” and “inefficiency” in government does not change the fact that a town of 20,000 people does not have the same infrastructure needs as a city of 5 million people. This is not an opinion; this is fact. Does a small town have a subway system with 1 billion annual riders to manage? How about a 14-lane highway that accomodates 350,000 vehicles per day? How about an international airport that has flights arriving and departing every two minutes?
The larger a population is, the more complex and demanding it becomes to run the society. You don’t need paved roads in a village of 50 people living in huts.
Wrong. The example questions are the reality of where I live (NYC area). I think you know the truth, it just conflicts with your ideology.The problem with your argument is it is purely hypothetical where you are solely considering one variable when there many and not considering the chain of events that would happen after that. Like a 3rd grade thought experiment. Fantasy land. Naïve.
Correct. Commerce requires infrastructure. The infrastructure promotes that commerce and quality of life. Not vice versa.Yes, a 50 hut village takes less planning that a major city. You are also aren't going to have any significant commerce, low net worth, low pay, low quality of life, bad healthcare and few options for everything.
No need to strawman. I didn’t “hope” for anything of the sort. You want us to believe that “corruption” is the primary cause of rising local taxes because it fits an ideology. Unfortunately, the logic is simply flawed. Big cities are more complex and require more shvt small towns. The more a city grows, the more it costs to maintain its infrastructure.Your argument for hoping a mass extinction event happens is strange and legit idiotic. Done for real this time.
Not what I said. See below, said there is too much waste. Look at cities like SF and LA, huge tax burdens, bad crime, failing infrastructure and poor services. If you think those cities efficiently manage funds relative to tax rate and govt policy has nothing to do with the decay, you are legit slow. Many people left NYC too for those reasons.No need to strawman. I didn’t “hope” for anything of the sort. You want us to believe that “corruption” is the primary cause of rising local taxes because it fits an ideology. Unfortunately, the logic is simply flawed. Big cities are more complex and require more shvt small towns. The more a city grows, the more it costs to maintain its infrastructure.
And if your argument is taxes go up as populations do, not in percentage per individual, you have a larger group people and commerce to tax. Plenty of thriving cites do it this way in terms of attracting more not taxing more of the current residents. They go the business friendly route which over time is more effective than just jacking up taxes. You have a really juvenile understanding of how these things work. Tax enough then you incentivize business and high net worth people to leave. See NYC, SF, LATaxes are needed for services and infrastructure. The issue I have is the percentage amount related to what is actually provided. Seems taxes always trend higher while quality of service/infrastructure goes the other way. Way too much waste and kicking money to special interest groups. No idea how to solve that problem.
It’s always people who don’t live or work in NYC that have the strongest opinions about it, exposing themselves as ideologues. If NYC were in destitute they wouldn’t be building like they are on every corner of the city.Plenty of people and business' have left NYC due to taxes and crime. Bad policy and misallocation of funds. To say otherwise, you would be in fact a liar. [
Not what I said. See below, said there is too much waste. Look at cities like SF and LA, huge tax burdens, bad crime, failing infrastructure and poor services. If you think those cities efficiently manage funds relative to tax rate and govt policy has nothing to do with the decay, you are legit slow. Many people left NYC too for those reasons.
This is a strawman argument. “Mismanagement of funds” is not the reason why densely populated cities need more resources. Let us repeat:If you do not think politicians and govts mismanage funds and enact bad policy, you probably believe in the tooth fairy too.
Does a small town have a subway system with 1 billion annual riders to manage? How about a 14-lane highway that accomodates 350,000 vehicles per day? How about an international airport that has flights arriving and departing every two minutes?