site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   1753 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 28, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

0
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The US state of New J*rsey is infamous for (1) having sky-high property taxes and (2) being an industrial wasteland. This court opinion offers a daring synthesis of those two concepts.

Are casks of nuclear waste subject to property tax? The answer is "yes". In theory, they are just temporarily in their current locations, and will be moved to a federal storage facility soon. But, since the feds have failed to create such a facility for the past fifty years (Yucca Mountain et cetera), in practice they count as permanent fixtures (just like your home's bathtub and kitchen sink), which are part of "real property" that is subject to property tax.

In this comment, @VecGS differentiates between options B and B’ (B&rsquo ; without the space). Please note that the latter symbol actually is supposed to be B′ (B&prime ; without the space).

  • Apostrophe ' ≠ single quotation mark ‘ ’ ≠ prime ′

  • Double apostrophe " ≠ double quotation mark “ ” ≠ double prime ″

I wonder if we could solve the issue of nuclear waste by assigning them negative value, I'm pretty sure your property will depreciate in value for having a cask of radioactive waste buried under the floorboards.

Then we could have people bidding to buy them, knowing they'd save a lot of money in taxes (people are irrationally afraid of it, hence would pay much less for the land). My genius frightens me.

A very Coaseian solution! This would certainly be my starting point.

I did know there was a fancy term for it, it just didn't come up off the top of my head, thank you.

Honestly, I wish more people even considered the possibility of trying to price in externalities and let them be paid for.

This particular court opinion addresses only the concrete-and-steel casks themselves, not the plutonium-etc. waste within the casks. (See footnote 5 on page 11.) It is entirely possible that your solution will be adopted in future proceedings in this case.

The concrete-and-steel casks themselves

Shouldn't these casks also have negative value, at least he occupied ones? Even if you empty them, presumably the cask has been neutron activated and would have to be disposed of as low-level waste. Or is the value positive, because if you transfer the waste out you could reuse the cask for new waste?

I now have checked the court filings. It appears that, so far, absolutely zero mention has been made of the actual value of the casks or of the nuclear waste. The complaint alleges only that the assessed value of the entire parcel (a defunct nuclear power plant that is being decommissioned; 40 M$ for land and 70 M$ for improvements) is too high. Presumably, the parties will not start arguing over the actual value until after this court opinion regarding taxability has finished the entire appeals process.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats