No, davek na nepremičnine je končno prišel do osnutka zakona.
0,0xxx% glede na ocenjeno vrednost nepremičnine, pri čemer je seveda davek višji tam, kjer je ocenjena vrednost nepremičnin nižja...
Očitno nam vlada poskuša povedati, da se ne splača vztrajati na periferiji: bolje je, da se vsi skupaj preselimo v prekrasen ljubljanski smog.
Res ne razumem, zakaj ne morejo biti te zadeve pri nas narejene tako, kot se spodobi. Čemu neki služi novi davek, če je tako ali tako samo preimenovano nadomestilo za uporabo stavbnega zemljišča z dodatnimi komplikacijami in administracijo, ki jih prinese obdavčevanje po vrednosti nepremičnin.
Davek na nepremičnine bi moral biti zastavljen kot davek na luksuz:
Ocenjen nek življenjski standard na osebo. Npr: 20m2 + 10m2 na osebo v gospodinjstvu. To je osnova, ki ne bi bila obdavčena.
Česar je gospodinjstvo lastnik nad določenim standardom, je obdavčeno po res znatni stopnji. Na primer 3 - 5%. Oddajanje stanovanj v najem seveda predstavlja izjemo z nižjo stopnjo obdavčenosti.
Tako bi tisti, ki imajo preveč nepremičnin "pridobili" stimulacijo, da svoje prevelike nepremičnine prodajo tistim, ki jih dejansko potrebujejo, s posledičnim nižanjem cen na trgu nepremičnin pa bi si slednji te nepremičnine tudi dejansko lahko privoščili. Res ni smiselno, da nekdo živi sam v mega hiši, premnoge mlade družine pa se stiskajo v eno do dvosobnih stanovanjih.
Če bi želela naša vrla država zadeve še dodatno stimulirati, bi lahko davek oblikovala celo tako, da bi tistim družinam, ki ne dosegajo niti standardne površine npr. subvencionirala kredit za nakup stanovanja.
Šele tak predlog zakona o davku na nepremičnine bi imel nek smisel. Tako kot je, pa....
Friday, 30 July 2010
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Are monitors going anywhere at all?
It wasn't so long ago that computer monitors were far superior to ordinary household TVs. My old trusted Sony CPD-G500, for example could manage 2048x1536@75Hz while at the same time providing excellent color fidelity. For practical reasons I never really used it at it's maximum resolution. I rather used 1600x1200 which was a bit easier on the eyes due to lower DPI. The TV I had at the time managed a pathetic PAL resolution of 720x576@25Hz (50i). It had nice colors, but nowhere near the monitor.
To put it another way, it took me a few years to even have a graphics card that could output the monitor's maximum resolution while TVs only recently moved to 1080p resolution, but broadcasts still snail behind with PAL resolutions.
A few years back (6 I think) I moved to a LCD monitor. I needed the desk space and I also figured display geometry would never again be an issue. So I bought a Samsung 215TW which managed a decent 1680x1050 resolution while still having a decent enough response time to be quite useful for gaming. In the beginning I missed those 150 pixels of vertical resolution, but their lacking wasn't exactly killing me. Since FPS isn't exactly my favourite genre I have no idea about any processing lag, but I can not detect any, so the monitor works just fine for me.
I can't really say that my current monitor is becoming unsatisfactory, but I must admit I would like to have more resolution and I would also like to have 3D. Windows 7 is getting better at handling higher DPI, though it's still nowhere near where it should be in this regard. My water cooled Radeon 5870 can certainly take a bit more resolution though AMD 3D support is still getting nowhere. Additionally I'm also limited by space to max 24 - 27" diagonal. Actually 27" is stretching it a bit - it would barely fit into my corner of zen and peace.
So I went looking for a decent monitor that would give me at least 2560x1600@120Hz, possibly with 3D shutter glasses included.
What a dissappointment!
The only monitors supporting this resolution are 30" in size with a semi-exception of Dell U2711 which has a 2560x1440 resolution (16:9). None of them has 120Hz and none further with 3D shutter glasses included.
I dug a bit more and discovered that the vast majority of monitors on sale today are 1080p.
On top of that, very few are 120Hz, I couldn't even find one that would come with shutter glasses.
What a dissappointment!
So while TVs are pushing 3D today, not to mention 600Hz samples on sale, monitors on the other hand found no progress whatsoever.
When I was buying my 215TW, I decided for it instead of a 1920x1200 model because of price. Today 1920x1200 monitors are just as rare and (almost) just as expensive as then. Not to mention a hint of 120Hz support. Higer resolutions are more or less reserved for 30". None of these supports 120Hz, naturally.
I would expect that by today, I'd easily find a WQUXGA (3840x2400) monitors, maybe not with 120Hz support, but they should be there as a much superior version of today's TVs. After all, not everybody uses their computer just for writing documents and calculating spreadsheets (not that these two wouldn't benefit).
Instead I find that the monitor market has actually DEGRADED to a not-really-impressive 1080p resolution; not even 3D is common place :(
So in my opinion I'm currently stuck with my 215TW or I could marginally go for U2711. At least it ups the DPI to a bit over 100...
But if I could pick, I'd take the following:
24"
3840x2400
120Hz
RGB LED backlit
Color reproduction and lag naturally should be at least average
Now, that would be a monitor worth it's name today
Hell, quit the dreaming: I'd settle for a 2560x1600 120Hz 24" as long as the rest of parameters were satisfactory :(
To put it another way, it took me a few years to even have a graphics card that could output the monitor's maximum resolution while TVs only recently moved to 1080p resolution, but broadcasts still snail behind with PAL resolutions.
A few years back (6 I think) I moved to a LCD monitor. I needed the desk space and I also figured display geometry would never again be an issue. So I bought a Samsung 215TW which managed a decent 1680x1050 resolution while still having a decent enough response time to be quite useful for gaming. In the beginning I missed those 150 pixels of vertical resolution, but their lacking wasn't exactly killing me. Since FPS isn't exactly my favourite genre I have no idea about any processing lag, but I can not detect any, so the monitor works just fine for me.
I can't really say that my current monitor is becoming unsatisfactory, but I must admit I would like to have more resolution and I would also like to have 3D. Windows 7 is getting better at handling higher DPI, though it's still nowhere near where it should be in this regard. My water cooled Radeon 5870 can certainly take a bit more resolution though AMD 3D support is still getting nowhere. Additionally I'm also limited by space to max 24 - 27" diagonal. Actually 27" is stretching it a bit - it would barely fit into my corner of zen and peace.
So I went looking for a decent monitor that would give me at least 2560x1600@120Hz, possibly with 3D shutter glasses included.
What a dissappointment!
The only monitors supporting this resolution are 30" in size with a semi-exception of Dell U2711 which has a 2560x1440 resolution (16:9). None of them has 120Hz and none further with 3D shutter glasses included.
I dug a bit more and discovered that the vast majority of monitors on sale today are 1080p.
On top of that, very few are 120Hz, I couldn't even find one that would come with shutter glasses.
What a dissappointment!
So while TVs are pushing 3D today, not to mention 600Hz samples on sale, monitors on the other hand found no progress whatsoever.
When I was buying my 215TW, I decided for it instead of a 1920x1200 model because of price. Today 1920x1200 monitors are just as rare and (almost) just as expensive as then. Not to mention a hint of 120Hz support. Higer resolutions are more or less reserved for 30". None of these supports 120Hz, naturally.
I would expect that by today, I'd easily find a WQUXGA (3840x2400) monitors, maybe not with 120Hz support, but they should be there as a much superior version of today's TVs. After all, not everybody uses their computer just for writing documents and calculating spreadsheets (not that these two wouldn't benefit).
Instead I find that the monitor market has actually DEGRADED to a not-really-impressive 1080p resolution; not even 3D is common place :(
So in my opinion I'm currently stuck with my 215TW or I could marginally go for U2711. At least it ups the DPI to a bit over 100...
But if I could pick, I'd take the following:
24"
3840x2400
120Hz
RGB LED backlit
Color reproduction and lag naturally should be at least average
Now, that would be a monitor worth it's name today
Hell, quit the dreaming: I'd settle for a 2560x1600 120Hz 24" as long as the rest of parameters were satisfactory :(
Please, monitor maker, sir: make a monitor worth it's name so that I can spend some cash...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)