« prev   random   next »
1   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2019 Jul 19, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It may get that way. In one southest Asia country, before one can but a car one must prove a place to park both at work and at home. Maybe we will see in crowded places like SF that before a company can hire a new employee, they must first prove the employee will have a place to live affordable by the salary paid.
2   rootvg   ignore (1)   2019 Jul 19, 11:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No, we'll have a nice solid bust that will separate the men from the boys. We're overdue...should have happened in 2012.

When they start messing with our currency and revaluing hard assets, what do you think the overall reaction will be?
Recessions aren't about someone losing his job. Recessions are about change and that's something we are damn well going to have. Get ready now.
3   OccasionalCortex   ignore (3)   2019 Jul 19, 12:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Wow! A shill for the developers says that this is a 'bad idea'. I am shocked!

HeadSet says
In one southest Asia country, before one can but a car one must prove a place to park both at work and at home.

Japan does that as well. It's not a part of Southeast Asia, so what other country were you referring to?

Personally, I am all for adding an employer-side payroll surtax based upon a ratio of employee : housing affordability. To be implemented immediately, but with a phase-in of rate. So, first year the surtax is implemented at say, .5% on payroll. Then over a span of four years, it rises up to 5% or so.

So Prop 13/Sacramento revenue starved cities that depend on business taxes, developer permits and local sales taxes for their income will be incentivized to biting the bullet and expanding their housing stock instead of trying to artificially cap it (at least) for NIMBYs while lying through their hypocrite faces that they are doing the opposite, like the SF Board of Supervisors routinely do.

OR watch companies move out to the communities where that ratio won't kick in. The Era of the Truly Remote Worker may even come to pass as a direct result of this. I wouldn't mind living in Wyoming while working for a start-up in SF.

Consequently, this would have to be a federal payroll surtax, as the high-pop, urban-oriented Bluetard States will never pass such a thing. Can't waste this opportunity to use such a policy to wage economic jihad against the Dem non-American base, after all. So, two other aspects of this policy should be implemented:

1) The revenue from the surtax will be mandated to bolstering social security/medicare FOR CITIZENS (not residents...not even Green Card residents). Despite the Libs attempts otherwise, SS DOES keep track of citizenship status. No raiding by Congress to fund the general budget, so it will have to be invested in Grade AA investment-grade paper instead of 'intergovernmental debentures'.

2) States will no longer be able to have income tax jurisdiction over the earnings of out-of-state remote workers. So, California will not be able to tax remote workers in Wyoming just because their firm is HQd in California, unlike how Congress' lack of action on this aspect of updating interstate commerce to the 21st century is handled now. This might be a tough sell at first glance in the Senate, I admit. But the net benefits of distributed workers -- and their taxes/consumption within the states that will enjoy said distribution of workers -- will probably override that.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions