So probably late 2019 or 2020. Cyberpunk has had such raving previews that I can wait.

That's maybe half the story. Studies find that putting more money into schools doesn't have a significant effect on performance, but AFTER a certain threshold has been reached. Schools that fall below that threshold have problems in achievement that correlate pretty significantly with funding. I know in my area there are a lot of poor-performing schools that could really benefit from increased funding.

I'll also say about the elderly couple being forced out, that's not a bug it's a feature. And I'm not saying that from the perspective of my solution, I'm saying it from the perspective of the way the system functions currently. If we fund schools with property taxes then obviously every homeowner is contributing to education, regardless of whether or not they have children. Living in an area with high taxes due to schools, then, signals a desire or at least a willingness to shoulder the cost of education for children in your district. If you don't want to shoulder that cost, then move. That's market logic at work. Personally, I'm all for doing away with local funding for schools and just finding a way to work it into the federal tax system. One of the benefits of doing so is that it wouldn't put a burden on people who can't afford to fund education but don't want to move. I really don't see a lot of political will for that, though.

Well that would make sense, so obviously it won't happen. I will also say that although this can have some effect on home prices, it doesn't help with gentrification. In my area especially all of the new development is high-end, which ends up forcing current residents out and keeping the area too expensive for lower-income residents to move in. Part of what I like about my proposal is that tax breaks can be targeted towards the development of low-cost housing in order to ensure a healthy mix of income levels. Of course, this can already be done to some extent, but again, that would make sense.

So I was reading an article earlier about how everyone in the Bay Area wants to leave, and I thought to myself "well, not enough to actually move, apparently." Then I started wondering about what it would take to get them to move and if it would relieve the housing problem in that area and it hit me: raise property taxes in areas with insufficient housing supply. You drive up the cost to live there, it drives people out, evens out supply, and stabilizes prices. I did a quick search to see if people had discussed this idea much and found surprisingly little on the subject. Based on what I could find, here's a short rundown of the pros and cons as I see them.

Pros:

1. Increases housing supply without a large investment. The most common solution to the housing crisis as it stands is to increase supply, but there are several problems with that approach. One of the largest is that supply has had historically weak correlation with rent prices, if any. There was a boom in home-building in the 80s, for example, while rent prices continued to climb. The other problem is that investment doesn't always move quickly enough to meet demand. Investment only gets going once demand starts to ratchet up, and once demand starts to ratchet up you're already on your way to a crisis. By the time the original investment is completed demand is now higher, requiring more investment. This idea frees up houses without construction or investment, thus making the effects more immediate.
2. Directly addresses wealth disparity. Home ownership is one of the largest sources of wealth in the country, and the disparity in home values one of the largest drivers of wealth inequality. This idea would have the effect of lessening inequality by driving owners of valuable homes to sell and move to areas with lower taxes. This would then drive up the value of distressed areas and encourage more investment. More importantly, it would address the segregation between wealthy and non-wealthy and draw increased attention to the issues plaguing impoverished areas, such as a lack of services. This could even be sold as a method of paying reparations, as it would artificially increase the value of homes in many black areas. Property ownership, which has historically been used as a tool against black Americans, can be put to use as a tool reversing some of those wrongs.
3. Begins to address educational inequality. One of the biggest problems in American education is that it is funded by property taxes, essentially segregating students into well-funded and poorly-funded schools based upon where they live. This idea would encourage wealthy Americans to sell their homes in order to buy homes in less wealthy areas, thus raising housing values in those areas and their access to educational funds.
4. Could possibly address zoning laws. Zoning laws are another huge barrier to affordable housing. They prevent new development and exacerbate supply problems. This idea would have the effect of driving out many residents who band together to pass zoning laws, thus making new development easier and creating a positive feedback loop in regards to housing supply.
5. Could address predatory practices. One more obstacle to affordable housing are speculators, predatory landlords, and apathetic businesses who buy large amounts of property and either use them to drive up their own profits at the expense of the residents or simply let them go unused for prolonged periods of time, thus exacerbating supply problems. This imposes a cost to such behavior, makes it less profitable, and encourages responsible investment.

Cons:

1. Let's get this one out of the way right at the start, out current system is not progressive. Wealthier properties pay more in taxes, but it's still a flat tax rate. You can debate whether or not a flat tax rate is fair, but it's still not progressive.
2. It doesn't necessarily target the wealthy. You could end up simply driving the semi-wealthy out of wealthy neighborhoods, while further insulating the super-wealthy from the rest of society, as the latter can afford to pay higher prices while the former can't. However, this still creates housing vacancies, and the windfall from the taxes could be re-invested in construction of new units and upkeep and renovation of older units in struggling neighborhoods. This could soften the blow of forcing semi-wealthy individuals out of "good" neighborhoods and into "bad" ones.
3. It doesn't address one of the biggest issues, which is affordable housing. In most troubled markets, there is a complete dearth of affordable housing, with new projects aimed primarily at building luxury units. However, tax breaks can be employed strategically to encourage investment in affordable housing. If there is a neighborhood with little affordable housing and high property taxes as a result of this proposal, tax waivers can be granted to companies who specifically develop affordable housing.
4. One of the biggest arguments I came across against this was that it would force elderly homeowners with little income out of their homes. My first reaction is so what? The alternative seems to be accepting a situation where poorer elderly are faced with an extreme degree of housing insecurity while richer elderly aren't, that's exactly the sort of thing this proposal is supposed to remedy. I will admit that there could be situations where residents can't afford to move or would be burdened by having to move, but in that case we could either use the windfall from the taxes to assist with moving costs or use exemptions to keep qualifying individuals in their homes. I think that first part should actually go in the pros column, instead of people staying in homes they can't afford because they can't afford to move to homes they can afford, we can actually cover the moving costs for people to move to areas they can afford and which may be actively trying to attract more residents.
5. I'm sure that almost every business owner reading this is losing their mind in terror, but think it through for a minute. Yes, operating costs go up and relocating is costly. However, this actually pushes business owners who are struggling with costs of ownership to move to areas with lower costs of ownership if it makes fiscal sense. If taxes are too much of a burden then moving to a different area will lower your taxes and increase the value of said area, spurring more investment. If taxes are manageable, then you benefit from an influx of new prospective clients. Further, if you're hurt too much by taxes then your taxes next year will be lower. Finally, it will level the playing field between smaller and larger businesses. No longer will the first-year coffee house have to try to compete with Starbucks, because the former actually pays fewer in taxes relative to the latter than it does right now. Competitive advantage actually goes up for small businesses.

So, what does everybody think?

@demi0227_basic: Not really, Star Citizen continues to get graphical updates , the graphical upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 is pretty big. What are these new engines? Technically Star Citizen is on a new engine since they went from CryEngine to Lumberyard for better online tech plus they have most of Crytek's talent so it won't be hard for them to modify it to their needs which they already have. You're also assuming these new engines will actually display the graphics shown in their tech demos in real games. Remember Luminous? Exactly. Even if it does lose to other games in graphics none of them will even be doing half the stuff Star Citizen does as none of those games will be on the same scale as it. It will likely just be another linear/generic open world game that has nowhere near the level of environment/sandbox interaction and detail as Star Citizen. So in other words the next big AAA game may beat Star Citizen graphics but it will lose in everything else.

Why would anyone disagree with the concept of Antifa?

Individual actions aside, its simply an anti-fascism ideology that only exists because of fascist ideologies being pushed by too many right now.

My question has been, what do people expect? People always violently lash out against fascism because.... its fascism. Its the closest example of actual "evil" we can find. Its everything you do not want in a government or ideology.

I'm not talking about components upgrading but an entirely new build.

My first built was roughly 2 and a half year ago and I'm already itching to built a new one. The X299 board, i9 and Volta are really getting me excited. Might be I now have much more knowledge this time around. Stuff like liquid cooling and overclocking was just a waste which I spend a good amount of money on last time.

Compared to consoles, 2-3 after every upgrade ain't bad but yet again consoles aren't worth 2K...

@04dcarraher: Do you think going from the FX8320 to the Ryzen 7 1700 would be a substantial upgrade for me if I went that route?

It's better than the 7600k in many games. Check hardwareunboxed and gamersnexus. It doesn't make sense to get the 7600k over the ryzen 1600.

The 1600 and 1600x are going to be selling a lot.