Not so friendly reminder that musk specifically came up with, and pushed, for hyperloop knowing that it would never be made, as an effort to stop the development of highspeed rail in America and shift all political discussions of it because “something better is around the corner”:

As I’ve written in my book, Musk admitted to his biographer Ashlee Vance that Hyperloop was all about trying to get legislators to cancel plans for high-speed rail in California—even though he had no plans to build it. Several years ago, Musk said that public transit was “a pain in the ass” where you were surrounded by strangers, including possible serial killers, to justify his opposition.

source: new york times

Also: 2024 update, the total length of China’s high-speed rail tracks has now reached well over 45,000 km, or 28,000 miles, by the end of 2023.

They are additionally five years ahead of schedule and expect to double the total number within ten years. And, before someone inevitably complains about “how expensive it is”, they are turning over a net-profit of over $600M USD a year.

Via

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why not substantially? The surplus from land ownership is “unearned income” - we’re basically giving a goverment handout to landlords right now. Land value is different from acreage, so your house would see very little increase in taxes.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Look, I’m not gonna bother with your evangelist tax pitch. Increasing the tax revenues of California by at least 30% is A LOT of new taxes, regardless of the source.

          • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s fortunate that increasing California’s taxes by 30% doesn’t necessarily impact a lot of people, then.

            Land value is different from acreage, so your house would see very little increase in taxes.

            I’m not evangelizing the woke narrative at you. This is just how land value taxes have always worked.

              • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                And yet, it wouldn’t be 30% on a lot of Californians. The ones who would pay the most are landlords who would not be financially ruined. You need to read the Wikipedia article.