Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 265 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
There are factions in the Tory Party on both sides of that, it seems. The right argue both ways, depending on which specific special-interest they represent.

And long ago there was a lot of noise from the so-called 'countryside alliance' about how hard-done-by rural people were, and it seemed to involve people demanding more affordable homes for their offspring marching alongside people demanding no more house-building in their pretty rural village.

I don't pretend to understand the issue, though. It's too complicated a problem for me to figure out. So many different issues seem to clash and interact when it comes to housing (same as with farming and food production)
It is a very easy issue to understand. When the government purposefully restricts the supply of something the price goes up.

Like if tomorrow the government said no new cars could be built we all understand the price of cars would go up. For some reason people desperately try to convince themselves this doesn't apply to houses. It does.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
But why is that a good public policy solution? Why should people pay lower taxes on money given to them than money earned?

Let’s say my combined effective tax rate is somewhere in the 30’s. If I work and earn $1 million why should I pay $300,000 in taxes on it where if you’re just given it without lifting a finger you pay $0? Shouldn’t it be the opposite?

Personally I think we should heavily tax non-productive money transfers so we can lower taxes on productive ones.
I'd have to think about that more. People do lift a finger in maintaining their houses, and in picking good investments. Changing the way we handle stock investments in particular, would upset our system of CAPITALism dating back to the Dutch East India corporation. Offhand, it seems too dramatic a change to execute without crashing the economy.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,579
136
It is a very easy issue to understand. When the government purposefully restricts the supply of something the price goes up.

But there are many complications beyond that. For example, on all four sides of me in the last decade multi-story buildings have gone up. I've lost all daylight as a consequence (used to get nice yellow sun rays in the late afternoon, that's gone now). I didn't object because I know housing is badly needed, but it still rankles that they tend to put these things near less-well-off people, while the wealthy (for example those who live on the outskirts near the green belt or in small villages) have vastly more power to block such developments.

Generally, restrictions tend to get eased in places where less politicially-powerful groups live.

The high-rise blocks here were originally put in surrounded by empty green space - the argument was that as they were replacing terraced homes with small gardens, that green space was made possible by the higher density of the blocks of flats, and thus served as a sort of communal replacement for those gardens. Now, though, they are in-filling that green space with more blocks, as it's now seen as wasted potential housing space.

There's also the matter of where the jobs are. The problem that keeps coming up is that the affordable housing is all in places with no jobs, while where the jobs are nobody can afford to live. I don't understand why jobs end up so unevenly-distributed. Maybe if they weren't, people wouldn't all need to cram into the same small areas of the country?

Then there's the issue of whether its necessary for a country to be self-sufficient in food production. You could allow building on all the farmland, but then the country could be held-to-ransom by the foreign countries it would depend on to feed itself. But then again, we are already dependent on imported fertilizers to grow that food, so maybe that's not as meaningful a problem as its made out to be. I don't know.

And there's the question of biodiversity and to what extent non-human species also have a right to a habitat. Apparently biodiversity is highest in suburban areas where houses have gardens and there is a lot of open space between developed areas, and is lower in both high-density inner city areas and the supposed 'countryside' (which is mostly given over to quasi-industrial forms of farming and blanketed in pesticides). On the other hand, that high-density inner city area is much more efficient for providing services and in reducing the need for car commutes, so is environmentally preferable in that regard.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
But there are many complications beyond that. For example, on all four sides of me in the last decade multi-story buildings have gone up. I've lost all daylight as a consequence (used to get nice yellow sun rays in the late afternoon, that's gone now). I didn't object because I know housing is badly needed, but it still rankles that they tend to put these things near less-well-off people, while the wealthy (for example those who live on the outskirts near the green belt or in small villages) have vastly more power to block such developments.

Generally, restrictions tend to get eased in places where less politicially-powerful groups live.

The high-rise blocks here were originally put in surrounded by empty green space - the argument was that as they were replacing terraced homes with small gardens, that green space was made possible by the higher density of the blocks of flats, and thus served as a sort of communal replacement for those gardens. Now, though, they are in-filling that green space with more blocks, as it's now seen as wasted potential housing space.

There's also the matter of where the jobs are. The problem that keeps coming up is that the affordable housing is all in places with no jobs, while where the jobs are nobody can afford to live. I don't understand why jobs end up so unevenly-distributed. Maybe if they weren't, people wouldn't all need to cram into the same small areas of the country?

Then there's the issue of whether its necessary for a country to be self-sufficient in food production. You could allow building on all the farmland, but then the country could be held-to-ransom by the foreign countries it would depend on to feed itself. But then again, we are already dependent on imported fertilizers to grow that food, so maybe that's not as meaningful a problem as its made out to be. I don't know.

And there's the question of biodiversity and to what extent non-human species also have a right to a habitat. Apparently biodiversity is highest in suburban areas where houses have gardens and there is a lot of open space between developed areas, and is ower in both high-density inner city areas and the supposed 'countryside' (which is mostly given over to quasi-industrial forms of farming and blanketed in pesticides). On the other hand, that high-density inner city area is much more efficient for providing services and in reducing the need for car commutes, so is environmentally preferable in that regard.
1) I agree that new housing is mostly built in poorer areas but that's exactly it - richer ones are more able to implement and sustain housing bans. I'm a fan of no housing bans for anyone, anywhere.

2) Jobs tend to be concentrated in cities due to agglomeration effects.

3) We have technology that allows us to stack residences vertically, there's not a need to build on currently used farmland.

4) Yes, cities are vastly more environmentally sustainable than suburbs.

The problems you cite are really mostly artifacts of the housing bans already in place. People have gotten so used to this disaster that they think it's normal or even preferable. It's not, and it's a humanitarian catastrophe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,675
8,579
136
1) I agree that new housing is mostly built in poorer areas but that's exactly it - richer ones are more able to implement and sustain housing bans. I'm a fan of no housing bans for anyone, anywhere.

Fair enough, just seems that as soon as they start removing housing building restrictions it always starts with those poorer areas, and doesn't necessarily ever reach the point of affecting those wealthier places (who really do seem to have a vast array of legal and political methods to prevent developments, e.g. the Green Belt and a bunch of weird old-timey laws related to 'village greens').
The questionable distinction between 'greenfield' (protected) and 'brownfield' (not protected) seems to be related to that.


2) Jobs tend to be concentrated in cities due to agglomeration effects.

Yeah, but only certain cities. There are parts of Liverpool where the housing is virtually worthless, because there are no jobs. I gather the same is true of Detroit (parts of which, I hear, are being entirely de-urbanised). It seems to be more about region of the country than city vs rural. Hence the Tories lying claim to be concerned with "levelling up" (that amounted to the square root of f*** all)

3) We have technology that allows us to stack residences vertically, there's not a need to build on currently used farmland.

4) Yes, cities are vastly more environmentally sustainable than suburbs.

But, as I said, the data seems to say that _biodiversity_ (and also the bee population) is highest in suburban areas where houses have gardens. There's not a lot of wildlife in the inner city - apart from the booming urban fox population (I like to imagine they are the sophisticated ones, who look down on their country-bumpkin cousins who still have to cope with being chased around the countryside by toffs on horseback with packs of dogs. They've already started learning to use cat-flaps and wander into people's houses - eventually they'll probably evolve to start frequenting wine bars and restaurants)

The problems you cite are really mostly artifacts of the housing bans already in place. People have gotten so used to this disaster that they think it's normal or even preferable. It's not, and it's a humanitarian catastrophe.

I dunno, I heard Ezra Klein's podcast recently talking about housing problems in San Francisco, and it seemed to involve a lot of the issues that get argued about on here. I think the issues are slightly different in different countries. This country is already highly-urbanised...but I agree much of the housing in London particularly is low-density, terraced or semi-detached houses, and there's scope for a lot more multi-story blocks of flats (apartment buildings). Seems very difficult to bring that about though.

What seems to be happening are all the old family homes being crudely converted into multiple flats, often in a really clumsy way (when house hunting I saw several with things like hallways converted into bedrooms, sans any windows, for example).
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,268
29,013
136
So has anyone been able to come up with a good public policy reason as to why the government should charge parents 15% capital gains tax on sales they make while alive but 0% on identical sales their kids make after those parents die?

By the way if people just want to say ‘I inherited a lot of money and don’t want to pay taxes on it’ that’s fine, at least you’re owning your position.
It's funny. I'm going through probate with my parents' estate right now. Would I like the money tax-free? Of course. But I can't think of one good reason for having that be the law while wages are taxed. I've learned a lot about the regulations for passing on IRAs. It's complicated as hell because the government is trying to treat people fairly while keeping the ultra-rich from using IRAs to pass vast wealth tax-free and the wealthy are always thinking.

One point people seem to miss in this: The inherited money is taxed at the recipient's marginal tax rate so poor people inheriting a modest sum will pay little to no tax on it while the more well-to-do pay a higher rate. A little planning on the part of the recipient can keep taxes under control. The inheritance tax only kicks in for estates over $12.92 million for 2023.
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,097
8,382
136
It's funny. I'm going through probate with my parents' estate right now. Would I like the money tax-free? Of course. But I can't think of one good reason for having that be the law while wages are taxed. I've learned a lot about the regulations for passing on IRAs. It's complicated as hell because the government is trying to treat people fairly while keeping the ultra-rich from using IRAs to pass vast wealth tax-free and the wealthy are always thinking.

One point people seem to miss in this: The inherited money is taxed at the recipient's marginal tax rate so poor people inheriting a modest sum will pay little to no tax on it while the more well-to-do pay a higher rate. A little planning on the part of the recipient can keep taxes under control. The inheritance tax only kicks in for estates over $12.92 million for 2023.
Inherited money is not taxed unless you live in one of the few states with an inheritance tax. The only way the money gets taxed now is via estate taxes, which are technically paid by the deceased's estate, and the size of that estate determines the amount of tax liability.

But stuff like inheriting IRAs, yes, that would be taxed at the recipient's rate as they withdraw. I think under the new rules from 2018 and on, you can also still have it grow tax free for 5-10 years, as an additional bonus before it must be emptied. Not quite as good as it used to be (where you could basically just take RMDs for life).
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,738
26,901
136
In all fairness that's probably a good move for Twitter. Any company that cares about either brand safety or ad quality probably isn't on Twitter anyway, haha. Like, what would that job even look like? Just replace them with the poop emoji.
As useful as a PR team in an Elon Musk company for sure. :D
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,321
9,175
136
Amazing how much of this ties back to him being such a weak man baby over his child disowning him and his SO leaving him for another woman.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,284
10,882
136
There are factions in the Tory Party on both sides of that, it seems. The right argue both ways, depending on which specific special-interest they represent.

And long ago there was a lot of noise from the so-called 'countryside alliance' about how hard-done-by rural people were, and it seemed to involve people demanding more affordable homes for their offspring marching alongside people demanding no more house-building in their pretty rural village.

I don't pretend to understand the issue, though. It's too complicated a problem for me to figure out. So many different issues seem to clash and interact when it comes to housing (same as with farming and food production)
People don't want their village to change, but also want their kids to stay in their village. People don't see how those are contradictory goals.
 

Dave_5k

Golden Member
May 23, 2017
1,927
3,688
136
So someone passing on $100k versus someone passing on $100M is both defined by you as rich people who don't want to pay taxes?
I got a bridge to sell you if you think stopping the step-up-basis is going to tax the wealthy more. You got a $20M estate, you can easily afford $200k in estate planning with a good lawyer and a CPA to make sure you maximize tax law to your advantage. What this will mainly impact is the middle class family that passes on a $100k and cannot afford a estate planner.
Yeah, I don't see an easy fix to the ultra rich tax evasion. Beyond the step-up basis, also have to basically eliminate the entire concept of Trusts (or more properly, probably need to redefine everything currently lumped into "trusts" as fully tax-liable corporate entities, and even if somehow managed to close both of those gaping loopholes, the ultra rich would undoubtedly have congress create new loopholes in the meantime)
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,009
2,344
136
The way to fix the system so people can be more self sufficient is to increase wages. One powerful tool for raising wages is progressive taxation which makes hoarding of income at the high end painful enough that the wealthy can choose to pay their employees more or pay the government instead. Historically, when faced with this choice, the wealthy decided they were better off paying their workers more and the government less.

I thought people were supposed to choose between food or a roof over their heads. You can only choose one. Isn't that the conservative American way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drach

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,284
10,882
136
Yeah, I don't see an easy fix to the ultra rich tax evasion. Beyond the step-up basis, also have to basically eliminate the entire concept of Trusts (or more properly, probably need to redefine everything currently lumped into "trusts" as fully tax-liable corporate entities, and even if somehow managed to close both of those gaping loopholes, the ultra rich would undoubtedly have congress create new loopholes in the meantime)
Trust do serve a purpose besides tax for evasion. Better to fix the loopholes with them, than through out the entire concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511
Mar 11, 2004
23,287
5,725
146
Oh cool, despite there being at least what 1-2, possibly more reasons to be discussing the actual topic of this thread, looks like at least a few pages to wade through discussing fucking housing yet again. At this point, I'm just assuming fskimospy is just pulling a Red Squirrel and shitposting knowing he'll get the attention he so desperately wants.

Stop responding to moronic religious cultists and go make a fucking thread about housing already if you want to constantly discuss it.

2nd high profile Twitter personnel within a week resigned after they tried to follow Twitter's own policy and not enabling anti-trans documentary and clownbaby Musk declared they should be enabling it.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,060
8,610
136
Huh?!?! ... What is this...

Those pesky therapists who help trans kids not commit suicide Lock 'em up!

OUMbXtF.png

Is Musk saying that he’d like to ban circumcision, tattoos, piercings, or any form of plastic surgery on children? So then pediatricians or persons who performs surgery on a child goes to prison. Who is making that determination? Medical professionals or an adult spoiled rich brat? Who knows what he's saying. He's on Twitter posting one word/one sentence...

But I do know why Musk isn’t being specific.... Because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. He’s not a medical professional. He doesn’t know the science. He is not involved in the treatment of children. He’s a wealthy manchild with a big platform spouting bullshit. Potentially dangerous bullshit that advocates for bigotry which is actively harming people AND especially children. This guy has turned into such a douchebag. I'm glad I deleted my Twitter account when he took over.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,030
13,539
136
Huh?!?! ... What is this...

Those pesky therapists who help trans kids not commit suicide Lock 'em up!

View attachment 81327

Is Musk saying that he’d like to ban circumcision, tattoos, piercings, or any form of plastic surgery on children? So then pediatricians or persons who performs surgery on a child goes to prison. Who is making that determination? Medical professionals or an adult spoiled rich brat? Who knows what he's saying. He's on Twitter posting one word/one sentence...

But I do know why Musk isn’t being specific.... Because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. He’s not a medical professional. He doesn’t know the science. He is not involved in the treatment of children. He’s a wealthy manchild with a big platform spouting bullshit. Potentially dangerous bullshit that advocates for bigotry which is actively harming people AND especially children. This guy has turned into such a douchebag. I'm glad I deleted my Twitter account when he took over.
The studies are going back and forth on this, in terms of underage corrective surgery, the problem here is that morons like Peterson and Musk makes it impossible for society to have a proper non toxic debate on the issue. Shit people shit post. Its what shit people do.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,971
5,593
136
It is a very easy issue to understand. When the government purposefully restricts the supply of something the price goes up.

Like if tomorrow the government said no new cars could be built we all understand the price of cars would go up. For some reason people desperately try to convince themselves this doesn't apply to houses. It does.
Are we going to pretend that government doesn't control the auto industry? Fuel economy standards and safety requirements all lead to increased cost. We can toss licensing and safety inspections into the mix as well.
The view that allowing uncontrolled construction will solve more problems than it creates is absurd. What we'll end up with will look like the third world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Are we going to pretend that government doesn't control the auto industry? Fuel economy standards and safety requirements all lead to increased cost. We can toss licensing and safety inspections into the mix as well.
The view that allowing uncontrolled construction will solve more problems than it creates is absurd. What we'll end up with will look like the third world.
I’m glad that we agree that regulations increase costs!

Why would we end up looking like the third world? The reason the third world looks like it does is not density, it’s that they are poor! This makes absolutely no sense. It is based on the idea that developers would build houses nobody wants to live in, thereby bankrupting themselves.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,666
136
The view that allowing uncontrolled construction will solve more problems than it creates is absurd. What we'll end up with will look like the third world.

What's hilarious about this misinformed view is the urban neighborhoods that people like the most all got put up way before there were almost any zoning regulations They could not be legally rebuilt if they burned down.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Huh?!?! ... What is this...

Those pesky therapists who help trans kids not commit suicide Lock 'em up!

View attachment 81327

Is Musk saying that he’d like to ban circumcision, tattoos, piercings, or any form of plastic surgery on children? So then pediatricians or persons who performs surgery on a child goes to prison. Who is making that determination? Medical professionals or an adult spoiled rich brat? Who knows what he's saying. He's on Twitter posting one word/one sentence...

But I do know why Musk isn’t being specific.... Because he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. He’s not a medical professional. He doesn’t know the science. He is not involved in the treatment of children. He’s a wealthy manchild with a big platform spouting bullshit. Potentially dangerous bullshit that advocates for bigotry which is actively harming people AND especially children. This guy has turned into such a douchebag. I'm glad I deleted my Twitter account when he took over.

He’s rich! That’s about as good as being medically trained and an expert in all sorts of fields.

Pop quiz: when do rich smart people realize they are saying/believing something stupid?

That was a trick question as they never realize it because their ego won’t allow it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111