76 karma · joined September 24, 2023
For me personally, there isn't much difference between the Chef's Hat and the Teacher's Hat; the way I make code presentable is the same as how I make it self-documenting. I can tell I did a good job if the person reading my code feels smart.
Professional diagnosis is not reliable either. ADHD and autism are often misdiagnosed as one-another, especially in girls.
> If you don't have an official diagnosis you can't be certain you really have ADHD
A lot of the time, the mental health professional making the determination doesn't have specialty in ADHD/Autism. All they're doing is looking at symptoms and making their best guess. Which is exactly what people are doing when they make a self-determination. In many cases, people with high-functioning autism know more about autism than the people who are supposed to know. And it's not like the diagnoses can be validated when we're still figuring out what autism even is.
- Difficulty getting insurance to see the doctor impacts peoples' safety and sense of safety. - Fear of gaps in insurance coverage keeps people in toxic jobs where they feel unsafe. - Many people can't get prescription medicines they need, impacting health. - Homelessness is increasing - Polarized political speech, including hate speech, causes legitimate anxiety, contributing to poor psychological health.
None of the above things were as big of a problem 20 years ago. Using "crime" as a measure of unsafety only makes sense if you have access to healthcare, a stable job, and don't face discrimination.
That's not a solution because the people in power materially gain by feigning ignorance.
> Teachers are always going to lose out on that one.
How can you openly admit that the incentives don't work and still defend them?
Except your house wouldn't be taxed like it was an 8-unit building. The tax would only go up if the 8-plex increased demand for the land itself. If it's a poorly-placed 8-plex, the opposite could actually happen; but if the land value does go up, it would only go up a little bit unless they started developing a lot in your area, at which point you'd have the same sorts of problems either way.
> LVT is based on the cold clinical idea that land is nothing but an investment...
No. LVT discourages land investment. LVT is based on the idea that land belongs to everyone, so no one should profit just off of owning land.
Punishing people for believing in their work is called "exploitation".
The problem goes away if you don't treat land ownership as a right. What is the advantage of letting people possess empty lots?
The poster above you; they're the one who made an implicit claim about the value of software developers' work. You're welcome to disagree. Do you think everyone is paid fairly?
And they're veeeery vocal other people trying to get something for nothing.
Maybe. I can't tell if we're talking past each other.
> The value (and thus the tax) on my empty lot with nothing but dirt is going to be set by the tax of the developed lot right next to it, which might contain a highrise apartment building.
Yes, the empty lot will be higher because of the highrise apartment next to it, BUT...
> So you're saying I will be taxed on the value of an imaginary building I don't actually have, just because the neighboring lot has one.
No, because the appraiser wouldn't include the building's value; they'd only be appraising the average value of land in the area.
> So there's no way I can afford to pay that since the bare dirt doesn't give me any income. So I will lose this land due to the tax.
That's intentional. If the land is only profitable for highrise apartments, then you should sell it to someone who can afford to build some. Note that this would help with the housing crisis.
Yes and no. You're not taxing the land as if it was bare or as if it was full; you're taxing it based on the perceived value to a developer.
> So, tell me how is that not a tax that is based on something that doesn't actually exist today? The assessor can say: Sure, it's just bare dirt, worth nothing right now, but you could have a skyscraper there and if you did, it'd be worth a lot. So we'll pretend it's worth a lot and tax based on that.
The value of an empty lot is approximately equal to the value of the developed lot right next to it. This is already being done.
> The other bad consequence of LVT is that it's supposed to force every bit of land to the most financially productive use. Do you want to live in such a society? Something like a free playground is never the most income-generating use for a patch of land, but it's a wonderful thing to have in towns.
Government-owned land could be tax-free since (in theory) it's being used for public good.
Someone has to eat the opportunity cost of sub-optimally used land. Would you rather it be corporations and house-flippers, or renters and homeowners?
> Pure academic nonsense.
Several places have implemented LVT (eg Pennsylvania). What's nonsense is treating it like idle theory-crafting when there's evidence to judge.
> Punishing people for not doing what YOU want with THEIR land.
Not all societies believe in land ownership to begin with. Owning land keeps other people from using it, so it should come with a sense of duty.
Also, no one under either system is arbitrating the correctness of land use to pick winners and losers. The free-market still decides what is or isn't effective land use; it's just that under LVT people are disincentivized from speculating on empty land.
Land value tax flips this, removing some of the risk of adding value to a property while discouraging hoarding.
Issues like this cost me time which I don't have enough of as it is. Since the students just find games that aren't blocked, I'd rather have the ability to access all pages (except adult content) and give consequences to off-task students as needed.