TylerDurden

With all due respect, you have no idea what the market values solar panels where my house was and claiming me to be ignorant on the very real dollars to came into my account is asinine. You seem to know an awful lot of other people's situation, but yet don't have anything to support it. You're out here arguing about the storage mechanism for the power created by my panels, yet you don't really know how it was set up - but you'd rather tell me how wrong I am about the amount of power my panels produced. But let's assume you're right (you aren't). Even if the electric companies are collecting and distributing power because of limited battery capacity - the electric company isn't responsible for producing that power. They'd simply be a conduit. That's a good thing. You're also just making stuff up about California and solar. All it takes is a quick internet search. They produce less than 1/3 of the consumption: https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/ Be specific when you say it isn't working for Florida or Texas - what isn't working?

NM

The effectiveness of energy sources are dependent on region, there's no one-size fits all solution. The more varied your sources, the better off we'll be. Solar in Indiana won't work as well as solar in Colorado. When I lived in Colorado, all of my monthly home energy needs were covered by my solar panels. In fact, I produced far more than I needed and was able to "sell" it back to the energy company. I say "sell" because the rates you're paid are stupidly low, but still contributed to a yearly gain. The break-even timeline was about 15 years. The panels also increase my home value, so I came out ahead when I sold it. But hell, the solar farm at the Indianapolis airport - which is placed in otherwise unusable land - produces enough to power ~3,600 homes for an entire year. Residential solar economics struggle because you don't have the same level of governmental investment and industry protections like you've had with other energy sources as they built their industries. It costs far too much in places that don't have 300 days of sunshine and it still costs a lot in places where you do. But to say it wouldn't be sufficient at scale simply isn't correct in all applications, but it is region dependent. I would argue these are the things a government wanting to be completely energy self-sufficient should be investing in.

For reference are the vote tallies on the 2021-22 $1.2T infrastructure bill: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021370 | https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00314.htm#state You will be hard pressed to take away partisan actions from this discussion because the votes on these pieces of legislation are what they are. That said, I'm not sure there's a more corrupt process in this country than road construction/infrastructure contracts, in general. Inflated prices, backroom deals and general sh*t housing. They don't build things to last, they build them to get the next contract. To wit, the infrastructure bill passed during the Clinton administration had tons of pork, only to be dwarfed by the pork (more than 3x) in the Bush bill. Obama's infrastructure bill was part of the economic stimulus in response to the Great Recession - which worked for its purpose, but didn't provide enough funding for the traditional infrastructure maintenance. Frankly, the spending on infrastructure in these three bills wasn't nearly enough to update/keep up. The US essentially went from 1956 (Highway Act) to 1998 without a major infrastructure bill. Trump didn't pass one and Biden signed the sort of funding bill you're talking about. I completely agree with the primary point you're making though. The infrastructure in our country is going to be our downfall, because there won't be quick fixes if the power grid gets (more) compromised.

The validity of any taxation adjustment is how you decide to fund the things you're removing the revenue source from or what you plan to eliminate. The allocation of tax dollars is the key function of politics, after all. Property tax debates have become the latest thing. In my state, the super-majority made a big deal about passing legislation for "property tax relief" which is capped at 10% of a property tax bill or $300. Meanwhile, public schools are going to lose somewhere between $700-800M in funding across the state over the next two years (a rural district announced they would have to close and kids would have to be reallocated to surrounding areas), which has already led to referendums for local tax increases to cover the shortfalls. Local governments lose almost as much and are beginning to slash services. The bill also allows for localities to increase income taxes that far surpass the property tax "relief," and could push income tax rates up nearly half a percent. Hell, there are many issues with the bill that passed, but in the end it's going to be a tax increase on me and just about everyone in the state in exchange for lesser services. Meanwhile, the state also has removed all income considerations for school vouchers which is funded by the state education budget, which just to a hit moving forward. It's fuzzy math. That program allocated about $1.2B for the 25-26 school year - a program where roughly 70% have never attended public school - punching a pretty significant hole in the "school choice" argument. So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of anyone talking about eliminating/reducing property taxes because I'm living in a concrete example of the shell game these politicians are playing. I'm 100% open to assessing how the education system functions and how to fund it accordingly. But I'm also sure that we have enough politicians incapable of acting in good faith that such an endeavor is nearly pointless as they've shown their priority is funneling money to the people who keep them in power.

Pre-market looking bloody this morning. Hope you're adequately prepared.

The market deciding would have millions of people homeless. Are you ok with that? This also isn't a "massive city under rent control" - this is a specific segment of units who aren't living up to their end of the bargain. No one forces people to own or operate rent-controlled units. What has been a long-standing issue is the landlords being held to the standards they agreed to. They've known for years that they can take advantage of the government. Now that someone is proposing to check in, you're against it because you think they aren't incentivized enough on the profit side. That's a wild position.

They aren't investing in the asset as it is. That's why they would be in dangerous conditions. But honestly, what are you arguing against? You don't want safe living conditions standards for rent-stabilized units whose operators receive government subsidies? It's literally holding people accountable for taking government funds.

There's nothing wrong with holding landlords to account if their properties are in dangerous conditions. If you own a home, you pay rent to the government every year in the form of property tax and face consequences for not paying. We do receive benefits from those payments, both direct and indirect, but no, we don't truly own our homes.

So Ferrari by major? I kid, I kid.

I'm sure someone will try to argue it's a good idea. That person won't be me, but someone will twist themselves up to tell us why doubling the total interest you could pay and significantly extending your equity timeline is a good thing. If you ignore the math on interest and equity timelines, a bank writing a 50-year note for a person who is 40+ years old is assuredly going to write it a much higher rate than a 30-year mortgage. That erases the alleged (and maybe only) benefit of reducing a monthly payment. If you don't ignore the math on interest and equity timelines, you quickly come to the conclusion that this is a terrible idea.

That's not how Karma works.

I understand what you're saying. My point is that the people who make the laws that dictate the various districts are the ones who have have it wrong. The laws as constructed are not designed to represent the people in a proportional way - and that's very intentional.

We live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy. The goal should be to represent the actual votes/voting percentages. Absent that, you're not representing significant portions of society.

I agree with this. No state should be gerrymandered. The goal should be to get as close to representative of your voting results as possible, e.g., if you vote 60% Republican, then 60%-ish of your representatives should be Republican, and vice versa. There is a special session called in the state I live in to talk about redistricting. They're looking to literally eliminate all representation for about 45% of residents. I kid you not. That's taxation without representation in the modern world. It's nonsense.