Based-A

Assuming you're being genuine (which I have a hard time believing because your argument is quite literally a strawman, please read the definition), you're missing the context entirely. You can't conflate small DIY projects done around the house with developing software that thousands of people and institutions rely on. By all means you can go and watch a video on software development, but that does not entitle you to expect that PRs you make will be accepted to any project other than the ones you control yourself.

Come on, are you really going to strawman "engineering should be inherently disqualifying" into "so people shouldn't DIY in their own home"? Please try a little bit harder.

It's too easy to blame the algorithms when the algorithms are a necessary evil. TikTok has millions of videos uploaded per day. You are not going to sort through all of those on your own.

I don't necessarily think that people have an issue with the algorithms themselves, more so that all of the platforms that implement them will manipulate and alter it so that you constantly stay engaged. And that boils down to pushing ragebait, low effort clickbait, and shock content over everything else.

Now it is possible to avoid falling into this, but its not the default. If I have to actively fight to not see people dying, asinine political and cultural takes, or ai slop, then its a bad experience and I will yearn for the days when gaming let's plays and video essays were the default. Its easy to say "just don't watch it", but is it really "just" that easy when the whole platform is constantly being tweaked and optimized against the content that someone would prefer to see?

As someone who is actively working on the Bevy Book, the next engine release should include the first public release of the Bevy Book. And once it's out, then we'll be doing our best to keep it updated and expand it alongside the Bevy engine.

In the immediate order of things yeah, tenants aren't going to receive any relief from taxing land. The benefit lies in the second, or maybe even third order of effects that LVT produces.

Do we want the landlords to just sit on all of that value they're accumulating or do we want to take in more tax revenue (not a higher tax rate) as their land value increases and then do something for the common good with that additional tax revenue? Maybe tax relief for businesses, or social programs that reduce the cost of living for the workers. Or even better, encourage the landowner to further develop their land to get a better return, potentially benefitting tenants and the nearby community? Because that's what LVT does, or at the very least enables.

Well I can't speak to the notion of corrupt politicians, but it's worth noting that if it's in the interests of the landowners, then they'd likely fight to keep anything that they feel would keep their value high. And especially if they started developing/investing in their land to maximize the potential return of the land. Anecdotally, I've seen individual homeowners stir up enough support in my major Canadian city to stop city councils from starting somewhat major development projects, so I don't think that it'd be as inevitable as you're making it out to be.

It's also a mistake to say that a lot of land gets evaluated in isolation, because that's not even true with a the current property tax. You absolutely factor in the surrounding community and external factors when valuing a piece of land. Land in a downtown area is going to be inherently worth more than land on the periphery of a city due to the activity and potential of the land to generate economic activity.

To your point though, would you say that an apartment building next to a park (or even within several blocks of a park) is worth more than an apartment building with no park in proximity? I think most people would as well, therefore the apartment building with the park in proximity would have a higher value (which would extend to all land in proximity of the park), and thus the local government would be able to collect a higher tax dollar amount because of the park being there. Whereas maybe they could get a similar total amount by building another building, but why would a local government purposefully lower the amount of tax they'd collect on each plot of land? It's in the interest of the local government to maximize the value of the land within their jurisdiction to collect the highest amount of tax possible. Just like it's in the landowners interest to develop and invest in their land to get the highest return on their investment possible.

Re: homelessness, it would seem to me like a large group of people without housing would benefit from a system that incentivizes building more housing. Which LVT does. It would also encourage public spaces to be as ammenible as possible, so that the park is as appealing as possible in order to maximize the value for surrounding lots of land. At this point though we're talking second or even third order effects of LVT, which like you mentioned aren't super clear or even assured because LVT mostly remains in the theoretical. But if we have a sound theory, at this point why not try it and see what happens? Our current systems are very clearly failing us, so if we have ideas with sound reasoning, can things really get so much worse than they already are?

LVTs focus is on maximizing land value, not profit. It just so happens that when a landowner maximizes the value a piece of their land provides, higher profits are almost guaranteed.

It's also a bit of a mistake to view LVT solely through an economic lense. Sure, we quantify it through a dollar amount or a difference in profits, but the value in LVT comes from how individuals value the land as a whole. So you are absolutely correct that a place without native vegetation, parks, playgrounds, etc. is going to be valued less than a place with those amenities by a lot of people. But only if people value greenspace and amenities more than pure economic output, which is mostly the case when it comes to residential spaces.

If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace. Instead of would (likely) be to densify housing, or convert existing buildings to mixed-use spaces.

X11 applications will still "work" on Plasma Wayland session by utilizing XWayland, a tool that (afaik) runs a compact X11 session for each application.

What is being removed is running an X11-native Plasma session, only Wayland Plasma sessions will be available starting with Plasma 6.8.

Because there is only a fixed amount of land a city can ever possibly sustain. Urban sprawl all you want, but eventually you run out of land to keep expanding into or the city goes broke because there aren't enough revenue generating properties in a given area to cover the cost of servicing those areas. At some point more has to turn into better and more efficient.

I definitely agree, I should have specified that it's said that way to avoid getting trapped in the weeds when talking with the average person, not when discussing actual policy implementation.

The next paragraph in my original comment starts to touch on how a LVT is somewhat inherently resistant to abuse by bad actors. Unlike financial accounts and spreadsheets and tax filings, you can't distort or hide your land, what's on it, and what's around it. If someone claims that their land is worthless, but there's hotels and amusement parks or maybe even a new large outlet mall being built nearby, it's easy to see that that claim isn't valid. I'd even say that it'd be relatively easy to penalize those assessors who intentionally misvalue land.

Of course, the caveat is in how the system is implemented like you mentioned. And while I'd love to say that there are workarounds and fixes and stopgaps to prevent for every edgecase a LVT presents, but I can't because we're only starting to see states and municipalities entertain the idea of LVT.

the value of the land is determined by "best and highest use"

Absolutely valid to say that "best and highest use" is vague and untrustworthy at best, but it's said this way to avoid getting trapped in the weeds of what exactly it means. Broadly speaking, "best and highest use" is entirely contextual to the land in question. The "best" use for 40 acres of nutrient-rich soil an hour away from the nearest city is going to be agriculture. While a plot of land smack dab in the middle of mainstreet in a rural town would probably be a commercial building or a mixed use building offering an apartment(s) above a shop or restaurant of some kind. Downtown in a metropolis would be some multi-storied residential or business/commercial building, while the middle of nowhere filled with trees is forestry and maybe mining. Everything is contextual.

Who determines the "best" use case is usually delegated to a free market of land value appraisers. It seems counter-intuitive to leave so much leeway at this part, but consider that land value taxation is attempting to best capture the true value of the land. Meaning that land owners want the lowest possible valuation of their land to pay less taxes, but since land can't be hidden, it's (in theory) hard to fake the value of your land. I can't argue my house in an urban community is relatively worthless when A) every neighboring piece of land will have more or less the same value, and B) everyone can see where the land my house is located and what's around it.

This plays into your first comment, if your neighbor adds a bunch of improvements to his land, if you and your other neighbors gain benefit from those improvements (they opened a store, or a school, or installed a modern sewer system or clean drinking water system, or created a private land reserve, and you and your property have access to these), then yes your land would see an increase in value as a result. However, these types of improvements are rarely the case, and are mostly handled by some form of government. The same with a neighbor "overpaying", since in theory they wouldn't "overpay", they'd just be paying the value that the land is assessed at.

Alternatively, if your neighborhood is run down compared to something brand new and shiny, and all of your neighbors decide to clean things up and do renovations and increase the overall perceived value of the neighborhood, then yes you'd see your property value increase as a result of others actions. But this is no different than when communities go through "urban renewal" and other programs that artificially increase the communities' value as a result of private and public funding.

The LVT argument holds that we should ignore everything else: Their business ownership, their 401k, their stocks, bonds, cash, and even the house itself. Ignore all of that, tax people based on land.

Land Value Tax is specifically concerned with how property taxes are calculated. You're conflating implementing LVT with the concept of a Single Tax, which aims at replacing all taxes in a nation with LVT and is really only advocated for by pure Georgists. The LVT is a viable tax policy on it's own, and shouldn't be dismissed because of grander aims by a very small group of people.

The 10 story apartment complex and the single family house both might occupy the same land, so they’re taxed the same.

Yes? They're both in the same area, which means they have access to the same utilities, same services, same amenities, etc. The presence of the apartment building doesn't inherently increase or decrease the value of the land, it's the other way around; higher land values see denser housing to better offset the cost of owning and operating the land. Neighborhoods are not static, unchanging islands immune to the developments that surround them. If a neighborhood solely made up of single family homes was 20+ blocks away from downtown 40 years ago, but is now directly bordering downtown because they city has grown and expanded, there is no reason for that neighborhood to still solely consist of single family homes (unless those homeowners want to pay to have a house right next to downtown).

Sorry typical homeowner, we need to price you out of affording the home you bought and lived in. Our policy needs to force you to sell to this developer who will construct apartment complexes, reap the profits (tax-free now, because it’s not land!) but they’d be happy to rent an apartment to you for a monthly fee.

This is pure FUD. The "typical" homeowner in an urban-sprawled city would probably see their taxes decrease with LVT, depending on how close they are to high value areas. If your home is on the edge of downtown, you might be priced out because that land is a hell of a lot more valuable than what a single family home can capture. If you live in the "typical" suburban community that is 20+ minutes away from downtown? Negligible change, if not a decrease as most suburban lands have very little value compared to more urban communities. It's been shown time and time again that downtown business districts and other centralized urban communities overwhelmingly subsidize suburban communities.

Finally, your “ask any economist” appeal to authority does not hold any water. Much has been written about the severe flaws with a Georgist style 100% LVT.

Again, LVT is not entrenched in it's Georgist implementation. No one worth listening too says that LVT solves everything and gives us Utopia. It's simply the least worst way to go about land taxation, and absolutely has its hurdles and flaws that will present themselves.

Considering that there is a fixed amount of land, I do want to raise taxes for those who choose to sit on undeveloped or underutilized land within urban areas rather than either selling it to someone who will develop or developing it themselves. Although it's a bit disingenuous to refer to only refer to it as "raising taxes" since it's taxing based on land value rather than improvement value. It's probable that there would be a significant amount of land plots that would see their taxes decreased as well, especially those along the peripheries of cities since they wouldn't have access or proximity to the same services as a downtown or business district would.

I'd also like to think that a lot of land being developed leads to new businesses appearing and more economic development when compared to just leaving the same lot empty and unused.