w2qw @ w2qw @aussie.zone

Posts

4

Comments

92

Joined

2 yr. ago

The distinction is land vs capital. Plenty of economists talk about the problem you mention.

He's talking about exports

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_Australia

Yeah the premise of the system is that society is benefiting. In practice I would agree that's not always and maybe majorly not the case. In Australia there was a Henry tax review report that details a lot of changes to improve this situation unfortunately many have not been implemented. I'm sure the situation is similar worldwide.

Agreed on owning things I was talking about those getting an above market return.

Shareholders at least the ones beating the market have a different skill set to workers. Replacing them with other workers might have issues with long term success.

I think you'd be better off changing laws that suppress workers wages and laws that unnecessary increase their expenses particularly rent

Controlling the natural resources a country and leasing it out it private companies is pretty standard practice in most non corrupt countries. Norway probably differs in that they capture more of the economic rent in part due to a more efficient tax and a share of public ownership.

It's also pretty evident that we could not sustain the current population on preindustrial farming let alone hunter gathering.

More than 2 I think

India is building a ton of solar as well.

Typically it's pretty low risk in comparison to other loans which is why home loans are relatively low but there's a risk that both the property value declines and the outstanding loan and selling costs is more than property value.

Yeah you aren't wrong there. Figuring our a way to placated those groups is required to get it to be implemented.

Not necessarily the first as long as it's done in land efficient way and the second if they are unwilling to move but otherwise yes.

There's nothing that differentiates "affordable" apartments those at that aren't except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren't a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.

It really depends on where the land is as it's based on value. If you are talking about replacing property taxes with land value taxes typically it's just a rate on the value but in this case it's just the land value so a higher rate but only applies to land. If you could figure out the total land value in your neighbourhood you could figure it out.

As for who is affected, single family homes on the outskirts probably see a drop in taxes while those in the inner city and vacant plots see a large increase.

No one is actually burying trees. What happens is that after the contract ends they can just cut down the trees, release the carbon and start again.

I do agree with better regulation but forrestry ones should just go.

paid a buddy of mine to plant trees.

It's actually worse than that they are paying people to not cut down trees. It's the same logic when my GF says she saved $200 because the dress was half price.

How thick is your paper?

The one good thing about these policies is they are bypassing a lot of council regulations to increase supply but the "affordable" rentals are probably pretty marginal benefit and it's likely just low income kids who's parents are supporting them.

Don't people switch to using subscribed pretty soon anyway? All is full of junk for me.

Where do they do it otherwise? In Australia it's also yearly.

People might also get bonus so in some sense you get paid once a year.