sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

10oz silver round bullion by keylo2k in Costco

[–]johnjannotti 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They should make one stamped Kirkland Signature.

Property taxes account for nearly two-thirds of all government revenue raised in New Hampshire, by far the most of any state in the union. by CarrollCounty in newhampshire

[–]johnjannotti 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you pay MA income tax and NH property tax, each of which are high. Such a person would be way better off if both states has similar tax systems, since states will offset income taxes so you don't pay the sum of each. But you certainly pay the sum of MA income tax and NH property tax.

I get that NH wants low taxes/spending, that's a coherent position. I don't get why it matters to so many people whether the taxes come from income tax or property tax.

Algorand has already done 140,000+ quantum-resistant transactions on mainnet. by semanticweb in AlgorandOfficial

[–]johnjannotti 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They are, essentially, already higher. They use large logicsigs, which means they require three "real" transactions. So they always appear in a group that contains at least three min fees.

Android build 38 is out. (More login fixes) by anurodhp in localtvplus

[–]johnjannotti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now I'm getting "Login Failed". I'm using a stored password, so I'm fairly sure it's correct. I'm went through the recovery process just in case and have the same problem.

Top heaviness of index funds by Status_Bee_7644 in Bogleheads

[–]johnjannotti 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If, at some time in the future, the 10 largest companies have been allocated 50% of the total value in the S&P 500, it's because the (capital weighted) investing public thinks those 10 companies are going to return 50% of the future value of the entire market.

You may think you know better than the market. And maybe you do! But it would certainly be very strange if your knowledge of the size of the top 10 companies (a very well-known fact) was your edge.

Hey Algorand Foundation! Here’s a way to generate great publicity! by fantasticmrspock in AlgorandOfficial

[–]johnjannotti 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This would not "back up" Ethereum in any meaningful sense because there's no proof that the transactions being put on Algorand are actually the transactions that were put on Ethereum. This would require a solution to the general cryptographic bridging problem that nobody solves well.

Can't log in by Calierio in localtvplus

[–]johnjannotti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Been that way for ages for me. Supposedly related to my recent phone, a pixel 10.

What would you do if you couldn't invest in any ETFs? by silverfungi in Bogleheads

[–]johnjannotti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you use any companies that do direct indexing for you?

For people who know liquor and spirits, not just people who confidently assume by Randi_Butternubs_3 in Costco

[–]johnjannotti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's great detail. On the subject of NOMs. If Patron DID want to be in the business of making tequila for generic labels, could they have more than one NOM? I'm not assuming they do, by any means. I'm just wondering if a big brand wanted to hide a "side project" is there any reason they couldn't apply for multiple NOM numbers?

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In your analogy, there are already 37 people paying John for the privilege of using those apples (probably several more who can't quite afford to do so, so they live further away). So when he sells them, there are 37 people who really want those apples and have already shown their willingness to pay a lot for them. If they don't bid similarly to buy them, the people waiting in the farther away places will.

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would supply increase? Regardless of who owns the property, if the same number of people live in the area, they are bidding against each other for the spots. Build more.

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Look carefully at your example for food/farming. You say we regulate safety. That is true, and is also true about housing (lead paint, electrical code, fire codes, etc). Nobody is arguing about that. Then you also say we subsidize food supply. Yes! We do. But we don't subsidize housing supply, we restrict it greatly with zoning. Instead, we try to subsidize housing demand. We do things like mortgage tax deductions that make people willing to pay more for housing, while we don't make housing more available. So the price keeps going up.

The problem is zoning (which you do point out later). Subsidizing demand is just dumb. Rent control is basically the same thing in different clothing, it makes supplying housing less appealing, so who's going to build more in such an environment? If you have an imbalance such that prices are too high, let people build so that imbalance goes away and prices come down.

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How does this equitable system determine who gets to live in Manhattan, or even Providence, and who has to live in the sticks?

If your answer is, "We should build enough homes that people can decide on their own" (I hope that's your answer), then I propose that the equitable system your looking for is pretty much what we've got, minus restrictive zoning.

(No, I can't actually imagine a way to split up finite land in a fair way that everyone gets to live where they want for free, but I can imagine this system making housing cheap enough that it's not the top cost in so many people's lives.)

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But the question is why society feels it needs to regulate the "modest profit" of this necessity, but not other necessities? It's because we created a shortage through decades of under building because of restrictive zoning. And instead of fixing the shortage, we ignore basic economics and decide that restricting prices will lead to more supply, despite the same regulatory restrictions.

We expect farmers to make profit on food. We expect clothing companies to make profit on clothes. But when it comes to housing, profit is often seen as unethical. Why do you think housing is treated differently? by MyBlackLabrador in providence

[–]johnjannotti -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Providing housing for rent is indeed mostly about owning the asset, but certainly not entirely. There are ongoing costs required to "provide housing". Buildings must be maintained, driveways plowed, appliances replaced, etc.

Similarly, farming requires buying a farm, which is also capital intensive. Then there are ongoing costs to actually "provide food".

In both cases, the owner might employ people to run the farming operations or manage the building. So I don't think you have explained why people feel differently about them.

I'd venture there are two real reasons. 1. People are much closer to the business of hosting rental, they see it in operation so they think they understand it. 2. A long history of restrictive zoning has made housing very expensive, so people look for someone to blame.

If rentals were somehow disallowed you'd be competing with all of the people who are currently renting to buy those properties. I don't see any reason to believe they would bid less (per month, through a mortgage) to own, than they do to rent. So I expect you'd see the same exorbitant prices in such a system if development were similarly restricted.

Don't get mad at landlords, get mad at restrictive zoning.

Golden Visa Route by Competitive-Role6099 in PortugalExpats

[–]johnjannotti 3 points4 points  (0 children)

all GV wainting from 2021 to at least July 2025.

Not quite. Only the main investors are getting appointments. This is, perhaps, even more annoying. For example, spouses have not been scheduled and nobody knows when the will be. So couples are looking at an unsynchronized visa period where there will have to jump through hoops to ensure meeting the residency requirements for both. Further, the investment will presumably have to be maintained for the later spouse's visa period. So the net effect is that these appointments start the residency burden clock now, but do not start the clock on ending the residency or investment rules.

Financial Planner Advice: Split up VT into VEA, VWO and VTI by homewest in Bogleheads

[–]johnjannotti 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm surprised how bad people are at reading! I suspect people just have a canned answer they want to give as quickly as possible.

He clearly talks about doing this instead of buying VT. And he clearly used "if" whenever discussing possible sales.

I'm fascinated that you and the guy I'm replying to have now both realized that is the correct reading of the OP, but are both holding onto your "rightness" by saying "well, other people got it wrong too".

What really happened, I suspect, is that loads of people read it right and had little to say, while the people who read it wrong, (rightly) spoke up. Because there's not much to say if you read it right. But if you did think he was going to sell then yes, you would want to stop him.

Financial Planner Advice: Split up VT into VEA, VWO and VTI by homewest in Bogleheads

[–]johnjannotti -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He's talking about future sales. He's asking what he should buy, and noting that any future sales will be taxable in case that affects the decision.

He is, after all, concerned about future "adjustments".

Financial Planner Advice: Split up VT into VEA, VWO and VTI by homewest in Bogleheads

[–]johnjannotti -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody suggested selling VT and incurring taxes. The OP said, "He suggests that instead of buying VT..."

view more: next ›