I’m moving to Southeast Asia to grow my business. Right now, I’m making $30-50k gross revenue before expenses; solid, but not enough to live comfortably in the West. So I’m heading to Kuala Lumpur, a city I love, where the cost of living is super affordable. I’ll work a bit, enjoy tons of free time, explore the region, lower my stress, and live much better overall. Sure, I could take a $200k job in NY/LA/SF, but after taxes, rent, and everything else, what’s the point? Freedom isn’t just about fuck you money or revenue streams, it’s about being geographically neutral and choosing the best places on the planet for quality of life and value.

ChatGPT is basically like a really good intern, and I use it heavily that way. I run literally every email through it and say “respond to so and so, say xyz” and then maybe a little refining, copy paste, done.

The other day, my boss sent me an excel file with a shitload of data in it that he wanted me to analyze some such way. I just copy pasted it into gpt and asked it, and it spit out the correct response. Then my boss asked me to do something else that required a bit of excel finagling that I didn’t really know how to do, so i asked gpt, and it told me the formula, which worked immediately first try.

So basically it helps me accomplish tasks in seconds that previously would’ve taken hours. If anything, I think markets are currently undervalued, because remarkably, fucking NONE of my colleagues or friends are using it at all yet. Once there’s widespread adoption, which will pretty much have to happen if anyone wants to stay competitive once it gains more traction, look out…

No, all you’re doing is shifting power from the big bad mean rich landlord into the hands of the government agency or agent in charge. How do you not understand that? No matter what there’s going to be an asshole with too much power/wealth.

If you’re talking about eminent domain, the gov has to pay fair market value for the assets it takes, at least in the USA. So you’re just flat out wrong using that as an example because in this context you guys are talking about the government forcing someone to provide something to somebody else for free, or just seizing their property (!) to do it themselves.

I’m looking for you to be able to articulate a specific rule or set of rules with hard numbers and thresholds that applies to literally everyone. You can walk around all you want saying rich people are big bad meanies and should give this poor woman free housing. But it turns out people will always act in their own rational self interest, and until you can figure out a way to codify your values into law, you might as well be writing letters to santa. I wish everything were perfect and nobody wants for anything, but the universe just doesn’t work that way. It’s hard to believe there are so many people naive enough to not know this by now.

I’m definitely in the wrong place because all I’m hearing is a bunch of morons.

the government should control the property and not charge rent. It’s not that hard to understand

Yes it is hard to understand because we are having this conversation despite it being a ridiculous idea. If the gov controls the property and doesn’t charge rent, it doesn’t lower the cost. The value of that property doesn’t go away. It just changes hands from the private owner into the gov agency (or worse, agent) who controls who gets to live there. Imagine a neighborhood where everything costs $10k/month to live there, but you control who gets to live in that one place that costs $1,000/month. Think of how powerful a position that is. The value of that rental property didn’t magically disappear just because the government waived its magic wand and said so. Economics doesn’t work that way, and it’s really frustrating talking to people who don’t get this. You can’t solve these issues by decree.

Right, if only this mean rich person would go against their best interest and do something stupid. But they didn’t because there’s zero incentive to do so, because what you and everyone in this thread is suggesting is a bad decision to make of one’s own free will. So other folks are arguing the gov should step in and, what, force the owner to rent their unit to the squatter for free just because she’s old I guess?

I challenge you to codify your position. Meaning, if someone is over X years of age they get free rent? Or the gov pays their rent? Or if someone is over such and such net worth they have to give free rent to people? Or something? You’re just not making any sense and you’re arguing out of pure pathos, emotionally laden incoherent thoughts that you can’t build a functioning economy out of.

Man it’s always govt with you people. I challenge you to codify your feelings into actual policy with facts and figures rather than loaded emotional imagery like ‘govt should pay for housing for everyone.’

I read something recently analyzing what tends to happen when there’s tons of artificially cheap public housing. Market forces determine housing prices regardless of government interference, so when the govt rules by decree that their public housing will be cheaper, the price differential doesn’t go away, it just changes form. And more importantly, it changes hands. The price difference changes form from money into power, and it changes hands from the landlord into the govt agency or official in charge of determining who gets to live there and benefit from the lower cost. Make sense?

I don’t disagree that housing costs are out of control. I think everyone is missing the point though, and the cause. It isn’t mean rich people being evil bastards charging people too much. Right now what we are seeing is the natural result of decades of exponential economic growth. Real estate is an asset like any other with prices strongly positively correlated with other asset classes. If everything is growing exponentially like equities, of course real estate is going to grow along with them. I don’t know what the solution is, but it certainly isn’t anything suggested in this thread.

Who pays is a very valid question because right now you guys are all saying the owner should pay instead of the squatter. Then you go on to talk about tax money which implies the govt should pay. We live in a world of finite goods and resources which is why things are the way they are. These comments are like letters to Santa.

So govt forces owner to donate to 93 year old squatter charity instead of donating to a different charity of their choice. Still a forced donation because money is fungible, doesn’t matter who got there first.

The tax write-off bit means being rich enough that donating the building to charity won’t even make a dent in their wealth

Codify that. Ready set go.

You didn’t answer the question.

What does that even mean? Concrete, lumber, electric, plumbing, plus location location location that everyone else wants. How can it NOT be a commodity with fluctuating prices based on basic market forces like supply and demand? Explain

Ok so govt is the landlord then, got it. Who gets to decide who gets free housing? Housing inventory is limited so somebody is going to be homeless. Seems like the govt agency, or worse, agent, has the keys to the kingdom and wields a lot of power in your scenario.

She was there first?!? It’s the owner’s building! What does “easily afford to lose that building as a tax write-off” even mean? What do you know about tax? I presume zero based on your comment. smh

You’re not, Lemmy is just filled with young naive quasi communist morons. It’s really breathtaking how dumb this community is, financially.

Should people get free housing at 92? At what point does a squatter get a free pass? Should we force the owner to give charity to the elderly squatter? What makes her more deserving than, say, Doctors Without Borders?

…How does that work? Who pays for the lumber, cement, electrical, plumbing, etc?

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-sweeping-effort-to-restore-fairness-to-tax-system-with-inflation-reduction-act-funding-new-compliance-efforts

The complex structures and tax issues present in large partnerships require a focused approach to best identify the highest risk issues and apply resources accordingly. In 2021, the IRS launched the first stage of its Large Partnership Compliance (LPC) program with examinations of some of the largest and most complex partnership returns in the filing population. The IRS is now expanding the LPC program to additional large partnerships…By the end of the month, the IRS will open examinations of 75 of the largest partnerships in the U.S. that represent a cross section of industries including hedge funds, real estate investment partnerships, publicly traded partnerships, large law firms and other industries. On average, these partnerships each have more than $10 billion in assets.

Believe me when I tell you a partnership with $10b assets is insane. Auditing that is extremely labor intensive and requires a ton of highly specialized skills and that all requires resources.

There’s really nothing left to argue here so please just take this at face value and move on.

Right, well, anyway, the IRS budget just got a huge increase under the Biden administration new budget. They’re finally hiring a ton of new agents and updating their ancient tech etc. The R party fought tooth and nail against this and there’s an active smear campaign to make the average person afraid they’re coming after you. R’s managed to reduce the budget increase which is going to reduce the IRS ability to go after the whales, as you were griping about in your original post.

Yeah this is completely normal and not at all anything to flip out about. Honestly I’m surprised the reporting threshold was ever $20k to begin with. The 1099 reporting threshold for contractors has been $600 for over a decade now so I would’ve assumed the same for scalpers.