Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

On Tue, 28 May 2024 11:54:55 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2024 02:24:03 -0400, Kevrob <kjrobinson@mail.com>
wrote:
>

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!

 
I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

>
The essential problem with this of course is that it assumes zero
immigration since the housing market would otherwise be completely
dominated by those from abroad who had bought more than 48k with them.
Thus making the housing market in metropolitain areas even more
unbearable than it presently is.
>
After all you're talking taxing INCOME not CAPITAL.

The housing problem in Seattle is certainly getting serious. Several
approaches, some quite scary to individual homeowners such as myself
and my co-owner/brother, are being proposed and implemented.

Whether this will work or not is hard to say. Replacing existing
single-family homes with apartment/condo buildings sounds nice -- but
not if the rent/purchase cost is so high young workers can't afford
it. Then it is no solution at all.

And it doesn't help when no off-street parking is required to be
provided (it it isn't required, it doesn't happen).  This, however, is
part of another problem: a tendency to try an minimize private vehicle
ownership and use by making it as inconvenient as possible.

The Master Vision, IOW, appears to be dorms for the young, small (1/2
bedroom) apartments for the slightly older, slow (or not so slow)
replacement of single-family homes through assessed value/property tax
increases, and no vehicles at all. This is, of course, unlikely to
work as expected, although it may provide some relief.

That sounds grumpy, but I do think that the people who staff the
retail stores /should/ be able to afford to live in the area and not
have to commute from somewhere else. Unlike a group of neighbors
(about five blocks away) who, a few years ago, objected to one of
their homes, which had fallen into the clutches of a developer, being
replaced by what amounted to a dorm for people just starting out
(small one-room bed/bath, group kitchen/living room), based on the
idea that they would not have vehicles and would spend most of their
time elsewhere with their friends. Very like the Army barracks I
encountered in the early 80s.

Has anyone else noticed the general pattern for housing young adults?
Barracks or dorm, it seems to be the same idea. But as they get older,
this no longer works so something else is needed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"