Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | itsmek's commentslogin

Also a dead giveaway: >That's what matters


It's probably Florida or some other gulf state with weather risk. Could be California with wildfire risk but then they wouldn't have tax increases. In both of these states insurance is going crazy without the property value cause you mention. If it's a condo then insurance can single handedly explain HOA rates (since they buy insurance too) as well as HO insurance rates.


Florida's median property tax is about $2,500, so it's unlikely to go up $1000/yr. Places with high property values within the state of Florida like Miami Beach are mostly seeing decreasing or flat home values in the last couple of years.

I don't want to speculate too much on this poster's property, and I'm not super familiar with gulf real estate. I just wanted to highlight that I have a very different experience even though the post made it sound like their experience was the overwhelming popular one.


If you want to be genuine about investigating this issue you would obviously compare countries of equal wealth and economic power, but we all know that's not your goal. Could actually be a very interesting comparison if your reasoning weren't so motivated.


Okay, do China. What's their policy on dual citizenship and accepting refugee seekers from Afghanistan?


To be clear, their point is:

>The facts show that just like the amount of labor is not fixed, neither is the size of the economy (fixed pie fallacy) and as more work is done, the economy grows

Your reply is a glib thought-terminating cliche strawman that doesn't address their point at all. Interesting!


Those theories are based mainly on the effect of Cuban immigration in Miami, however they lack a control so you can't really conclude anything.

Besides, yeah, if you hire people who will work for any salary, the amount of jobs will increase, but salaries will decrease, for locals as well. After some time, locals will flee sectors where the migrant workers are brought in, creating further self-inflicted "labor shortages"...requiring more migrants!

The main winners are capital owners, who, thanks to the migrant workers, can now acquire a larger part of the added value generated by workers.


The person you're replying to knows this. You're missing their point.


To exist is to be taxed. If you exist at all in the US, you will be taxed. You may even be taxed even if you are not in the US. So saying that taxation somehow implies voting ability would be quite absurd. This doesn't hold true anywhere in the world.


When someone says "No taxation without representation!" they don't mean "As a matter of fact, no one ever gets taxed by a government they don't have the power to vote for or against". (If that were true, there'd be no need to demand it.)

They mean "I would like our government to stop taxing people who don't get to vote for it" or "It is unjust for a government to tax people who don't get to vote for it" or something of that sort.

The fact that things aren't already the way you want them to be doesn't make it absurd to demand that they change to be that way.

(You might argument that governments don't give a damn what anyone demands and for that reason it is absurd to demand change. But I think that in fact governments do take notice of what people want, if they fear what the people might do if they don't get it. Whether that's voting them out of office or putting their heads on pikes or anything in between. And they will take more notice if more people are demanding whatever it is, and a large part of the point of saying things like "No taxation without representation!" is to get other people who aren't in the government to sympathize with your cause and maybe start demanding the same thing. So I think it's manifestly not absurd to make such demands, as such. Some particular demands -- "No taxation without $1M/year universal basic income!" -- would be absurd, but this one seems obviously not to be in that category.)


There is a typical ladder here though of non-immigrant/temp visitor, legal permanent resident, and citizen. The main practical distinction bw the last two is the ability to vote and hold office. What concretely is the demand here? That the last two should effectively merge into one? Or is it that everybody along this ladder should get to vote and that citizenship is a separate axis?


The demand is that there shouldn't be anywhere on that ladder where you are expected to pay taxes and aren't given the right to vote.

Is it a sensible demand? I dunno. Some people have thought so. Some other people have thought not. I'm not trying to settle that question; just trying to bring some clarity as to what the issue is.


I don't know man, I'm just telling you what I see in the conversation:

OP: Complaint about taxation without representation

A: Acktually it's called suffrage not representation

B: This phrase has been in use forever and people use it interchangeably when they mean the other. It's a slogan, chill

A: I've had great representation without suffrage!

C: You're missing their point

A: Taxation without representation isn't an issue

I feel like I'm chatting with an LLM with a broken input box.


The thesis of the person you're replying to seems to be that this is just another in the long line of mechanized crafts, and that it's hypocritical not to be equally anti-loom as anti LLM, for example. At least that's how I interpreted it.

While reading your rebuttal I was able to substitute LLM with loom and arrive at the same conclusions, mourning the loss of the artisan, copying their product for cheaper, etc. So you failed to draw the distinction that is necessary to rebut their point.

The only point you made that seemed on point to me was the first one, "it's not hypocrisy because people do protest looms", which I didn't find convincing.


It's not uncommon for free things to be higher quality than cheap things, especially when we're not talking about physical goods. Think hobbyist vs hack. Selective pro bono vs quantity over quality. The former describes old internet while the latter describes much ad-supported internet. I'm not saying cheap is better than expensive, and I'm not saying everything works this way, but I do think many things do, especially for pure information that doesn't have a major capital cost associated.


>The Math Your Finance Team Has Not Done >Pull out the napkin. This matters.

Nobody writes like this.


>The government should just regulate it, control purity and production and let people access small amounts for recreation/performance. It’s not an evil drug per se

>Opioids were/are manufactured by regulated, publicly traded companies with inspectors who controlled purity and production. The result? A shattering drug addiction crisis

>They were marketed and sold to consumers as safe, much more effective, and dramatically less addictive than it actually was. An industrial addiction machine ignored regulatory safeguards, built a 'pay for play' rewards structure to incentivize prescriptions, and a zillion other cartoonishly evil things

>I mean, states & countries that have completely state-run liquor stores still have alcoholism and serious alcohol problems though?

I tried to draw upon the main central point of each comment to this point. This discussion felt reasonably solid until this point where I feel like you failed to refute their main point. Your counter-example is still apples and oranges. State run liquor stores don't have the strong financial incentives to push alcohol and they don't downplay the addictive potential of their wares using fake science and they don't have authority figures give their patients official recommendations to take alcohol as a treatment with that fake science and financial motivation. Obviously people can and do still get addicted to all kinds of things without that scheme in place but I feel your initial example is pretty uniquely evil and not something we can learn generalizable lessons from, other than "don't do super evil stuff". Surely if your initial point is strong enough you can still make your case using other more generalizable examples.


Don't put too much stock in the ENSO models until the spring unpredictability barrier is over. That said there was a huge kelvin wave a couple weeks ago which tracks with the super el nino pattern. If you look at a map of pacific equatorial ocean temps this year vs past super el ninos at this stage of the progression they do feel like they track. So I'm not saying it's not going to happen, it's just that the models are very inaccurate at predicting the winter until we're into the summer. In the past such predictions like we see now have turned to duds.


Here is an interesting paper [0] talking about ENSO models of La Nina/El Nino cycles and their correlation with geomagnetic activity during solar cycles. I know that models are leaning towards a super El Nino and that at other times the models didn't pan out. The paper goes into the data and offers an explanation and a path forward for new research to nail it down. The sea surface temperature has been the driver for the determination of cycle timings and it probably is too broad a generalization of the process.

[0]https://www.spaceweather.com/images2026/13may26/feart-11-120...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: