Rivalarrival

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

From wiki:

According to prosecutors, physicians reported that Nikki suffered and ultimately died of "massive head trauma". Prosecutors argued that in the emergency room, Nikki was found to have "[a] bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages and brain edema."[12] Additionally, four separate doctors testified Nikki had "multiple blows to different points on the head," which could not have been caused by falling off a bed.[13] At trial, Roberson's defense expert admitted that Roberson "lost it" and shook Nikki because he could not stop her from crying.[13]

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago

I'll just leave this here.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

That's why I draw big black vertical bars on the sides of my bills before I deposit them. Mathematically, that makes them deposit the absolute value instead of the negative asset.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

even then you don't need this recurring manual registration mess.

There is no recurring manual registration. You only need to register once in your lifetime.

If you move, you have to update your ID within 60 days, and every time you update your ID, they update your voter registration automatically. (unless you decline).

That has been federal law since 1993, and is pretty much equivalent to European standards.

You really have to go out of your way to not be registered to vote.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago

People keep making more people

Eventually, people stop needing housing, or their housing needs can be met by a ceramic pot on a shelf. The house they used to need becomes available for someone else.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 19 points 1 month ago

Land Contract (sometimes called "contract for deed") provides all of those same benefits, from the same people, to the same people, as renting. It is a bit of a misnomer in that it applies to any real property, and not just "land".

The difference from renting is that with the land contract:

    1. The monthly price is fixed for the life of the contract;
    1. After three years (in my state), the occupant begins gaining equity.

Grad students, visa holders, travel nurses, etc. might not necessarily want to purchase the property they are staying in, but they might also find themselves living in that area for longer than they expect. A land contract gives them the security of fixed housing costs and the flexibility of being able to walk away at any time and for any reason. They also allow the occupant to begin earning equity while still living in "temporary" housing, allowing them to save more for the future.

But, in our current market, renting is more lucrative to the landlord.

So how do we drive landlords to offer land contracts instead of rental agreements? We provide property tax exemptions to owner-occupants. We increase the nominal property tax rate: run it sky high. But, the owner-occupant exemption means the effective tax rate for homeowners (including land contract buyers) doesn't actually increase. Only investors - people who own housing they don't live in - will be paying that punitively-high tax rate.

With that sky-high tax on investment properties, today's landlords will be incentivized to become private lenders. They will be taking the exact same financial risk on the exact same people, but now those people will be called "buyers" instead of "tenants".

The only "renting" that will still remain is from landlords who live in one unit of a 2-4 unit property, or a roommate agreement, or short-term use like hotels and motels.

Home ownership is the single best predictor of financial prosperity in the US. Every housing contract should include some sort of provision for equity.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Just for another angle on the problem: baseload generation (nuclear) is most efficient at its highest possible output, but it has to maintain that output 24/7. It can't ramp up and down fast enough to match the demand curve, and it can't be ramped up above the minimum overnight demand.

To increase its efficiency, utilities push large scale consumers like steel mills and aluminum smelters to overnight shifts. This artificially increases the overnight demand, allowing the baseload generators to ramp up their relatively efficient production. This reduces the need for less-efficient peaker plants during the day.

That overnight demand can't be met with solar, and wind generation tends to fall overnight as well.

What nuclear can do is help level out seasonal variation, between the short days of winter and long days of summer. If you want to contemplate a truly pie-in-the-sky scenario, there are provisions for tying large ships, (like aircraft carriers and hospital ships) to shore power, and backfeeding the local grid to support disaster relief efforts.

Imagine a fleet of nuclear generation ships, sailing to northern-hemisphere ports from November to April, and to southern-hemisphere ports from May to October.

Pumped storage is also essential, but extraordinarily limited. We can probably run essential overnight loads on pumped storage, but it does not make sense to keep an overnight load on pumped-storage that can be shifted to solar/wind directly.

We need to take a look at demand shaping rather than supply shaping. We need to shift load to times we can produce, rather than shift production to times of demand.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Owner occupant credit/exemption. If you live in the home, you pay a much lower property tax than if you don't live in the home.

This is used in Ohio as a "homestead exemption". Elderly and disabled Ohioans pay a lower tax rate on their primary residence.

It is used in New York as the "STAR Credit", to push part of the burden of school taxes from families to investors and businesses.

This is used in Montana as a Property Tax Rebate, where taxpayers can get some of their property taxes back on their primary residence. Montana has also been talking about implementing a "second home tax" which would increase the tax burden on properties that aren't claimed as a primary residence.

A substantially similar program is used in Oakland as the Vacant Property Tax, which punishes landlords who hold property primarily for financial speculation rather than actual use.

These programs all operate in the same way I am describing. The only difference is that I would phase in a radical increase the effective tax on investors/landlords. I would increase the tax on investors and landlords of residential property so much that they find it more lucrative to switch their investment strategy to "lending" rather than "landlording". Basically, the only rental arrangements that will continue to exist are 2-4 unit residences (where the landlord-owner lives in one of the units) and roommate agreements.

A "land contract" (sometimes called "contract for deed") is a sort of "rent to own" agreement that is recorded with the county like a deed. For purposes of the tax exemption I am talking about, the occupant is considered an owner rather than a tenant.

A Land Contract is a type of seller-financing that is available to anyone, including the tenant on whom the landlord is already taking a financial risk. That former landlord is now collecting interest on a loan, rather than rent on a property.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

But it’s very difficult for a lot of people.

It is, indeed, but the proper solution here is to lift them up to the bar, not lower the bar down to them.

Lack of ID prevents you from getting and keeping a job, attending school, accessing the banking system, getting a PO box, getting licenses. Being unable to vote is the least of your problems.

The proper solution is not to figure out how to make voting accessible to those without an ID. The proper solution is to get them an ID.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, there are people who can't obtain an ID card, for whatever reason. A European citizen who couldn't obtain an ID card would have the exact same problems voting that an American citizen does. I don't have a systemic solution for that. This would seem to be something that would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, possibly involving the judicial system and a court order. It also doesn't seem to be a particularly common problem. I'd bet all the money in my pockets that OP does, indeed, have some sort of ID card.

We have a remedy for this: Provisional ballots. Cast your vote now, and resolve any clusterfuck with registration later.

view more: ‹ prev next ›