|
Weatherman posted:That reminds me of how orbitally pissed off I was when the couple who had bought the private road in some rich neighbourhood and began openly talking about how they could make money on their investment got their road confiscated by the local government after the rich inhabitants of the street whinged and bitched and threw their toys out of the pram about how damned unfair it was that they were suffering the consequences of their own lack of action. I believe two of those rich inhabitants were Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. You know, Dianne Feinstein? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP_iVlEyp5M
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Raising taxes is only part of the story in Illinois. The whole reason Illinois is hosed right now is because politicians were offering big construction contracts to huge companies to secure their endorsement, and at the same time, were promising huge bonuses to pension funds to get those unions in their corner as well. Then once they took office, they gave out the contracts without factoring in the states long term financial status, and boosted pension benefits without providing the necessary additional funding to match those promises. As the crisis developed, the state took out a bunch of loans, but the excess money got showered on the politicians and their friends, and the debt continued to grow. After a decade+ of that poo poo, a state that should be one of the richest in the country can't even afford to pay the interest on all the loans it took out, and still owes massive amounts on all the short sighted guarantees the state made for short term benefit. So when it comes to Illinois, it's not a purely financial decision. It's the fact that confidence in the state government is probably bottom 3 in the country, and the general attitude towards taxes is that you might as well set the money on fire for all the good it's going to do in the hands of a bunch of corrupt, rich fucks. That money is paying off interest on junk loans, not renovating the school your kids go to. That sentiment is particularly true downstate since there's added resentment due to Chicago being the epicenter for this brand of politics. Yep, 100% agree here. The taxes aren't high in an absolute sense, they're high because the value residents get from them is gently caress all due to pensions that were going to be legally restricted. Turns out that requires a separate constitutional amendment, and a fully passed law to stop feeding the public pension dipshits ruining the state was struck down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
And those public pensioners in many cases accepted lower wages in exchange for job security and a guarantee of a nice retirement. Pension increases in lieu of wage increases. It's the same predicament that Oregon is in.
therobit fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
therobit posted:And those public pensioners in many cases accepted lower wages in exchange for job security and a guarantee of a nice retirement. Pension increases in lieu of watche increases. It's the same predicament that Oregon is in. The workers aren't really to blame, to be sure, but they're the ones that are going to have to suffer because they believed in their unions and politicians making unsustainable promises. One plausible alternative is that they try to make everyone suffer and many people (and particularly employers) say "gently caress this" and leave, leading to a death spiral. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/illinois-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-rising-pension-costs/ Counterpoint? https://www.trsil.org/news-and-events/pension-issues/teacher-pensions-too-generous
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
therobit posted:And those public pensioners in many cases accepted lower wages in exchange for job security and a guarantee of a nice retirement. Pension increases in lieu of wage increases. It's the same predicament that Oregon is in. I’ve learned you always take the higher pay. It’s too easy for employers to modify or tweak benefits to their advantage. Granted, they can also lower your pay, but it’s tougher to sneak a smaller paycheck past undetected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
n8r posted:I need a new AV, but I'm far too lazy to figure one out for myself... Done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Barry posted:While I agree with that in general, I kind of doubt really high earners are going to run away from Chicago/affluent suburbs to some rickety rear end town in NW Indiana over $8k. On the other hand: One Top Taxpayer Moved, and New Jersey Shuddered quote:By Robert Frank
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
We've finally gotten to the point where rich individuals are going to start getting competing HQ2-like handouts to convince them to move/stay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
That reminds of the case where a county accidentally assessed a guy's property tax at millions of dollars and then went and spent that extra money before the mistake was realized. One guy can make a difference, especially when you add a couple of zeros to his home value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I’ve learned you always take the higher pay. It’s too easy for employers to modify or tweak benefits to their advantage. Granted, they can also lower your pay, but it’s tougher to sneak a smaller paycheck past undetected. Yup. Benefits are great and you always need to do the math about what you’re getting vs what you’re giving up but lol gently caress no to leaving my retirement in the hands of a company (or government if it’s a public job) long term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:That reminds me of how orbitally pissed off I was when the couple who had bought the private road in some rich neighbourhood and began openly talking about how they could make money on their investment got their road confiscated by the local government after the rich inhabitants of the street whinged and bitched and threw their toys out of the pram about how damned unfair it was that they were suffering the consequences of their own lack of action. There was a lot to that story and fair arguments to be made on both sides. It's hard to see why a neighborhood road is a piece of property that should be subject to a tax foreclosure sale or what exactly the public interest would be in auctioning a neighborhood road to professional real estate investors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 13:30
|
|
|
That neighborhood road was subject to taxes because it was private property owned by the gated community. It wasn’t some kind of public thoroughfare and was privately held specifically to keep the unwashed masses from dirtying the pavement. I’ll agree that the dude was speculating and trying to make a buck. He wasn’t out to score one for that little guy. It’s still bullshit that he didn’t just get bought out and the people on that road used their political connections to just take it back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:There was a lot to that story and fair arguments to be made on both sides. It's hard to see why a neighborhood road is a piece of property that should be subject to a tax foreclosure sale or what exactly the public interest would be in auctioning a neighborhood road to professional real estate investors. First we assume "the United States", and then basically everything else falls into place. Also what Cyrano said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That neighborhood road was subject to taxes because it was private property owned by the gated community. It wasn’t some kind of public thoroughfare and was privately held specifically to keep the unwashed masses from dirtying the pavement. Of course it's subject to taxes for the sake that it is property that exists within a taxing authority but evidently there was a foreclosure sale because a $14 bill was being mailed to a dead accountant for several years. Tax liens and tax foreclosure are generally important mechanisms of tax enforcement but in this case simply investigating the unusual situation regarding an unusual parcel and resolving the administrative error prior to foreclosure would have almost certainly led to a happier outcome for every single person involved, including the speculator who purchased the road and ultimately made no money off of it while bearing legal expenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Guy keeps road: shithead guy wins due to clerical error City takes road for nothing: shithead guy follows all the rules but gets screwed by the government City takes road and pays compensation: shithead guy comes out even but government pays a large amount of money for a clerical error and oh my god, government waste Winner: lawyers
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
Could you either a) post a link to what you people are talking about, or b) progress directly to the Always Exciting Private Land Bad and Brutalist Architecture Good argument? TIA
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
howdoesishotweb posted:Could you either a) post a link to what you people are talking about, or b) progress directly to the Always Exciting Private Land Bad and Brutalist Architecture Good argument? TIA https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/904629001
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
howdoesishotweb posted:Could you either a) post a link to what you people are talking about, or b) progress directly to the Always Exciting Private Land Bad and Brutalist Architecture Good argument? TIA The street was sold for $90,000 after a long-unpaid tax bill. The guillotine candidates threw a shitfit, as you might expect. Naturally, after all that fuss, the city was pretty slow about returning the buyer's money. They ignored the taxes due for 30 years; what's a few months and $90K between friends? Bonus: This wasn't the first time it happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
This is what easements are for, our whole road is private but someone convinced everyone to sign easements so houses could still be bought and sold, it was causing loan problems for people without the easements being official. Still don't have a legally binding road maintenance agreement though which Fanny doesn't like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Interesting to me that hiring attorneys and taking actions that anybody involved in a legal dispute involving property would do is characterized as "throwing a shitfit"
BEHOLD: MY CAPE fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Mar 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
I'm sure "it's only $x" definitely worked for people whose homes were getting foreclosed on during the 2008 crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I watched a bunch of Dave Ramsey videos and enjoyed them fairly well, not knowing much about him, until I suddenly came across one video that was like this:
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:how does siphoning healthcare in Canada as an American work? Like if you get shot and cross the border they can't send you a bill Every province gives out health cards to people that live there with registration numbers. When you goto a doctor or hospital you give them your health card and that tells them they can bill the province for whatever care you receive. If you don't have a health card they will still admit you and do whats needed but they will send you bills afterwards. It will be a lot cheaper then American Healthcare however because the provinces sets the costs on whatever needs to be done and gets billed back to itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Interesting to me that hiring attorneys and taking actions that anybody involved in a legal dispute involving property would do is characterized as "throwing a shitfit" How many average neighborhoods do you think get to call in a sitting US Senator as "a friend and former neighbor", have a British General Consul weigh in, or get an uninterrupted two and a half hours in front of the City Council? Seems like anyone who didn't live in a $6M+ neighborhood would have been told to come to an arrangement, let the new owner sell with a modest profit, and take it as a lesson to file their forms correctly next time (in another 20-30 years, apparently).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
Not sure if this is BWM or just sad (why not both?), but my Lyft driver today told me she was paying $250/week to rent the Nissan Sentra we were in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that is the worst with money. $1,000 a month for RENTING a Nissan Sentra. The 2019 model has a starting price of like $18,000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Not sure if this is BWM or just sad (why not both?), but my Lyft driver today told me she was paying $250/week to rent the Nissan Sentra we were in. Hopefully it's one of those awful leases that includes unlimited miles and all of your insurance making any earnings above $250 truly "yours" as it were? That way you can at least see with your own eyes how little money you make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:
You still wouldn’t come out ahead on a lease like that because moral hazard means anyone using it would 100% be dragging their car through the dirt. The leaser would have some kind of gotcha to protect themselves from getting back a 3 year old Sentra with 300k miles and an engine compartment full of squirrels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:You still wouldn’t come out ahead on a lease like that because moral hazard means anyone using it would 100% be dragging their car through the dirt. The leaser would have some kind of gotcha to protect themselves from getting back a 3 year old Sentra with 300k miles and an engine compartment full of squirrels. if they lease for three years at that rate and don't even give the car back, you've still made 100% ROI at MSRP
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:You still wouldn’t come out ahead on a lease like that because moral hazard means anyone using it would 100% be dragging their car through the dirt. The leaser would have some kind of gotcha to protect themselves from getting back a 3 year old Sentra with 300k miles and an engine compartment full of squirrels. The point of these leases is to depreciate the car to 0 in that period of time, not have any residual value. They don't care if they get it back in 3 years because at that point they're going to crush it into a cube.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Lyft and Uber have programs to rent cars by the week for a flat rate with unlimited mileage to use as a driver for their services. I'm not saying it's a wise financial decision on the driver's part (I have no idea how the math works out, but almost certainly in Lyft's favor), but it's probably being rented by a company that knows exactly how it's being used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
incogneato posted:I'm pretty sure Lyft and Uber have programs to rent cars by the week for a flat rate with unlimited mileage to use as a driver for their services. I'm not saying it's a wise financial decision on the driver's part (I have no idea how the math works out, but almost certainly in Lyft's favor), but it's probably being rented by a company that knows exactly how it's being used. Yeah I got the impression this was it. Still, 1k/month for a Nissan versa...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
They probably set it up so that the rent comes right out of their
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
that is how they do it, there's an obligatory earnings target on i think a weekly basis and some other things as well the lease rate is actually not as horrible as i thought it might be, it's above market but there's no mileage limit and they claim to provide insurance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:that is how they do it, there's an obligatory earnings target on i think a weekly basis and some other things as well Plus it's a 100% business expense if used only for ridesharing. So, if the insurance is good and covers the activity in question, the deal starts to look a lot less terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Plus it's a 100% business expense if used only for ridesharing. So, if the insurance is good and covers the activity in question, the deal starts to look a lot less terrible. Does it really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Plus it's a 100% business expense if used only for ridesharing. So, if the insurance is good and covers the activity in question, the deal starts to look a lot less terrible. Narrator: But it wasn’t.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Random q is there ridesharing for longer road trips? Like if you are going upstate hundreds of miles away and want to split the gas cost
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
When I was in college you would just go to the corkboard in the commons and find someone who posted that there were driving/needed a ride to the city. I bet craigslist or your local Facebook groups could work that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Random q is there ridesharing for longer road trips? Like if you are going upstate hundreds of miles away and want to split the gas cost In Europe I've used Blablacar for that. It's basically getting gas money from carpooling
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2019 03:38
|
|
