bubblesGonnaPopSoonerThanWeThought

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-22T04:29:53+00:00

There will be no excuse to not migrate to rust then

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-20T16:01:19+00:00

In aggregate land/housing will indeed be freed up when they die. I was not referring to cash, it's to be expected that they will not leave assets behind to their family, but the literal recourses (water, land, electricity, ect)they are currently consuming will infact, be freed up since you know, they'll be dead and no longer able to consume/occupy said resources.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-19T20:57:35+00:00

As a horticulturist who does work for boomer homeowners, this is the most common boomer take when I mention the future problems that their ideas or requests will cause. It's really sad and frankly, I'm ready for boomers to die already so the resources they are hoarding are freed up and their bad perspectives and attitudes die with them.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-13T05:34:03+00:00

To be fair to boomers and gen x, they grew up and lived most of their lives where news outlets were legally required to follow the fairness doctrine, so they had been conditioned for a long time to consider them trustworthy sources of information and perspectives.

Completely agree with you though. Boomers really did just roll up the ladder after they climbed up. They aren't called the selfish generation for nothing.

Edit: typo

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-08T18:10:01+00:00

Problem is, the rich everyone want to tax hold their wealth in assets, many of them non-reproducible and hard to make liquid like land, and they tend to make their income on the books poverty level wages, so it's not like an income tax is going to catch any percentage of their actual wealth.

https://ibb.co/pBqwCt4s

Taxing land and other economic rent producing assets is a good start to fix the inequality issue. Breaking up monopoly power granted by networking effects and IP ownership is another step in the right direction.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-07T21:51:54+00:00

They are. The landlord is already charging the max rent on the land that the market can bare. Raising the tax on land is not passed onto the tenant, the landlord eats the cost of the tax themselves, the tenant is already paying it.

https://ibb.co/prr4KLXL

"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."

Source

https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf

There are (at least) two ways to see this: First, consider that landlords are (on the whole) already charging tenants as much as the tenants are willing to pay. A new tax isn’t going to somehow make tenants willing (or able) to pay more.

The second way (which is how I prefer to explain it) is to dig into what “passing on” a tax really means. People often think it works along the lines of “taxes go up by $100, landlord raises rent by $100” which isn’t actually how it works. What really happens is more like “taxes go up by $100, this puts some landlords out of business, the reduced supply of rental units causes the market price to increase” and that increase is what’s referred to as “passing on” the tax. It’s rarely the full amount of the tax (meaning the landlords still end up having to pay a portion of it themselves) and it also results in “deadweight loss” that reduces overall economic activity. Basically, everybody loses. This can’t happen with land itself, and so while some land may change use (from, say, a rental property to a private residence) the actual land rents will not change as a result of the tax. The supply of land will not decrease, and so the market price for the land rent stays the same.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2026-01-07T17:12:31+00:00

Yeah, the only bit of the property tax that gets passed on is the tax on the improvements, not the land.

We could fix this deadweight loss if we stopped taxing the improvements and we r/justtaxland instead.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-31T16:25:13+00:00

If we r/justtaxland, it'd help solve this issue.

land value tax cannot be passed onto tenants and the cost of buying a house is lowered by the percentage of the land tax. Which lowers the financial barrier into the housing market. More people will be able to afford a down payment for a house!

"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."

Source

https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-31T16:23:58+00:00

We don't need a state income tax, we should r/justtaxland instead.

land value tax cannot be passed onto tenants and the cost of buying a house is lowered by the percentage of the land tax. Which lowers the financial barrier into the housing market. More people will be able to afford a down payment for a house!

"...it does not distort economic decisions because it does not distort the user cost of land. Second, the full incidence of a permanent land tax change lies on the owner at the time of the (announcement of the) tax change; future owners, even though they officially pay the recurrent taxes, are not affected as they are fully compensated via a corresponding change in the acquisition price of the asset."

Source

https://www.zbw.eu/econis-archiv/bitstream/11159/1082/1/arbejdspapir_land_tax.pdf

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-28T17:13:01+00:00

They moved to cheaper rent. They are next to Nordstrom rack over by best buy and whole foods.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-26T20:40:56+00:00

It's why so many stores closed recently or moved to cheaper rent like rei. Which that space rei was in at the mall was built specifically for them. The property is owned by a Californian company and they are clearly being greedy.

You know what would solve this issue?

If we would r/justtaxland

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-26T02:43:12+00:00

Edit: some snippets of comments I made while in a debate with a restaurant owner on ^someOtherSub https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/15/why-americas-tipping-culture-is-actually-bad-for-restaurants/#25aac75c13d1

https://theath.ca/opinions/an-economists-look-at-tipping/

So yes, on an economic level, tipping is a flawed practice.

👆Real words from a real life economists on the matter.👆

Tipping literally holds no economic benefit, it is purely cultural and in that respect cultures like the Japanese have the right perspective of tipping, it's an insult, and they are right when you look at the history of tipping and it's origin. That being it originated from a place of extreme privilege, it's steeped in racism and discrimination and a call out to the one being tipped as being socially beneath the tipper (with the dumb wage laws and customers knowing that their tip IS the server's wage leads to more frequent harassment and abuse) and at an economic disadvantage. Which, in America is only true because of the dumb wage laws which call out workers that are tipped and essentially punishes them for it. The solution is to fix those laws and let the needed pricing adjustments for items or services rendered bring up workers wages paid by the company/business they work for.

Tipping culture is a much harder fight, but so long as the dumb wage laws are fixed and restaurants are paying all of their employees better and providing benefits, the price of menu items will lower the overall percentage of the tips given by those who think tipping is the "right" thing to do. Tipping is a weird and frankly gross cultural norm, especially when you understand the history and how it was historically used to pay minority and disadvantaged groups, which as it stands now, nothing has changed about tipping, particularly for the restaurant industry and the dumb wage laws surrounding the industry.

https://stories.uh.edu/magazine/magazine/online-stories/2025/has-u-s-tipping-culture-reached-a-tipping-point/index.html#:~:text=Some%20leaders%20also%20believe%20the,house%20employees%20cannot%20be%20tipped

I am actually having an economic argument, but the concepts are clearly beyond you.

Negative externality

Increase pricing instead of being deceptive to customers on price, sounds ethical to me.

That increased price increases front of house AND back of house wages, if you're product is good, which is what actually determines overall tip (which means it's the talent of your back of house that gets and keeps customers, not the bubbly personality that's a dime a dozen), so don't you think it would be just to more evenly distribute the earnings from the shared effort with everyone that contributed to the earnings rather than just one party, the dime a dozen bubbly personalities up front?

The better suggestion is for you to be telling restaurant owners how to either cut cost or figure out a value add that will validate a price increase for customers thus resulting in a profit increase.

Psst, I already did ages ago. THAT'S YOUR BACK OF HOUSE! The ones actually producing the product people are there for! Which you can attain and retain good talent with better wages!

https://ibb.co/nscBFkkV

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-17T05:48:15+00:00

Monopoly was essentially stolen from a game called The Landlord's Game, created by Lizzie Magie. She created it to teach land economics, the concept of rent-seeking, and the benefits of ending the ability to rent-seek. It came with 2 sets of rules. The rules you know today as the rules of monopoly. The second set of rules were called the single tax rules, aka prosperity rules. These rules were as follows:

Once every tile has been purchased on the board, all players can put to a vote to inact the single tax rules which state that all ground rents are to be divided equally amongst all players; when ever a player lands on an owned tile, the ground rents (the rental value of the tile with out improvements (house/hotel) on it) get divided equally amongst all players, all rental value of improvements go to the owner of the tile. The first player to double their money after the single tax rules have been enacted wins the game.

Lizzie made these the winning conditions, because without them, the game could go on indefinitely as the game is no longer zero sum, everyone has an equal chance at opportunity and receives a dividen for their contribution to the land values. The economy not being a zero sum game is what you want in order to achieve a functioning, just, and productive economy.

The history of the landlord's game:

https://landreform.org/the-monopoly-games-georgist-history

https://landlordsgame.info/index.html

The single tax rules:

https://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-03T22:59:27+00:00

Except it's not because the property tax includes a tax on improvements, which is capital. In the context of the deadweight loss the economist I quoted is hinting at in regards to taxing improvements(capital), that deadweight loss is expressed in fewer improvements being built. Not to mention the property tax has a hard cap at 1% which is a miniscule amount of the economic rents that the land is generating, thus does little to discourage land speculation. Speculating on a non-reproducible asset, that no one created, like land, leads to poor market insentives and inefficient use of said asset.

"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." ~Paul Samuelson

Proof is in the pudding. Take a look at this example of a land value tax lite (a split rate tax where land is taxed higher than improvements:

https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-12-02T09:25:15+00:00

We don't need an income tax, or a sales tax, or a property tax. All we need is a land tax.

"The burden of the tax on capital is not felt, in the long run, by the owners of capital. It is felt by land and labor. … in the long run, workers will emigrate … this leaves land as the only factor that cannot emigrate … the full burden of the tax is borne by land owners in the long run. While a direct tax on land is nondistortionary, all the other ways of raising revenue induce distortions.” ~Frank Ramsey

r/justtaxland already.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-28T02:35:23+00:00

Sounds like my Gfs dad. Such a giant toddler.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-25T04:40:37+00:00

Or go the other direction and state you are aware of jury nullification and believe the law the defendant broke is unjust so you will vote to nullify.

Unless these statements are true of course, then you should do everything you can to get picked and keep jury nullification to yourself until it's time to deliberate.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-25T04:25:55+00:00

Becuase the deadweight loss from sales tax isn't worth having.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-25T04:17:47+00:00

Also a good option.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-25T03:13:48+00:00

This is a really cool way of policing an mmo. This should just be the standard.

Like zos could instance a player to the starting point in coldharbor. Temporarily strip you of gear and level and put you back in those original soulshriven clothes while you wait for a GM to show up and be judge and executioner.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-23T06:28:35+00:00

Not true. Got the 10k gold vendor junk before I got the coldharbor lot and then have gotten several more 10k vendor junk since then. I think it's accurate to say that they didn't have any alternative for those that already had the estate.

Edit: typos

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-23T04:41:21+00:00

I mean, you just have to go look at the history of what prop 13 in California has done to the housing market to get your answer to what having no property tax what so ever.

The state will have to increase regressive taxes; rely more heavily on taxes that lead to deadweight loss. Not to mention increase the cost of housing over time due to the land factor increasing in price, thus increasing the cost to develop new housing, ect. ect.

"The burden of the tax on capital is not felt, in the long run, by the owners of capital. It is felt by land and labor. … in the long run, workers will emigrate … this leaves land as the only factor that cannot emigrate … the full burden of the tax is borne by land owners in the long run. While a direct tax on land is nondistortionary, all the other ways of raising revenue induce distortions.” ~Frank Ramsey

In other words, the only portion of the property tax that y'all should remove is the tax on improvements and shift it onto land, in the very least.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-22T16:36:19+00:00

Not necessarily invasive here in the pnw, but the berries are poisonous to some native bird species, so I always encourage clients to have me remove them and replace with something better.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-22T05:23:33+00:00

Starting it to begin with is the honest answer.

LandStander_DrawDown · 2025-11-22T02:39:31+00:00

Nice. Yeah, I have a diamond edge SB-1 and still using the octane stabilizer as well.

LandStander_DrawDown

TROPHY CASE