this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
384 points (98.7% liked)

News

37915 readers
2527 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Banning marijuana growing at home, increasing the substance’s tax rate and altering how those taxes get distributed are among vast changes Ohio Senate Republicans proposed Monday to a marijuana legalization measure approved by voters last month.

The changes emerged suddenly in committee just days before the new law is set to take effect, though their fate in the full Senate and the GOP-led House is still unclear.

The ballot measure, dubbed Issue 2, passed on the Nov. 7 election with 57 percent of the vote and it set to become law this Thursday, making Ohio the 24th state to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. But as a citizen-initiated statute, the Legislature is free to make tweaks on it, of which they’re attempting plenty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I can't really abide letting companies(which is people but with money and capital) grow a plant I'm not allowed to grow. That just feels like flexing control of prices and picking who gets it.

The tax bit is a totally fair concern, and is the proper avenue of "who gets it?" I should think the taxes be directly relevant to the subject, so research funding and addiction therapy seems appropriate. I would like to see what people are doing explicitly for fun fund things that people in need should be getting. That'd be better funding for homeless programs, grocery subsidizing(broad category, no specific industry), and healthcare.

I for one would buy up lots of weed to know I'm feeling good for contributing to those things to get what I like.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I gotta say, I've never heard of flower with over 50% THC or an extract that wasn't specifically trying to be 100%. It's like they actually don't know what they're talking about.

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Narrator: "They don't."

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If nothing is sold, what is there to tax?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Property is a huge one that should be taxed more. If you own property, you're preventing other people from utilizing it, so it should be taxed in proportion to its value yearly. If you don't utilize it maximally, the cost of taxes will outweigh its ownership and you'll be pushed to sell it to someone who will utilize it better (or you just eat the cost). It's drive down hoarding of houses and leaving apartments unfilled, which would drive down the cost as landlords attempt to fill them maximally.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Im not sure high base property tax rates are the best solution to corporate ownership of single family homes.

A progressive tax based on number of residential properties owned makes more sense to me.

100% tax on home 1 125% on home 2 150% on home 3 200% on home 4 250% on home 5

And if they still try to arbitrage the market, double the tax for unoccupied homes.

just make it impossible to profit after a point.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago

Land value tax is progressive already. It's also very efficient with no real way to create loopholes. A progressive tax based on number of owned properties would just create shell companies and putting properties under another name. I don't disagree with increasing tax on unoccupied residences, but I don't think that is appropriate with a LVT, as it just adds complication. You're taxed based on value, which is correlated to the value others think they could extract from the same land. Empty property could be utilized, so the value doesn't care if it's empty and will be taxed appropriately regardless.

A LVT also works for farmland and other land to ensure maximum utility. Also, assuming land shouldn't belong to anyone (which why should it. They didn't create it?) it appropriately returns value to the public for occupied land.