Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

how to protect cash against inflation?

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,027
Reaction score
5,611
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
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.
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?
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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?
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?
 

zekko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
8,577
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.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,027
Reaction score
5,611
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
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?
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.

Curiously, the next town over is the opposite. They tax and regulate businesses until they close. There is empty commercial real estate everywhere. The various levels of city government all seem to enrich themselves with corruption and do nothing jobs. They do have great trash service, though.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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.
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.

Interstate highways are funded by the Feds.

No one likes paying taxes.. but they are necessary for all that we enjoy (and take for granted) in the west.
I've always thought property taxes were unconstitutional, because we're basically paying rent to the government.
What do you think America would look like with no local taxes?
 

zekko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
8,577
What do you think America would look like with no local taxes?
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.

Some states don't have income tax though. When I was growing up, IIRC the sales tax was 4% where I live, now it's 7%.
They're going to get their money somewhere. I doubt they're going to start having bake sales.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
Taxes 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.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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.
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.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
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.
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
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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
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.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
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.
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.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,027
Reaction score
5,611
Age
48
Location
midwestern cow field 40
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.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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.
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.
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.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
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.
The argument is beyond ridiculous, need to stop engaging but here we go

It is not a separate issue and if it actually happened you can't cherry pick only certain effects you think are positive and not account for those you do not in a population reduction. Not how the world works or remotely realistic. The problem isn't population size but more the percentage of the population that are a net negative on society, young and old both increasing. Why do you think all these old manufacturing cities like Detroit have fallen into decay? Population has massively decreased but a large percentage were the productive tax base that pay for those services. The size of the productive tax base is one of the biggest resources a nation. state or city can draw from. Then throw in the implications of massive decrease in military spending with lower tax base and that we would not longer to be able defend our interest abroad, whole set of other issues that could effect citizens on a local level. Also what group dies in a war? Young men, the most productive members of society with decades ahead of them.

To say political corruption/incompetence has no effect on a countries outcome(or cope) is incredibly naïve. Why do you think all these resource rich 3rd world nations can never get any traction on increasing their living standard? On a local level, why have all these companies left California? Also because the US has been perceived as low corruption in the past also brought in a lot of foreign money and investment and allowed business to to grow. How about the government deciding to lock down and impede business for covid, no effect?
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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 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.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
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.
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.

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. You are also sitting duck for any larger country that wants to come in and take your resources. A large part of a nations value comes from the production of its citizens and efficiency of markets. This is a fact. Efficient governments that encourage business, free markets and immigration of productive citizens/business's thrive, your hut village does not. Singapore attracts a lot capital and investment, your hut town does not.

Your argument for hoping a mass extinction event happens is strange and legit idiotic. Done for real this time.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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.
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.

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.
Correct. Commerce requires infrastructure. The infrastructure promotes that commerce and quality of life. Not vice versa.

Your argument for hoping a mass extinction event happens is strange and legit idiotic. Done for real this time.
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.
 

jaygreenb

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
511
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.

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.
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.

Taxes 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.
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, LA

If you do not think politicians and govts mismanage funds and enact bad policy, you probably believe in the tooth fairy too.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,756
Reaction score
8,735
Age
34
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.
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.

The reality is that almost everyone who “leaves” NYC actually moves to New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, or Florida (for retirement ). For California, it has had positive high income and high net worth in-migration for decades. The housing market is on fire on both coasts. But don’t let the facts derail your ideology.

If you do not think politicians and govts mismanage funds and enact bad policy, you probably believe in the tooth fairy too.
This is a strawman argument. “Mismanagement of funds” is not the reason why densely populated cities need more resources. Let us repeat:
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?
 
Last edited:
Top