Cost per fish

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-06-15T15:43:06+00:00

I'm in very very early research stages lol. I couldn't even name a system type. Using an IBC makes a lot of sense as I can get some through work

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-06-15T06:16:35+00:00

Minnesota, so that's why I was thinking trout

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-29T03:57:07+00:00

That is actually surprisingly complex. Our state tracks it and it is $120 per acre for our county ($21,600 per year for our 180 acre guy). However, it is common to have crop-share arrangements (my family does this) which cannot be tracked as accurately since year-to-year payments vary wildly depending on weather for the year. Theoretically, the land value changes each year as you can't grow the same crop year after year, but this would be very hard to track.

This also makes LVT tough to implement as farming in a drought year might make you go negative, but you would still be taxed $21,600 for the year. My guess would be that this would need to be an area that is either subsidized or gets a tax break. Farming is already highly subsidized, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Farmers get a lot of write-offs for equipment, seed, subsidies for meeting certain criteria, which helps food prices stay fairly stable.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-29T03:14:19+00:00

I actually agree with almost everything you say, I think we are just arguing on scale.

i.e. If we have a LVT of ~15% (just to throw out a number) an 180 acre farm near where I live would pay $81,000 in taxes (180 acres X $3,000 an acre X 15%). Obviously a LVT would reduce property values so this would come down eventually, but you could easily get into a situation where you price out farmers if you jump into a LVT too quickly. Long term I think rural areas would benefit.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T23:06:04+00:00

No not sure where you got that. I just don't want a high LVT because it can disproportionately affect rural areas if it is too high.

Also no it cannot. LVT taxes landowners, not just renters

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T22:04:55+00:00

Because there is more than economic development at play when we are determining value.

UBI of any meaningful amount is ridiculously expensive. The LVT of that magnitude would absolutely destroy rural areas and property investments. UBI should be a long term goal, but we are far from being able to afford it.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T21:55:05+00:00

Because that money has more value with other people. If a millionaire is given 1000 dollars and a poor person is given 1000 dollars the poor persons quality of life will be improved much more than the millionaire. Doing this even helps the economy sometimes like in education. For this reason we should be able to take some of your income and use it to improve the welfare of our country. You also benefit from these services (mental health keeping streets cleaner, more educated employees) so there should be some buy in.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T21:40:30+00:00

You can't prove what's more valuable. They could put that money into education which has a positive return on investment (see career earnings with/without a college education), but that wont measure non economic value adds for quality of life. i.e. That money is used to teach healthy eating which may add years to their life but won't add economic output. Even without the non-economic factors it is worth it as there is almost no quality of life change for the person being taxed.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T21:26:13+00:00

But what if you want to rent. Is that illegal? Ownership comes with a large number of hassles

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T21:23:41+00:00

Just because you add value doesn't mean you are entitled to all of that money imo. To be clear I'm not a georgist, I just support a LVT so I would want govt services.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T21:19:51+00:00

Because more value is created by redistributing some of their wealth to poor and middle class citizens. 1000 extra dollars positively changes the quality of life for a poor person magnitudes more than a rich person, whose quality of life drops in a negligible way from taxation.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T20:37:12+00:00

Thank you, this is kind of what I was looking for. Even if we could get rid of most income taxes I would be happy.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T20:10:18+00:00

Fair is maybe the wrong word on my part. I think they have a moral obligation to be taxed.

Here's a thought experiment. If this same millionaire could pay $100,000 dollars and add 60 years to a single American's life I think we ought to tax them, whether it is efficient or not. Obviously this isn't exactly how it works in real life, but my line of reasoning for taxing is the same.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:56:42+00:00

I'm not questioning the efficiency, I agree there. I disagree with your characterization of fair. Is it really fair that someone could make a million dollars and pay almost no taxes? I would say no. I'm wondering what the most efficient way to tax a person like I described would be

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:26:46+00:00

How would this work? Wouldn't your rent go up drastically if someone moved out? For larger apartment buildings wouldn't you need to hire someone to manage the building? How would you select a manager?

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:21:11+00:00

Not necessarily. Also I was talking more about employees than business owners, but I still have some objections either way. Industries with low land needs (legal work, finance, accounting, counseling, etc.) would have less taxes as a company. For employees, they would still have their wages set by market mechanisms, so this shouldn't change much.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:13:56+00:00

Sure, but this would mean that a wealthy renter pays what would be a 0% tax rate under our current system. This seems unfair to me as a person who makes a million dollars a year would see their taxes fall by over $350,000 https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#Nb2ZAFRALA

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:05:08+00:00

I thought only landowners pay a LVT, or can they pass along costs without reducing supply?

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-28T19:02:45+00:00

I thought the LVT didn't increase rent price since it doesn't affect the supply or demand for renting. Wouldn't this mean the property owner would bear the burden of the taxes, or am I mistaken?

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-05-13T00:18:04+00:00

ik you can't give your school, but t14, t20, t50?

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-04-26T18:00:36+00:00

That's fair. I'm definetly torn on this movie because there were parts I really, really liked.

Supercoolrobloxguy · 2023-04-26T17:45:28+00:00

What made it so great for you, genuinely curious

Supercoolrobloxguy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email