Re: A Modest Proposal

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:52:49 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>On Sun, 13 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Every increase in property tax
>>means a few more people will be forced into homelessness.
>
>Wow. Just wow.

Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his
policies would have any negative consequences.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:05:51, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 May 2012"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>>On Sun, 13 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Every increase in property tax
>>>means a few more people will be forced into homelessness.
>>
>>Wow. Just wow.
>
>Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his
>policies would have any negative consequences.

!) Are you for real?

2) How is that *my* policy?

3) Exactly what policies of mine do you consider totalitarian?

4) If everyone's property tax was raised a dollar (remember here, Keith
was being *absolute* when he wrote "*Every* increase in property tax"),
how many more homeless would there be?

5) Don't you go bug DD-B who implicitly wants to raise the FICA rate?
--
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
- Lenin

[Philip Chee]

I think this would apply to almost anybody. If he can see some negative
consequences then they won't be his policies obviously.

Phil

--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:13:38, Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:05:51, David Harmon wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>On Sun, 13 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Every increase in property tax
>>>>means a few more people will be forced into homelessness.
>>>
>>>Wow. Just wow.
>>
>> Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his
>> policies would have any negative consequences.
>
>I think this would apply to almost anybody. If he can see some negative
>consequences then they won't be his policies obviously.

Most policies have consequences that are both good and bad.

However, in this particular instance, it isn't *my* policy and my remark
was addressed to the sheer lunacy of Keith believing that *every*
increase in property tax, no matter how much, leads to someone (or more)
becoming homeless.
--
"You seem to think that I disagree with you because you are the leftmost
point of the political spectrum. Not so. I disagree with you because
you are a gibbering idiot."
- Daniel Seriff

[David Friedman]

In article <5kpamn....@news.alt.net>,

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:05:51 -0700, David Harmon wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:52:49 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
> > Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
> >>On Sun, 13 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Every increase in property tax
> >>>means a few more people will be forced into homelessness.
> >>
> >>Wow. Just wow.
> >
> > Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his
> > policies would have any negative consequences.
>
> I think this would apply to almost anybody. If he can see some negative
> consequences then they won't be his policies obviously.

Not only not obvious but not true. I expect most reasonable people
realize that even the best option often has some negative consequences.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[David Harmon]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:38:52 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>3) Exactly what policies of mine do you consider totalitarian?

"Everything is politics" et seq. "Every" = "total"

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:56:25, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>>3) Exactly what policies of mine do you consider totalitarian?
>
>"Everything is politics" et seq. "Every" = "total"

How is acknowledging that fact totalitarian?

If you and I disagree about something, how we resolve that disagreement
is a political exercise. That does *not*, however, mean that one of us
imposes his will on the other (which is what totalitarianism would do).

My statement is more about *Democracy* than anything else.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>> 3) Exactly what policies of mine do you consider totalitarian?

> "Everything is politics" et seq. "Every" = "total"

Indeed. One of my biggest complaints about both major parties is
that they *never* say that something shouldn't be in the realm of
government at all. There's no safe harbor anywhere.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>>> 3) Exactly what policies of mine do you consider totalitarian?
>
>> "Everything is politics" et seq. "Every" = "total"
>
>Indeed. One of my biggest complaints about both major parties is
>that they *never* say that something shouldn't be in the realm of
>government at all. There's no safe harbor anywhere.

Politics does not equal government.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
- William G. McAdoo

[Keith F. Lynch]

Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:

> David Harmon wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be
>>>> forced into homelessness.

>>> Wow. Just wow.

>> Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his policies
>> would have any negative consequences.

> I think this would apply to almost anybody. If he can see some
> negative consequences then they won't be his policies obviously.

No. The question is whether the positive consequences outweigh the
negative consequences. Is a football stadium so vital that it's worth
forcing a few families into homelessness? I would say no. It's
impossible to determine what Loewe would say, since his response was
unexplained incoherent astonishment.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 01:44:44 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"

<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> David Harmon wrote:
>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>>>>> Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be
>>>>> forced into homelessness.
>
>>>> Wow. Just wow.
>
>>> Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe can't see that his policies
>>> would have any negative consequences.
>
>> I think this would apply to almost anybody. If he can see some
>> negative consequences then they won't be his policies obviously.
>
>No. The question is whether the positive consequences outweigh the
>negative consequences. Is a football stadium so vital that it's worth
>forcing a few families into homelessness? I would say no. It's
>impossible to determine what Loewe would say, since his response was
>unexplained incoherent astonishment.

I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
ludicrous.
--
"The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that
think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:

> I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
> homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
> on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
> ludicrous.

Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.

If you raised property taxes a dollar a month, and kept doing it
forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Friedman]

In article <ylfkobpo...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>
> > I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
> > homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
> > on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
> > ludicrous.
>
> Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.
>
> If you raised property taxes a dollar a month, and kept doing it
> forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
> little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.

I think this is partly a difference between people whose intuition
prefers continuous functions and those who prefer to deal with integers.
Keith's statement seemed intuitively right to me--but it's true that a
small enough change might, if you had the relevant equations and solved
them, imply that .2 people became homeless, and David L. could
reasonably say that that probably means nobody does.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:32:31, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>
>> I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
>> homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
>> ludicrous.
>
>Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.

If you're a dollar away from homelessness now, then any little bit of
inflation would have done you in long before this.

Moreover, most people would simply find an apartment (or smaller place)
and sell the property (just like *most* people who are in default have
done) or cutback a little in some other aspect of their spending.

>If you raised property taxes a dollar a month,

I postulated a dollar a *year* for the lowest taxpayer and not
increasing.

>and kept doing it
>forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
>little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.

Note that I said that a large *enough* increase would do it. But to
claim *any* increase would is ludicrous.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>
>> > I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
>> > homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
>> > on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
>> > ludicrous.
>>
>> Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.
>>
>> If you raised property taxes a dollar a month, and kept doing it
>> forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
>> little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.
>
>I think this is partly a difference between people whose intuition
>prefers continuous functions and those who prefer to deal with integers.
>Keith's statement seemed intuitively right to me--but it's true that a
>small enough change might, if you had the relevant equations and solved
>them, imply that .2 people became homeless, and David L. could
>reasonably say that that probably means nobody does.

It is much more than that.

As I pointed out, an increase of one dollar a year making you homeless
means that *any* increase in cost of living would make you homeless. If
gasoline goes up a penny and you average 20 miles a day, you're
homeless. The electric company raises their rates a penny, you're
homeless. Your cable goes up, you're homeless.

Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
them from losing their housing. Switching to Ramen Noodles from more
expensive fare once a year would stave off homelessness for that one
dolllar a year increase. For larger increases - rinse, lather and
repeat. Hell, I've saved quite a bit of money on groceries by using
freezer bags that can be put at a vacuum which allow me to stock up on
meat when it is on sale.

It also ignores that there is almost always cheaper housing out there -
a smaller place or an apartment - and that there is aid available for
people who are poor enough that a simple *small* increase in property
taxes would drive them from their homes.
--
"It is a consolation to the wretched to have companions in misery."
- Publius Syrus

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes:

> In article <ylfkobpo...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>
>> > I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
>> > homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
>> > on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
>> > ludicrous.
>>
>> Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.
>>
>> If you raised property taxes a dollar a month, and kept doing it
>> forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
>> little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.
>
> I think this is partly a difference between people whose intuition
> prefers continuous functions and those who prefer to deal with integers.
> Keith's statement seemed intuitively right to me--but it's true that a
> small enough change might, if you had the relevant equations and solved
> them, imply that .2 people became homeless, and David L. could
> reasonably say that that probably means nobody does.

Smaller cause, smaller effect, on average, sure. Also depends on the
size of the county or city you're raising the rates in, since becoming
homeless due to a small change is a low-probability event. I certainly
agree that charging everybody an extra penny a year is nearly certain
NOT to make anybody homeless. Still, it's equally clear that charging
an extra million dollars a day WILL make people homeless. The question
isn't whether it's possible, the question is where the line comes that
"somebody" is likely to become homeless. Seems like I think it's lower
than DVL thinks it is. I don't think DVL really believes it can't ever
happen, just that it's very unlikely for small changes.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:32:31, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>
>>> I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
>>> homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a dollar
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very idea is
>>> ludicrous.
>>
>>Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.
>
> If you're a dollar away from homelessness now, then any little bit of
> inflation would have done you in long before this.

Depends why you're a dollar away now. And inflation doesn't have to
always exist.

I think you're seeing this as probabilities and rounding down for the
small values. But in a large enough group, remarkably small changes will
break *somebodies* back.

> Moreover, most people would simply find an apartment (or smaller place)
> and sell the property (just like *most* people who are in default have
> done) or cutback a little in some other aspect of their spending.

If going from owning to renting, they need like three month's rent to be
able to do it. Unless they have equity in their current property they
probably can't do that.

>>If you raised property taxes a dollar a month,
>
> I postulated a dollar a *year* for the lowest taxpayer and not
> increasing.
>
>>and kept doing it
>>forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
>>little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.
>
> Note that I said that a large *enough* increase would do it. But to
> claim *any* increase would is ludicrous.

Consider a metro area with 10 million people.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:36:18, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

Which means that Keith's contention, at least as he worded it, is wrong.
Flat out wrong.

>Seems like I think it's lower
>than DVL thinks it is. I don't think DVL really believes it can't ever
>happen, just that it's very unlikely for small changes.

Which part of "A large enough one? Possibly." did not make that clear?
--
"It's raining soup and we haven't built any soup bowls."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:38:58, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:32:31, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I disagree that *any* increase in property taxes would make people
>>>> homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any* increase (even a

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> dollar on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely *not*. The very

>>>> idea is ludicrous.
>>>
>>>Your argument is ludicrous. Straw that breaks the camel's back, etc.
>>
>> If you're a dollar away from homelessness now, then any little bit of
>> inflation would have done you in long before this.
>
>Depends why you're a dollar away now. And inflation doesn't have to
>always exist.

Neither do property tax hikes. In fact, inflation is probably more
likely than a property tax hike.

>I think you're seeing this as probabilities and rounding down for the
>small values. But in a large enough group, remarkably small changes will
>break *somebodies* back.
>
>> Moreover, most people would simply find an apartment (or smaller place)
>> and sell the property (just like *most* people who are in default have
>> done) or cutback a little in some other aspect of their spending.
>
>If going from owning to renting, they need like three month's rent to be
>able to do it. Unless they have equity in their current property they
>probably can't do that.

When I moved, I didn't have to do that. Moreover, there was aid to
cover certain aspects of the move.

>>>If you raised property taxes a dollar a month,
>>
>> I postulated a dollar a *year* for the lowest taxpayer and not
>> increasing.
>>
>>>and kept doing it
>>>forever, you'd make people homeless now and then -- even though "one
>>>little dollar" couldn't possibly make a difference.
>>
>> Note that I said that a large *enough* increase would do it. But to
>> claim *any* increase would is ludicrous.
>
>Consider a metro area with 10 million people.

A "metro area" doesn't have an all encompassing property tax and there
are only two in the US that are that large anyway.
--
"Even when uttered by Democrats, middle class often sounds like a
mealymouthed way of saying, Us, and not them, where them includes poor
people, snake handlers and those with pierced tongues."
- Barbara Ehrenreich

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> If you're a dollar away from homelessness now, then any little bit
>> of inflation would have done you in long before this.

We were talking about a sixty-million-dollar stadium, to be funded by
property taxes. So where does "one dollar" come from? I doubt the
school district has sixty million households. That's about half the
households in the whole of the US!

> Depends why you're a dollar away now. And inflation doesn't have to
> always exist.

Also, the stadium isn't the only thing that any level of any
government will ever tax you for. Far from it. Every little bit
hurts. Even if taxation can be justified for something like smashing
Hitler's Germany, that doesn't mean that people should be starved or
made homeless for every whim of every politician.

> If going from owning to renting, they need like three month's rent
> to be able to do it. Unless they have equity in their current
> property they probably can't do that.

Also, what if they're *already* a renter? The landlord passes on
property taxes in the form of higher rents.

[David Friedman]

In article <n687r7hgctg4v4708...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
> living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
> them from losing their housing.

No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
but only that it would make a few homeless.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> As I pointed out, an increase of one dollar a year making you homeless
>> means that *any* increase in cost of living would make you homeless. If
>> gasoline goes up a penny and you average 20 miles a day, you're
>> homeless. The electric company raises their rates a penny, you're
>> homeless. Your cable goes up, you're homeless.
>

>> Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
>> living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
>> them from losing their housing.
>
>No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
>but only that it would make a few homeless.

I never said he did. And my counter is that he says that *EVERY*
increase would make at least *someone* homeless.

This is just Keith spreading his customary gloom and doom. Remember -
this is the same guy who thought (and probably still does think as he
has never admitted he was wrong about the notion) that America does not
*feed itself*. Yet America is the largest agricultural exporter on
Earth. This is the same guy who claims nothing is manufactured in
America anymore - when America was still (last I saw) the world's Number
One manufacturer by dollar value.

AGAIN, a large enough increase in property taxes making some people
homeless? Yes. Absolutely (although I think far fewer than Keith would
claim [1]). ANY increase? Absolutely not.

[1] Most of them will start renting and most of the rest will get or
become roommates with someone. There is also a great deal of financial
aid of various stripes out there. I know, having used various versions
many times since my diagnosis.

>> Switching to Ramen Noodles from more
>> expensive fare once a year would stave off homelessness for that one

>> dollar a year increase. For larger increases - rinse, lather and

>> repeat. Hell, I've saved quite a bit of money on groceries by using
>> freezer bags that can be put at a vacuum which allow me to stock up on
>> meat when it is on sale.

>> It also ignores that there is almost always cheaper housing out there -
>> a smaller place or an apartment - and that there is aid available for
>> people who are poor enough that a simple *small* increase in property
>> taxes would drive them from their homes.

There is a lot there that you flat out ignored that I think addresses
why I think Keith is full of it on this topic.
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:

>>> If you're a dollar away from homelessness now, then any little bit
>>> of inflation would have done you in long before this.
>
>We were talking about a sixty-million-dollar stadium, to be funded by
>property taxes.

Well, *I'm* talking about this - "Every increase in property tax
means a few more people will be forced into homelessness." - line. I
carved it out of the discussion about the stadium in the Allen School
District.

ObSnark: Of course, theoretically, I did no such thing since Keith
believes I never cut any text.
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne

[David Friedman]

In article <f3q8r7hh20u2r3nrt...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> >No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
> >but only that it would make a few homeless.
>
> I never said he did. And my counter is that he says that *EVERY*
> increase would make at least *someone* homeless.

And I think I already explained why he put it that way--because he is
intuiting the problem in terms of continuous functions rather than ones
with only integer values.

[David Harmon]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:14:27 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>

>Politics does not equal government.

According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
only equals government, it's a euphemism for the kind of government
where David Loewe voices the will of the people and everybody else
complies or else. Otherwise, most things are not politics.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:31:03, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>>
>>Politics does not equal government.
>
>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
>only equals government, it's a euphemism for the kind of government
>where David Loewe voices the will of the people and everybody else
>complies or else. Otherwise, most things are not politics.

Deciding amongst a group of people what restaurant to go to or movie to
attend is not government - no matter how desperately *you* try to spin
things. It is, however, political.

Amusingly, this whole notion of yours about me and how I act is, in real
life, quite wrong. I'm pretty much of a go along, get along kind of guy
- in real life. But you have your little vendetta over a definition
(which happens to derive from a famous quote) and you seem to want to
milk it for all that it is worth. Have fun.
--
"Everything is politics."
- Thomas Mann

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
>> >but only that it would make a few homeless.
>>
>> I never said he did. And my counter is that he says that *EVERY*
>> increase would make at least *someone* homeless.
>
>And I think I already explained why he put it that way--because he is
>intuiting the problem in terms of continuous functions rather than ones
>with only integer values.

Which doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes it wrong.
--
"My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four.
Unless there are three other people."
- Orson Welles

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 07:46:32 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:31:03, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>
>>>Politics does not equal government.
>>
>>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
>>only equals government, it's a euphemism for the kind of government
>>where David Loewe voices the will of the people and everybody else
>>complies or else. Otherwise, most things are not politics.
>
>Deciding amongst a group of people what restaurant to go to or movie to
>attend is not government -

Neither is it politics. Unless you are a tourist in Moscow and the KGB
agent assigned to be your guide tells you what restaurant to go to, as
happened to Heinlein. Or unless some bully in the group imposes his
will on the others. Which is what you are saying always happens or even
should happen.

> It is, however, political.

No it isn't, not among normal people. It has a lot more to do with what
kind of food the people want to eat at that moment.

>Amusingly, this whole notion of yours about me and how I act is, in real
>life, quite wrong. I'm pretty much of a go along, get along kind of guy
>- in real life.

Because in real life you have little chance of gaining that kind of
dominance or of making everything into politics. Thankfully.

> But you have your little vendetta over a definition
>(which happens to derive from a famous quote)

You have not presented it as a famous quote, or any kind of a quote, but
rather as your own words in the context of Eliezer Yudkowsky's essay
that I quoted and referenced. Wherein the distinction between what is
politics and what is not is plenty clear.

But not to you. Politics is primarily about _who_ gets to make the
decisions, and you are not satisfied with ordinary people making
decisions for themselves, without politics. Like which restaurant to go
to. You keep insisting that all decisions be subject to politics, to
the domination of the powerful.

It's a bit late to try to redefine yourself out of that, or to distance
yourself from your words by attributing them as a quote. Everything is
NOT politics, nor should it be, and you don't get to make it so by
redefining "politics" as everything.

[David Friedman]

In article <nqs9r71v29l3l5c4n...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
> >> >but only that it would make a few homeless.
> >>
> >> I never said he did. And my counter is that he says that *EVERY*
> >> increase would make at least *someone* homeless.
> >
> >And I think I already explained why he put it that way--because he is
> >intuiting the problem in terms of continuous functions rather than ones
> >with only integer values.
>
> Which doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes it wrong.

Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.

In another part of the thread, you wrote:

"Exercise helps the brain."

Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 08:01:09, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:31:03, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>>
>>>>Politics does not equal government.
>>>
>>>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions
>>>not only equals government, it's a euphemism for the kind of government
>>>where David Loewe voices the will of the people and everybody else
>>>complies or else. Otherwise, most things are not politics.
>>
>>Deciding amongst a group of people what restaurant to go to or movie to
>>attend is not government -
>
>Neither is it politics.

I'm glad to see that you now agree that it isn't government.

>Unless you are a tourist in Moscow and the KGB
>agent assigned to be your guide tells you what restaurant to go to, as
>happened to Heinlein. Or unless some bully in the group imposes his
>will on the others. Which is what you are saying always happens or
>even should happen.

You never have discussions? You always either impose your will on the
group or have someone impose their will on you? What a sad life you
must live. I'd appreciate it if you don't drag me into it.

>> It is, however, political.
>
>No it isn't, not among normal people. It has a lot more to do with what
>kind of food the people want to eat at that moment.

And, if you want (limiting it to two people), say, Mexican, and the
other wants Chinese how do you resolve that?

Hint - you'll do it by political means.

>>Amusingly, this whole notion of yours about me and how I act is, in real
>>life, quite wrong. I'm pretty much of a go along, get along kind of guy
>>- in real life.
>
>Because in real life you have little chance of gaining that kind of
>dominance or of making everything into politics. Thankfully.

Everything is politics and nothing you can say or do will make it
otherwise.

>>But you have your little vendetta over a definition
>>(which happens to derive from a famous quote)
>
>You have not presented it as a famous quote, or any kind of a quote,

Excuse me for believing that you had some minimal amount of learning.

>but rather as your own words in the context of Eliezer Yudkowsky's
>essay that I quoted and referenced. Wherein the distinction between
>what is politics and what is not is plenty clear.

The problem here is that you have bought into the notion that politics
is inherently evil and so you *must* define it in ways that ensure that
it is evil.

>But not to you. Politics is primarily about _who_ gets to make the
>decisions,

No.

Politics is the process of making those very decisions.

>and you are not satisfied with ordinary people making
>decisions for themselves, without politics.

Politics is not evil.

>Like which restaurant to go to. You keep insisting that all decisions
>be subject to politics, to the domination of the powerful.

Your new theme song - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ObLGRq33o>. Pay
attention to what Ray Davies sings in the chorus.

>It's a bit late to try to redefine yourself out of that, or to distance
>yourself from your words by attributing them as a quote. Everything is
>NOT politics, nor should it be, and you don't get to make it so by
>redefining "politics" as everything.

There are things you can take to alleviate these delusions you are
having.

Just saying.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>

wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >No. His claim isn't that a small change would make most people homeless
>> >> >but only that it would make a few homeless.
>> >>
>> >> I never said he did. And my counter is that he says that *EVERY*
>> >> increase would make at least *someone* homeless.
>> >
>> >And I think I already explained why he put it that way--because he is
>> >intuiting the problem in terms of continuous functions rather than ones
>> >with only integer values.
>>
>> Which doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes it wrong.
>
>Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.
>
>In another part of the thread, you wrote:
>
>"Exercise helps the brain."
>
>Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?

That is what the studies show in general.

Of course, Keith gave a specific and not a generality. Moreover, his
posting history is, as I have pointed out, rife with exactly this kind
of fallacious conclusion. Keith thinks this is a crap sack world. Maybe
it is, but he constantly exaggerates how far into being a crap sack
world it is.
--
"Doctor, Doctor, help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man."
Raymond Douglas Davies

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 17, 11:43 am, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Just saying.

David:

You're coming off as a bit of ass.

pt

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

David Harmon wrote - "Would-be totalitarian dictator Loewe"

- "...unless some bully in the group imposes his will on the others.

Which is what you are saying always happens or even should happen."

- "You keep insisting that all decisions be subject to politics, to

the domination of the powerful."

*I'm* coming off as an ass? REALLY?!? On what fucking planet is that?

I mean, he's stopped just short of calling me Hitler or Stalin for
believing that, contrary to his notions, that politics is not, in and of
itself, evil. He really NEEDS to (of his own volition) take something
for that.
--
"Whenever you show anger or disgust toward [Iraqi] civilians, it's a
victory for Al Qaeda and other insurgents."
- General James N. Mattis

[David Friedman]

In article <u47ar7du81lmng1un...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> >Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.
> >
> >In another part of the thread, you wrote:
> >
> >"Exercise helps the brain."
> >
> >Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?
>
> That is what the studies show in general.

"In general?"

Suppose you are in an environment very short of oxygen--suffocating for
some reason. More exercise consumes oxygen faster, which is bad for the
brain.

At least the studies I saw were of particular people under particular
circumstances, and so could not produce a general conclusion that strong.

...

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.
>> >
>> >In another part of the thread, you wrote:
>> >
>> >"Exercise helps the brain."
>> >
>> >Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?
>>
>> That is what the studies show in general.
>
>"In general?"
>
>Suppose you are in an environment very short of oxygen--suffocating for
>some reason. More exercise consumes oxygen faster, which is bad for the
>brain.

Just because you can construct ludicrous exceptions doesn't mean that
gym class in school is evil.

>At least the studies I saw were of particular people under particular
>circumstances, and so could not produce a general conclusion that strong.

Of course, the first US Olympic Training Center was built at Colorado
Springs in order to provide training at altitude (aka decreased ambient
oxygen levels) to build greater stamina and there is also a High
Altitude Sports Training facility in Butte.
--
"Essentially all customers value things that you don't. So your metrics
don't matter to ISPs."
Ben Yalow to Keith lynch in rasff

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> writes:

> On Thu, 17 May 2012 07:46:32 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
> Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:31:03, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>>
>>>>Politics does not equal government.
>>>
>>>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
>>>only equals government, it's a euphemism for the kind of government
>>>where David Loewe voices the will of the people and everybody else
>>>complies or else. Otherwise, most things are not politics.
>>
>>Deciding amongst a group of people what restaurant to go to or movie to
>>attend is not government -
>
> Neither is it politics. Unless you are a tourist in Moscow and the KGB
> agent assigned to be your guide tells you what restaurant to go to, as
> happened to Heinlein. Or unless some bully in the group imposes his
> will on the others. Which is what you are saying always happens or even
> should happen.

I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings make
decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.

>> It is, however, political.
>
> No it isn't, not among normal people. It has a lot more to do with what
> kind of food the people want to eat at that moment.

And who is more flexible about what they can eat, and who is more
willing to cooperate with others, and who has pissed off whom how often
lately...say, this is starting to sound political!

[David Friedman]

In article <2qpar712lfdiurrs0...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.
> >> >
> >> >In another part of the thread, you wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Exercise helps the brain."
> >> >
> >> >Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?
> >>
> >> That is what the studies show in general.
> >
> >"In general?"
> >
> >Suppose you are in an environment very short of oxygen--suffocating for
> >some reason. More exercise consumes oxygen faster, which is bad for the
> >brain.
>
> Just because you can construct ludicrous exceptions doesn't mean that
> gym class in school is evil.

My point was not that gym class in school is evil--it is, but that
wasn't my point. My point was that you, like Keith, use language
elliptically, expecting your readers to take the intended, not the
literal, meaning.

[Keith F. Lynch]

David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Suppose you are in an environment very short of oxygen--suffocating
> for some reason. More exercise consumes oxygen faster, which is bad
> for the brain.

That's exactly what happened to my mother. Eventually even lying
in bed doing nothing except breathing was too much exercise for her
failing lungs, even with supplemental oxygen.

> At least the studies I saw were of particular people under
> particular circumstances, and so could not produce a general
> conclusion that strong.

There's obviously an optimal amount of exercise for each person.
In most cases, it's possible to do too little, and in every case
it's possible to do too much.

But even if gym classes always provided the optimal amount of
exercise, *forcing* someone to do something every day is not a
good way to get them to keep doing it. Quite the opposite.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Conversation, in practice, involves a lot of ellipsis.
>> >> >
>> >> >In another part of the thread, you wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Exercise helps the brain."
>> >> >
>> >> >Any exercise? For any person? Under any circumstances?
>> >>
>> >> That is what the studies show in general.
>> >
>> >"In general?"
>> >
>> >Suppose you are in an environment very short of oxygen--suffocating for
>> >some reason. More exercise consumes oxygen faster, which is bad for the
>> >brain.
>>
>> Just because you can construct ludicrous exceptions doesn't mean that
>> gym class in school is evil.
>
>My point was not that gym class in school is evil--it is, but that
>wasn't my point. My point was that you, like Keith, use language
>elliptically, expecting your readers to take the intended, not the
>literal, meaning.

Keith was very explicit.

"Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be forced
into homelessness."

There is no 0.2 persons there. He says "a few more people" - which is
more than one in my book. And there are no one dollar a year increases
exempted from making people homeless.

----------

Let me ask you (and the group) this - What dollar amount increase would
you be willing to stipulate is necessary to *prove* that someone in St.
Louis County, Missouri [1] will be made homeless [2] by and not some
amount that could be lost in the noise of food and energy inflation [3]?

[1] We've got a library tax increase coming up on the ballot this
November, so I can plug in numbers and get real amounts for an actual
proposed increase in property tax.

[2] I'll accept any figure that will not allow them to downsize. I
maintain that many of *those* would find a place with family or friends
OR get a roommate, but I can't prove that, so I will ignore it for
calculation purposes (but will bring it up as a mitigating factor on the
numbers - if necessary).

[3] Which goes back to my contention that if someone were that close to
the edge, then something else (inflation, a dead appliance, a medical
emergency, a dead car - *something*) would get them before a property
tax increase did.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what
they conceal is vital."
- Aaron Levenstein

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 00:05:50 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>But even if gym classes always provided the optimal amount of
>exercise, *forcing* someone to do something every day is not a
>good way to get them to keep doing it. Quite the opposite.

People with learning disabilities often find efforts to teach them to
read to be difficult, humiliating and annoying.

Just saying.
--
"A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around
for a coffin."
- H. L. Mencken

[David Friedman]

In article <o22br7hqe46iu8nuv...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> [3] Which goes back to my contention that if someone were that close to
> the edge, then something else (inflation, a dead appliance, a medical
> emergency, a dead car - *something*) would get them before a property
> tax increase did.

I just wanted to pick up on this, because it is the one point you are
making that I think is logically wrong, as distinct from those that
depend on taking Keith's statement more literally than I think it ought
to be taken.

Person A is just on the edge, so inflation pushes him into homelessness.

Person B is a little above the edge, so inflation pushes him to the
edge, and the tax increase pushes him over.

At any instant, there is a distribution of people with regard to how
close to the edge they are. The fact that that distribution changes as
various bad (or good) things happen doesn't imply that there will be
nobody close to the edge. Think of it as a density curve, shifting left
or right for one reason or another. That shift doesn't imply that
density is zero at the edge, which is what your argument requires.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> [3] Which goes back to my contention that if someone were that close to
>> the edge, then something else (inflation, a dead appliance, a medical
>> emergency, a dead car - *something*) would get them before a property
>> tax increase did.
>
>I just wanted to pick up on this, because it is the one point you are
>making that I think is logically wrong, as distinct from those that
>depend on taking Keith's statement more literally than I think it ought
>to be taken.
>
>Person A is just on the edge, so inflation pushes him into homelessness.
>
>Person B is a little above the edge, so inflation pushes him to the
>edge, and the tax increase pushes him over.
>
>At any instant, there is a distribution of people with regard to how
>close to the edge they are. The fact that that distribution changes as
>various bad (or good) things happen doesn't imply that there will be
>nobody close to the edge. Think of it as a density curve, shifting left
>or right for one reason or another. That shift doesn't imply that
>density is zero at the edge, which is what your argument requires.

My argument is based on the other things occurring more frequently than
a property tax hike. You're going to drop more candidates into the
abyss with those than the tax hike.

----------

Will you be addressing the rest of my post? Like I said, I can run
*real* numbers for a *real* property tax hike proposal on the ballot
here coming up in November. if we can hash out a figure that we all can
agree will cause homelessness.

For example, I can find the assessed evaluation of the old building I
used to live in prior to April 2010. The tax hike for the library is
0.0108%. That gives me a figure of $27 of Property tax increase for the
building for a year. Divided by 6 apartments, divided by a monthly rent
payment gives $0.375 a month rent increase to cover the library directed
property tax hike. We can even assume an 83% occupancy (one of the six
apartments always unrented at any given point in the year) and get $0.45
a month per renter. I bet the owners just eat the cost.

Note that the building has a higher assessed valuation than the average
home in St. Louis County (which would see an increase of $1.43 a month).
Consider that the average person on the edge of homelessness lives in a
house with a value lower than the average or lives in an apartment
building of less valuation per unit than my old building is valued per
unit.
--
"You roll out of bed, Mr. Coffee's dead - The morning's looking bright
And your priest ran off to Europe - And didn't even write
And your husband wants to be a girl ....."
Gary Portney

[David Friedman]

In article <nffbr75mvfu02kukb...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> [3] Which goes back to my contention that if someone were that close to
> >> the edge, then something else (inflation, a dead appliance, a medical
> >> emergency, a dead car - *something*) would get them before a property
> >> tax increase did.
> >
> >I just wanted to pick up on this, because it is the one point you are
> >making that I think is logically wrong, as distinct from those that
> >depend on taking Keith's statement more literally than I think it ought
> >to be taken.
> >
> >Person A is just on the edge, so inflation pushes him into homelessness.
> >
> >Person B is a little above the edge, so inflation pushes him to the
> >edge, and the tax increase pushes him over.
> >
> >At any instant, there is a distribution of people with regard to how
> >close to the edge they are. The fact that that distribution changes as
> >various bad (or good) things happen doesn't imply that there will be
> >nobody close to the edge. Think of it as a density curve, shifting left
> >or right for one reason or another. That shift doesn't imply that
> >density is zero at the edge, which is what your argument requires.
>
> My argument is based on the other things occurring more frequently than
> a property tax hike. You're going to drop more candidates into the
> abyss with those than the tax hike.

Could be, but that isn't relevant to the question of whether the tax
hike does or does not push anyone over.

>
> ----------
>
> Will you be addressing the rest of my post? Like I said, I can run
> *real* numbers for a *real* property tax hike proposal on the ballot
> here coming up in November. if we can hash out a figure that we all can
> agree will cause homelessness.

No, because we can't hash out such a figure. If we suppose that being
homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people
have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone
at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you
are asking for makes no sense.

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:39:17 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, David
Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings make
>decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.

That is not a valid definition; it will not tell you what most people
are and are not referring to when they say "politics." If you poll a
hundred people asking "What does 'politics' mean?" not one would give
you that answer.

[Jay E. Morris]

Do I have to provide only my top answer or can I give all the things I
think it means?

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

I am disappointed that no one seems willing to use hard numbers to try
and prove or disprove this notion of Keith's that *multiple* people [1]
will be rendered homeless by *any* property tax increase.

>If we suppose that being
>homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people
>have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone
>at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you
>are asking for makes no sense.

As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
going to push someone into homelessness. I see too many places where a
cut can be made in my own lifestyle that would save far more than that
to give it any countenance. For example, I buy a lot of frozen
microwavable (aka TV) dinners. I seem to pay an average of about $2.75
a pop for those. Looking online, I can get Ramen Noodles for about 40¢
a pop. Substituting Ramen Noodles for one of those frozen dinners
*once* a year saves more than this penny. Doing it once a week saves
over $122.

I also know that there is aid and lots of it available for people at my
income level and it only gets larger as you go down the ladder.

Poor and having trouble with heating bills? There's a program for that
- <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/>.

Poor and having trouble buying food? There's a program (well, there are
LOTS of programs, but I'll just link to the best known one) for that -
<http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/>.

Poor and having trouble paying your rent? There are programs for that -
<http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8>.

Moreover and most importantly, I have shown that a real world proposed
property tax increase is unlikely to increase rents for the kind of
low-income renters who are at risk of being made homeless by small
increases in their expenses. A $27 increase spread over 6 rentable
apartments and 12 months just is not going to be passed on.

[1] So don't give some song and dance about how Keith meant 0.2 people.
"A few" isn't fractional persons. It is *more* than one person. Keith
is well enough versed in the weasel wording usages of "most" and "many"
to have applied a caveat if he'd meant to.

[2] For all of Keith's caterwauling about being poor, his monthly rent
is probably greater than my monthly income. Dorothy & Hal or myself are
almost certainly the "poorest" regular posters on this group.
--
"Choose your friends wisely."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle

[David Dyer-Bennet]

But, if you combined all those answers, would you end up somewhere
significantly different from mine?

[David Friedman]

In article <hcncr7p3kkd5ko3ai...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> >If we suppose that being
> >homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people
> >have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone
> >at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you
> >are asking for makes no sense.
>
> As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
> going to push someone into homelessness.

Do you buy that any increase can?

If you do, then whatever the level is at which the change happens, if
someone is one penny below that level ... .

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:46:09 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>wrote:
>

>>My point was not that gym class in school is evil--it is, but that
>>wasn't my point. My point was that you, like Keith, use language
>>elliptically, expecting your readers to take the intended, not the
>>literal, meaning.
>
>Keith was very explicit.
>
>"Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be forced
>into homelessness."

You were just as explicit:

"My understanding is that *any* exercise helps the brain."

emphasis yours.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >If we suppose that being
>> >homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people
>> >have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone
>> >at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you
>> >are asking for makes no sense.
>>
>> As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
>> going to push someone into homelessness.
>
>Do you buy that any increase can?

I've already answered this - I disagree that *any* increase in property
taxes would make people homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any*
increase (even a dollar on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely
*not*. The very idea is ludicrous."

>If you do, then whatever the level is at which the change happens, if
>someone is one penny below that level ... .

Which requires them to be eating nothing but Ramen Noodles, but I
digress...

And I'll say it again - the people who are closest to being homeless
from an increase in cost of living would be shielded from a sufficiently
small property tax increase - a real world example of which I have
provided. Tell me what happens when the property tax goes up and the
people who dwell in the building affected do not have their rents go up.
How are they made homeless?
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:51:29, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

You're in danger of becoming a parody of a stalker.

When you find a peer-reviewed study that claims that exercise is not
good for the brain, get back to me.

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:54:51 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Jay E.
Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote,

You provide only the answer that fits the context of Eliezer Yudkowsky's
essay. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

[David Harmon]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 10:43:08 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>There are things you can take to alleviate these delusions you are
>having.

Classic dictator's response to those who disagree with them -- call them
delusional and drug them with psych drugs.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:17:56, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>>There are things you can take to alleviate these delusions you are
>>having.
>
>Classic dictator's response to those who disagree with them -- call them
>delusional and drug them with psych drugs.

And, yet, you've not been forced to take any drugs. How undictatorial
of me. I shall have to go upbraid my mini-onions before I cook them
into Mongolian Beef on the morrow (having found I needed *minions* to do
the world take over thing).
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:59:27, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:54:51, "Jay E.Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote,

>>On 5/18/2012 9:32 AM, David Harmon wrote:

>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>>>> I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings make
>>>> decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.
>>>
>>> That is not a valid definition; it will not tell you what most people
>>> are and are not referring to when they say "politics." If you poll a
>>> hundred people asking "What does 'politics' mean?" not one would give
>>> you that answer.

>>Do I have to provide only my top answer or can I give all the things I
>>think it means?
>
>You provide only the answer that fits the context of Eliezer Yudkowsky's
>essay. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

You want to constrict thought to approved definitions only?!?

That is the sign of a world dictator wannabe-be.

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:12:29 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:51:29, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>>On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>My point was not that gym class in school is evil--it is, but that
>>>>wasn't my point. My point was that you, like Keith, use language
>>>>elliptically, expecting your readers to take the intended, not the
>>>>literal, meaning.
>>>
>>>Keith was very explicit.
>>>
>>>"Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be forced
>>>into homelessness."
>>
>>You were just as explicit:
>>
>> "My understanding is that *any* exercise helps the brain."
>>
>>emphasis yours.
>
>You're in danger of becoming a parody of a stalker.

Nice dodge, but Dr. Friedman's point still applies.

[David Harmon]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:54:20 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

Jay's first post on the "politics" subthread, so I wasn't sure he had
followed from the beginning. No need to look for tortured definitions;
the distinction Yudkowsky is making is straightforward enough. It is,
I think, the most ordinary everyday distinction between what people call
politics and what they do not, since that is what his topic is about.
Which is why it is just as weird and bizarre for you to challenge it
with "everything is politics" now as it was when you first posted it.

[Jay E. Morris]

Oh, so now I'm restricted to providing answers that only fit your
mindset. How dictatorial.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:48:05, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

Looking at his reply to this post, I think he's gotten the message
you're sending - loud and clear. Whether or not it is the one you
intended to send is open to interpretation.
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sat, 19 May 2012, "Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2012 9:59 PM, David Harmon wrote:

>> On Fri, 18 May 2012, "Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote,

>>> On 5/18/2012 9:32 AM, David Harmon wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:39:17, David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>>>>> I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings
>>>>> make decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.
>>>>
>>>> That is not a valid definition; it will not tell you what most people
>>>> are and are not referring to when they say "politics." If you poll a
>>>> hundred people asking "What does 'politics' mean?" not one would give
>>>> you that answer.

>>> Do I have to provide only my top answer or can I give all the things I
>>> think it means?
>>
>> You provide only the answer that fits the context of Eliezer Yudkowsky's
>> essay. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/
>
>Oh, so now I'm restricted to providing answers that only fit your
>mindset. How dictatorial.

I recommend that you read Yudowsky's little screed (such a prejudicial
term for to use, isn't it).

He inverts the famous Clausewitz saying (War is merely the continuation
of politics by other means) into "Politics is an extension of war by
other means. Arguments are soldiers." It is really quite ghastly in my
opinion. I can easily see a dictatorial regime arising out of this kind
of nonsense where there is no politics and is no way to resolve
conflict. It would seem to be inevitable that things would devolve into
Newspeak and Groupthink. Now I doubt that Harmon would agree with that
or think it possible that such a deterioration could occur, but that is
what *I* see in Yudowsky's "essay."

Myself, I prefer Bismarck - "Politics is the art of the possible." I
also like Clausewitz' implication that war comes later - as a last
resort - to Yudowsky's implication that war is ongoing and never ending.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper

[David Harmon]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:45:38 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>He inverts the famous Clausewitz saying (War is merely the continuation
>of politics by other means) into "Politics is an extension of war by
>other means. Arguments are soldiers." It is really quite ghastly in my
>opinion.

Of course he is lamenting that pattern of observed behavior, not
endorsing it. You understand nothing.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:23:07, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

>>He inverts the famous Clausewitz saying (War is merely the continuation
>>of politics by other means) into "Politics is an extension of war by
>>other means. Arguments are soldiers." It is really quite ghastly in my
>>opinion.
>
>Of course he is lamenting that pattern of observed behavior, not
>endorsing it. You understand nothing.

He's a fool who is blaming a process instead of placing the blame where
it belongs - on the people.

I stand by my contention that denigrating that process is tantamount to
blaming computers for spam.

[David Friedman]

In article <p83er7hbisji99h6i...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Tell me what happens when the property tax goes up and the
> people who dwell in the building affected do not have their rents go up.
> How are they made homeless?

They aren't, unless the increase also increases the price of something
they buy.

The question isn't whether anyone can be made homeless by an increase
but whether some people can. So examples of people who cannot don't
answer it.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_

[David Friedman]

In article <3l3er75gric2df8ar...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

When you find one that claims that all possible forms of exercise are
good for the brain under all circumstances, get back to us.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sat, 19 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

>The question isn't whether anyone can be made homeless by an increase
>but whether some people can. So examples of people who cannot don't
>answer it.

No.

THE question is whether or not *Every* increase makes *more than one*
person homeless. That is what Keith said. That is what I objected to.

I've already stipulated that a large enough increase WILL make someone
homeless. I will not sit here and argue with you about something that
is not my point and that I've already stipulated. Not. Going. To.
Happen.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sat, 19 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>

wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:51:29, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 17 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>> >>On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>My point was not that gym class in school is evil--it is, but that
>> >>>wasn't my point. My point was that you, like Keith, use language
>> >>>elliptically, expecting your readers to take the intended, not the
>> >>>literal, meaning.
>> >>
>> >>Keith was very explicit.
>> >>
>> >>"Every increase in property tax means a few more people will be forced
>> >>into homelessness."
>> >
>> >You were just as explicit:
>> >
>> > "My understanding is that *any* exercise helps the brain."
>> >
>> >emphasis yours.
>>
>> You're in danger of becoming a parody of a stalker.
>>
>> When you find a peer-reviewed study that claims that exercise is not
>> good for the brain, get back to me.
>
>When you find one that claims that all possible forms of exercise are
>good for the brain under all circumstances, get back to us.

The body of evidence is large enough that the Burden Of Proof is on you.

Go for it.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sat, 19 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me what happens when the property tax goes up and the people
>> who dwell in the building affected do not have their rents go up.
>> How are they made homeless?
>
>They aren't, unless the increase also increases the price of something
>they buy.

Just for kicks, I looked up the assessed valuation of the nearest
supermarket. Apparently, the whole property - a strip mall (except for
one outparcel - a Hardee's/Red Burrito restaurant [Carl's Jr/Green
Burrito on the West Coast]) is treated as one thing. There are many
different businesses in the center. Some examples are the supermarket
(Dierbergs), the UPS Store, Pizza Hut, at least two hair cut places, a
"party store" and a bagel shop.

The increase in the property tax for the entire complex would be
$1093.31 for the entire year. That is how much the total rent increase
would have to be to recoup the increase.Spread that out (unequally,
obviously) over all those businesses. Divide by 12. The amount is
essentially mere statistical noise. The consumer isn't going to see any
increase in prices in that center if the library property tax increase
passes in November.

So who is made homeless?

Once again, I provide hard numbers and you (and everyone else weighing
in in support of this silly notion) won't even touch them. I would have
hoped that some quantative analysis would be forthcoming from a set of
people trained as scientists and engineers, especially with your own
interest in the truth and economics. But that isn't happening.
--
"A lady came up to me on the street and pointed to my suede jacket.
"You know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" she sneered. I replied
in a psychotic tone, "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now
I'll have to kill you too."
- Jake Johanson

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 07:32:27, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 May 2012, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>>I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings make
>>decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.
>
>That is not a valid definition; it will not tell you what most people
>are and are not referring to when they say "politics." If you poll a
>hundred people asking "What does 'politics' mean?" not one would give
>you that answer.

But it is a valid definition.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics>

5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
--
"The great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one."
- Adolf Hitler

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012, "Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> wrote:

>On 5/18/2012 9:32 AM, David Harmon wrote:

>> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:39:17, David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote,

>>> I dunno; the minimalist definition of politics is "how human beings make
>>> decisions and resolve conflicts". It's clearly that.
>>
>> That is not a valid definition; it will not tell you what most people
>> are and are not referring to when they say "politics." If you poll a
>> hundred people asking "What does 'politics' mean?" not one would give
>> you that answer.
>>
>Do I have to provide only my top answer or can I give all the things I
>think it means?

Words only have one meaning in Newspeak. That helps crush the dissent.
--
"Why, Orson [Welles]," Eddie [Wood] asked with a final tug. "What
are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Eddie," I responded, lighting
the cigar and savoring the taste of the smoke. "Try to take over
the movies." - A World Of Laughter, A World Of Tears

[Jay E. Morris]

On 5/18/2012 9:59 PM, David Harmon wrote:

Ok, in that article, as far as I can see, her subject matter is
Politics. What's does it have to do with politics in general. It would
help me to know since at work on Monday I'll be politicking for
management to decide something my way. I might even be doing some
politicking for where we go for lunch.

[David Harmon]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 11:38:48 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:23:07, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>
>>>He inverts the famous Clausewitz saying (War is merely the continuation
>>>of politics by other means) into "Politics is an extension of war by
>>>other means. Arguments are soldiers." It is really quite ghastly in my
>>>opinion.
>>
>>Of course he is lamenting that pattern of observed behavior, not
>>endorsing it. You understand nothing.
>
>He's a fool who is blaming a process instead of placing the blame where
>it belongs - on the people.

That's not even the topic he's discussing.

"Loewe completely misunderstood, as usual."

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:37:48, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2012, "David Loewe,Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

>>On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:23:07, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 19 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>
>>>>He inverts the famous Clausewitz saying (War is merely the continuation
>>>>of politics by other means) into "Politics is an extension of war by
>>>>other means. Arguments are soldiers." It is really quite ghastly in my
>>>>opinion.
>>>
>>>Of course he is lamenting that pattern of observed behavior, not
>>>endorsing it. You understand nothing.
>>
>>He's a fool who is blaming a process instead of placing the blame where
>>it belongs - on the people.
>
>That's not even the topic he's discussing.

Yes, it is.
--
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser
than a million men,
Let's play that one over again, too. Who decides?"
-Lazarus Long

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:37:48, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2012, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,

Let me ask you this...

If the screed is not about politics and evil politics is (and is,
instead, about the dangers of irrationality), then why prattle on and on
about how evil politics is ("Politics is an extension of war by other
means. Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you
must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that
appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your
soldiers in the back�providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who
would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue
in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into
slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an
issue.") and give your screed the "lofty" title Politics Is The
Mindkiller?

To do that is irrational.

[David Harmon]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:25:14 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.

I am far less of a writer than Yudkowsky. If you cannot understand it
from him, I seriously doubt that I can do any better.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:05:04, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2012, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,

Perhaps your own understanding of it is what is lacking.

After all, he inveigles against getting into "political" arguments and
you promptly get yourself embroiled in one - and over the definition of
politics. Worse, by calling me what you did, you provide examples of
the very worst of what he decries.
--
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
- General James N. Mattis

[David Friedman]

In article <qrufr7d8gdac4bmac...@4ax.com>,

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

> Once again, I provide hard numbers and you (and everyone else weighing
> in in support of this silly notion) won't even touch them.

And explain why, and have the explanation ignored.

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sun, 20 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Once again, I provide hard numbers and you (and everyone else weighing
>> in in support of this silly notion) won't even touch them.
>
>And explain why, and have the explanation ignored.

Give me a break. It was said that rents for dwellings would go up. I
proved that wrong. Then *you* said that businesses would pass on
increased costs. I showed that was even more unlikely than rents for
apartments/houses going up. Both times with a real life property tax
increase proposal that I'll be voting on come November.

If *any* of you really thought that it would cause homelessness, you
should be trying to persuade me not to vote for this increase in taxes
(I am inclined to vote Yes at the moment).


As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
context?
--
"Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden

[David Friedman]

In article <8ncjr7pd7983ob00l...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
> material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
> things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
> context?

Because the relevant point--that there isn't some minimal amount that
pushes someone over a line--could be made briefly. As could the other
relevant point--that Keith was thinking in continuous terms and you in
discrete terms, and you thus took his statement more literally than it
was intended.

Having made both points, there wasn't any reason for lengthy responses
to posts which showed no evidence that you had understood them.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 21 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
>> material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
>> things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
>> context?
>
>Because the relevant point--that there isn't some minimal amount that
>pushes someone over a line--could be made briefly.

Which is why I endeavored to prove that there would be *no* increase in
cost to the consumer - that the increase would be at the noise level for
the property owners.

If there is no increase in cost to the consumer, then there cannot be
anyone pushed over the edge into homelessness.

>As could the other
>relevant point--that Keith was thinking in continuous terms and you in
>discrete terms, and you thus took his statement more literally than it
>was intended.

Keith said "every" increase in property taxes made a "few" people
homeless, Professor. A "few" is a minimum of two. That is *not*
thinking in "continuous terms" - at least not as you explained it in
terms of fractional persons.
--
"The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that
think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven

[Seth]

In article <UoKdnVSrfoCmEynS...@earthlink.com>,
David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:14:27 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>
>>Politics does not equal government.
>
>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
>only equals government,

Citation needed.

ObFandom: Minicon is going to have a committee meeting in a month or
two to decide which side of the hotel it prefers to be on, and how to
allocate the rooms on that side.

Government is not involved (at least, not since they moved the town
boundaries so that both sides of the hotel are in the same town :-)

Seth

[Seth]

In article <n687r7hgctg4v4708...@4ax.com>,

David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
>living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
>them from losing their housing.

Nope; Keith's supposition is that *some* people _are_ living on the
ragged edge.

A continuity argument might help.

If real estate taxes quadrupled, would that make a number of people
homeless? If yes, consider: let real estate taxes increase by $1. Is
anybody made homeless? What about $2? $3? If "one measly little
extra dollar" can't make somebody homeless, then when my macro
finishes running a billion dollars from now, still nobody is made
homeless?

Seth

[Seth]

In article <p83er7hbisji99h6i...@4ax.com>,

David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2012, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>wrote:

>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>

>>> >If we suppose that being
>>> >homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people
>>> >have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone
>>> >at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you
>>> >are asking for makes no sense.
>>>
>>> As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
>>> going to push someone into homelessness.
>>
>>Do you buy that any increase can?
>
>I've already answered this - I disagree that *any* increase in property
>taxes would make people homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any*
>increase (even a dollar on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely
>*not*. The very idea is ludicrous."

You're both right, sort of.

Say that an increase of 100% in property taxes made 100 people
homeless. (I'm intentionally not specifying the size of the location;
the same sort of argument works with 1000% over the entire US, or 10%
in a small town.) Then, on average, each 1% increase makes 1 person
homeless; at least 90% of all the 0.1% increases make no people
homeless, at least 99% of all the 0.01% increases make no people
homeless, etc.

So obviously, there are increases that don't make anybody homeless.
At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add up
enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody homeless,
contradicting the original assumption).

Seth

[Keith F. Lynch]

Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).

An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
US finance one high school's stadium?

Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school
district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to
$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

The property tax increase proposal that will be voted on here in St.
Louis County, Missouri come November is 0.0108%. It is what I am
modeling the dollar amount increases in property tax on. The County GIS
mapping site lists the assessed evaluation of each address.
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Tue, 22 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:

>> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
>> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
>> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
>> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).
>
>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>US finance one high school's stadium?

Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation. For
example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest supermarket
has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent care medical center
across the street carries a valuation of $5,883,500. The mall down the
street has a valuation of $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in
the same school district.

Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District can
borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.

>Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
>would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school
>district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to
>$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
>were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
--

"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 01:17:20, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
>>living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
>>them from losing their housing.
>
>Nope; Keith's supposition is that *some* people _are_ living on the
>ragged edge.

Keith's supposition is that more than one person (he says "a few") is

living on the ragged edge.

>A continuity argument might help.
>
>If real estate taxes quadrupled, would that make a number of people
>homeless? If yes, consider: let real estate taxes increase by $1. Is
>anybody made homeless? What about $2? $3? If "one measly little
>extra dollar" can't make somebody homeless, then when my macro
>finishes running a billion dollars from now, still nobody is made
>homeless?

I have explicitly stated that a sufficiently large increase will make
one (or more) people homeless. However, I do *not* believe a
sufficiently *small* one will either - and Keith said that "every"
increase makes "a few" people homeless.

The "at risk" people will, almost to a person, be living in apartments.
I have demonstrated that the proposed library tax increase is too small
to be passed on (pennies per apartment per month) in rent [1]. I have
demonstrated that the same proposed tax increase is too small to be
passed on by businesses. They are thoroughly isolated from the effects
of the increase.

That leaves home owners. Their assessed valuation is likely to have
dropped recently due to the bursting of the housing bubble, so they
could very well be paying for less in property tax than they did just a
few years ago. Almost all of them are paying mortgages, such that, if
the property tax does put them out of house, they are almost certainly
going to be able to get into a rental house or an apartment - so while
massively inconvenienced, not homeless.

You're down, for all intents and purposes, to those elderly who own
their own homes free and clear, who are living on the ragged edge, who
cannot get into an apartment [2], who cannot work any amount (part-time
- one or two days a week, say) in order to pay the higher tax, who have
no family to take them in or help out [3] and who haven't already been
put into homelessness (or at least out of their houses) by the inflation
in food and energy prices (neither of which are in the Core CPI [4])[5].

[1] And if the landlord does increase the rent, then other factors
swamped the property tax one (aka the landlord is making an excuse).

[2] There is aid to get people into housing. I received aid (from
Catholic Charities - deposit & first month's rent) to get me into this
apartment when my old apartment was found to have a non-correctable code
violation two years ago.

[3] I'm sure my father and uncles would have paid my grandmother's
property tax if that had become an issue for her.

[4] And the food inflation is killing my budget.

[5] And, I'm sure, a few other factors that I can't think of off the top
of my head.
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward

[rksh...@rosettacondot.com]

David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
>>> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
>>> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
>>> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).
>>
>>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
>>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
>>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>>US finance one high school's stadium?
>
> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
> well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation. For
> example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest supermarket
> has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent care medical center
> across the street carries a valuation of $5,883,500. The mall down the
> street has a valuation of $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in
> the same school district.

Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations) have
total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those (near the
bottom) are apartment complexes. The remainder are large corporate
offices or shopping centers. It looks like the net taxable value for
Allen ISD last year was $7.3 billion.

> Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District can
> borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.

I think this is typical for capital improvements. In this case it looks
like the bond issue increased the tax rate by 0.0697%, or $142/year on
the median single family home and roughly $30-$60/year (per unit) on the
highest value apartments. The M&O rate increased by 0.13% during the
same period.
Note also that it's not uncommon for tax rates to go down as well. Bonds
being paid off reduce the debt service rate and changing property
values, especially new construction on empty land, allow lowering both
the debt service and M&O rates. The total rate in our district over the
last 12 years started at 1.6500% (1999), has been a low of 1.4763% (2007),
a high of 1.8234% (2005) and is currently at 1.5350%. They've been doing a
lot of construction, going from two elementary schools to three elementary,
one junior high, one high school and a second junior high currently under
construction during the same period. All of that construction costs, but
the influx of people that triggered it also increased the tax base
enormously. It will be interesting to see what happens to our rates next
year. Three new housing developments, the construction of a Walmart
Supercenter and the passage of a city sales tax increase to offset property
tax might cause the overall rate to drop substantially, especially if all of
the bonds for school construction have been issued.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

[Keith F. Lynch]

<rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax
>> as well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation.

On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.

When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
course also lead to increased homelessness.

> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.

I'm not surprised.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Wed, 23 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

><rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax
>>> as well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation.
>
>On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
>to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
>it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
>homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.

Of course, Keith probably hasn't done the math on an increase in
property tax on his building/complex.

I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.

Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).

The fact that Keith considers renters most in danger essentially
confirms my own assumptions and fairly conclusively shuts out all but a
few individuals from even remotely being in danger of homelessness for a
sufficiently small increase.

>When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
>by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
>both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
>course also lead to increased homelessness.

Again - did the math for the shopping center the nearest grocery store
is in. Less than $1100 a year for the entire center. The amount is
essentially noise in the revenue generated by the grocery store without
even considering the other businesses in center.

>> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
>> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
>> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.
>
>I'm not surprised.
--

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away."
- Barry Goldwater

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

Something bothered me after I sent off the previous response. So I
Looked again at Keith's reply and the posts that Robert and I made that
he was responding to and decided a second response was in order with
text added back in to provide much needed context.

On Wed, 23 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

><rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>>>>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>>>>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>>>>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
>>>>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>>>>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>>>>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>>>>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>>>>US finance one high school's stadium?

>>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
>>> well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation.

>On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
>to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
>it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
>homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.

Then why did you *switch* to only assessing households in the sections
above and below? Why the top 100 households and not any businesses at
all above? Why top N richest households and no businesses below?

And, while we're here, why go after the richest? Aren't they more
likely to send their children off to a private school and not use the
stadium at all (other than possible away games)? Why not user fees
based on how much each student uses the facility? Heck, we could even
go to model more like they have in college. Charge separately for each
class. Have a base fee to cover shared facilities (heating, cooling,
the cafeteria, administration, etc.). Surely calculus, which requires
teachers with a higher level of training, should cost more than mere
algebra, right?

>When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
>by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
>both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
>course also lead to increased homelessness.
>
>> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
>> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
>> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.
>
>I'm not surprised.

>>> For example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest
>>> supermarket has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent
>>> care medical center across the street carries a valuation of
>>> $5,883,500. The mall down the street has a valuation of
>>> $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in the same school
>>> district.

>>> Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District
>>> can borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.

>>>>Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
>>>>would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to

^^^^^^^^

>>>>$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
>>>>were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
--

[Seth]

In article <dnnor75u87b6osfiv...@4ax.com>,

David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:

>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>
>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).

10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800. Would that increase the
rent? Then _some_ $0.38 increase does cause the rent to increase, and
maybe it's the next one.

Seth

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>
>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>
>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.

There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
possibility.

>Would that increase the
>rent? Then _some_ $0.38 increase does cause the rent to increase, and
>maybe it's the next one.

One more time, Seth. Keith said that *every* increase makes at least "a
few" people homeless. From the very start I have stipulated that a
large enough increase would have the effect that Keith postulates. If
you want to add in that an impossible number of small ones would also,
that is fine too - because the objection was to Keith saying that
*every* increase makes more than one person homeless.

And, again, we haven't even gotten into the aid (from the government,
family, friends and charity) available for people who are close enough
to get pushed over the edge [1][2].

People become homeless over mental issues and large changes in their
financial circumstances like the loss of a job.

[1] Again, when I was forced out of my old apartment by nonfixable
building code violations that were none of my doing, I was given aid by
family, friends and the government (through a charitable organization).
I've been there (on the cusp of being homeless - although for different
reasons than the one we are bandying about here).

[2] Like Section Eight which would just keep on paying the rent if the
rate went up slightly due to increased Property Tax.
--
"I love it when a plan comes together."
Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith

[David Friedman]

In article <p4dhs7pvc1p7lafr3...@4ax.com>,

"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
> >>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
> >>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
> >
> >10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>
> There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
> increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
> possibility.

Your word was "nobody." Not "only very few people if any, because it is
a slight possibility."

Or in other words, you apply a different standard to your claims than to
Keith's.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:07:23, David Friedman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>> >>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>> >>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>> >
>> >10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>
>> There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>> increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>> possibility.
>
>Your word was "nobody." Not "only very few people if any, because it is
>a slight possibility."

And I stand by it.

>Or in other words, you apply a different standard to your claims than to
>Keith's.

No. Not at all. Seth had to apply *10,000* such increases. My remark
was about a single instance. Those are not equivalent - at all.

Even if you take it to mean "spread out over 10,000 apartments," the
idea is still ludicrous. Even if every apartment had rent as low as
mine, the gross take would be $4,000,000 a month. $3800 is noise when
compared to that.

[Seth]

In article <p4dhs7pvc1p7lafr3...@4ax.com>,

David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>
>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>
>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>
>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>possibility.

It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .

But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.

Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
of causing a rent increase.

Seth

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:

>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>>
>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>
>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>
>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>possibility.
>
>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>
>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.

And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.

>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>of causing a rent increase.

Again.

My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
--
"Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Those two statements seem nearly equivalent to me. It's statistically
likely, in a large city at least, that each and every increase will be
the last straw for *somebody*. Considering one of them true and the
other absurd strikes me as...absurd.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Loewe, Jr.]

And here we go qualifying things where Keith did not.

>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.

Then show your work.


I've shown mine.

The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
population here in the county is 998,954.

Here is the GIS information for the county -
http://maps.stlouisco.com/propertyview/ .

Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
challenge.

>Considering one of them true and the
>other absurd strikes me as...absurd.

And no one seems to take into account the other factors I've cited -
like available aid.
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Fewer and fewer people live in small towns.

And I don't much care about them.

>>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.
>
> Then show your work.

Seth just did.

> I've shown mine.
>
> The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
> assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
> population here in the county is 998,954.
>
> Here is the GIS information for the county -
> http://maps.stlouisco.com/propertyview/ .
>
> Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
> when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
> challenge.

At this point, I don't have a clue what might convince you. It's
blatantly obvious to the rest of us.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:28:43, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:19:56, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>>>>>verdict? 38� a month per apartment.

Doing the math for this complex (the buildings north of the dividing
street are taxed as a unit), it comes to less than 25� a month (I had to
guess at the number of units in the building furthest to the south and I
guessed low).

Keith claims that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people
homeless. I see no room for exclusion of small towns from that.

>>>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.
>>
>> Then show your work.
>
>Seth just did.

No. He proved that one might or that enough of them compounded will.
I've long *stipulated* such a result.

>> I've shown mine.
>>
>> The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
>> assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
>> population here in the county is 998,954.
>>
>> Here is the GIS information for the county -
>> http://maps.stlouisco.com/propertyview/ .
>>
>> Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
>> when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
>> challenge.
>
>At this point, I don't have a clue what might convince you.

Numbers.

Actual increases in rent over and above the amount needed to make
*homeless* (and I don't mean make move to a different location) more
than one person.

Hell, take a spin up to MSP and do a survey of the homeless shelters if
you want. By Keith's statement, the place should be absolutely
*teeming* with people who are homeless because their Property Taxes went
up. I'm betting there aren't more than one or two.

>It's blatantly obvious to the rest of us.

Then you should be able to *prove* it.

Do you really believe that an increase in property taxes for an
apartment building/complex of less than a dollar a month per unit will
*always* be passed on?
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb