Fredthefishlord

joined 2 years ago

In japan they don't but they all do anyways. Imo they should just be allowed on sidewalks

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lights should not be yield. At most, they should be stop signs

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Some biker flipped me off just because I honked at him and flipped him off for running a red in a busy intersection. Pisses me off.

But i love bikes, and hate cars. Still want nore bike infrastructure

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Classic example of calling someone an idiot just because they disagree with you on something that's primarily about subjective values.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Or could like,,, be a. Actual city doing that?

I do this frequently. As in, literally just microwaved refried beans in tortilla. Nothing else. Just that. W/ rice completely different, and hot sauce is a luxury.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

A hunting cabin is purely a luxury. There's nothing authoritarian about having high taxes for luxuries, and no, blanket taxes on luxuries are not inherently authoritarian.

Sure, it could unfairly impact people, but since in this situation there's no needs, only luxuries, the balance of how increased housing supply fairly easily balances the scale.

And no, the point of my original comment is to understand impact. Realize harms the law could create, and don't do it blindly. But that's just to understand what you're putting on the scales.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Progressive taxes are not authoritarian in nature holy shit man.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

Genuinely, I'm saying this to bring up that it's an ill effect that will come about, and to show OP that it isn't as clear cut and dry morally as rich get screwed, and houses get easier to buy. I don't especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused, and it's simply better to accept some level of negative consequences for the benefits.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They can barely split it because they're all broke af not because the house is expensive. The house and land are pretty cheap

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

No, it shouldn't hold up societal progress. But not being aware of how your policies actually affect people is just plain bad. I agree with progressive taxes on multi house ownership, but you also need to understand that will mean people who are less rich than you think losing them, it's not just people that can afford them. And it's not as far an edge case as you think, I believe

 
view more: next ›