Whatever it costs, old or new, is what they’re talking about (within the state, as my quote mentioned). It doesn’t take into account whether you think your house should be valued where it is. This isn’t a valid criticism of the article.

And what echelon of sale price do they fall under?

Mmk buddy.

A fraction of undecided voters may decide the next election, and they might be weighing whether they care more about Biden’s age or Trump’s lies. I think fact checking could matter to those people too. No one is swaying Trump voters.

If you care about facts, I think fact checking is important.

Mansion Taxes Could Generate Billions Nationally Each Year

States with existing mansion taxes should increase their rates on the highest-value homes. States without these taxes should enact them, with rates that get progressively higher as the value of the house goes higher. If every state enacted progressive transfer taxes on high-value homes, billions of dollars could be generated for state budgets across the country. Taxing the top 10 percent, 5 percent, and 1 percent of home sales in every state could generate a total of $8.7 billion annually.[23] (See Figure 3.)

To give a state-specific example, consider a hypothetical proposal that adds a progressive marginal tax to sales of the top 10, 5, and 1 percent of homes in Virginia (meaning homes sold at or above $900,000, $1.1 million, and $1.9 million, respectively.) Applying a marginal tax rate of 2 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent to each of those thresholds would generate an estimated $128 million annually. If this funding were earmarked for the state’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which has received just $18 million since fiscal year 2018, it could increase investment in that fund tenfold in just a single year.[24] Further, since a real estate transfer tax would create an ongoing revenue source, it could be used to fund housing initiatives like rental and operating subsidies that are difficult to finance with one-time state investments.

By the article’s explanation, the top 10, 5, and 1 percent are not introductory price levels. These are high-value homes, not starter homes.

FYI:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Overall, we rate Al Jazeera Left-Center biased, based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/13/2023)

Edit: down vote all you want, your state media is just that :)

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/who-fact-checks-the-fact-checkers-research/

“‘Fact-checking’ fact checkers: A data-driven approach,” a 22-page October research article from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, examined practices of U.S. fact-checking organizations Snopes, PolitiFact and Logically, along with The Australian Associated Press.

Sian Lee, Aiping Xiong, Harseung Seo and Dongwon Lee of Penn State University’s College of Information Sciences and Technology did the peer-reviewed research.

The Penn State researchers found U.S. fact-checking spikes during major news events. In recent years, that was during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Further, the researchers said, misinformation’s spread can mislead and harm people and society.

The researchers examined 11,639 fact-checking articles from Snopes and 10,710 from PolitiFact from Jan. 1, 2016, to Aug. 31, 2022. They found Snopes checked more “real claims” — claims that rate true or mostly true — with 28.7% versus 11% for PolitiFact.

Looking widely, the researchers found high agreement when Snopes and PolitiFact probed the same information. Of 749 matching claims (examining the same information), 521 received identical ratings and 228 (30.4%) had diverging ratings. But, the researchers found nuances caused nearly all of these divergent verdicts — granularity of ratings (Snopes and PolitiFact scales differ slightly); differences in focus; differences in fact-checked information and the different timing of the fact-checks.

Adjusting for these systematic discrepancies, Penn State’s researchers found just one conflicting rating among the 749 matching claims.

“…given my own chosen definition of relic such that the article can be characterized differently”

“It’s not us, it’s the fact checkers…”

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/

Anything below mostly factual gets a no from me dawg.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/16/fact-check-tipping-kept-wages-low-formerly-enslaved-black-workers/3896620001/

Our ruling: True

Based on our research, the claim that tipping became popularized by restaurant owners who didn’t want to pay Black workers after the passage of the 15th Amendment is generally TRUE, though more context is helpful.

Including the resolution text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Underscoring the importance of the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States aimed at reaching a comprehensive ceasefire deal, consisting of three phases,

1. Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;

2. Notes that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases:

(a) Phase 1: an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community;

(b) Phase 2: upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and

© Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families;

3. Underlines that the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue, and welcomes the readiness of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to work to ensure negotiations keep going until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin;

4. Stresses the importance of the parties adhering to the terms of this proposal once agreed and calls upon all Member States and the United Nations to support its implementation;

5. Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;

6. Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

All I see is you trying to garner understanding towards Hamas using civilians as shields. No history leads to this, Hamas is not forced to do this.

What Hamas is requesting changes to:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling all its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,

Underscoring the importance of the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States aimed at reaching a comprehensive ceasefire deal, consisting of three phases,

1. Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;

2. Notes that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases:

(a) Phase 1: an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community;

(b) Phase 2: upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and

© Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families;

3. Underlines that the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue, and welcomes the readiness of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to work to ensure negotiations keep going until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin;

4. Stresses the importance of the parties adhering to the terms of this proposal once agreed and calls upon all Member States and the United Nations to support its implementation;

5. Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;

6. Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

No, I started a topic and you changed it. The article itself says there were hostages held in refugee camps. “Coming in swinging” is just… indicative. I’m ending this with you.

And there is NOTHING that excuses using civilians as shields. Stop trying to justify it.

I’m not wasting the time explaining this to you after the other user already did.

Sounds like the history is that Hamas held hostages in a refugee camp and that’s dangerous for them. No other history involving anyone else legitimizes Hamas doing this.

And to address your accusation of whataboutism, I’ll refer you to my original comment at the top of the chain and ask you what I started to discuss and who changed the topic. “So you would hold Israel to the same standards?” Is textbook whataboutism.

Edit: and I think using civilians as shields is worse. Much worse. End of debate.

If Israel rejects the ceasefire its… Hamas’ fault?

Where does it say that?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj77j7ppj52o.amp

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that if a ceasefire plan backed by the US and UN does not progress, Hamas will be to blame.

Mr Blinken reiterated his call for Hamas to accept the plan as outlined by President Biden 11 days ago.

He said the onus was on “one guy” hiding “ten storeys underground in Gaza” to make the casting vote, referring to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.

Mr Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “reaffirmed his commitment” to the proposal when they held talks in Jerusalem on Monday.

Mr Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed what Mr Biden outlined nor said whether it matches an Israeli proposal on which Mr Biden’s statement was based.

Mr Blinken described as a “hopeful sign” Hamas’s response to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Monday supporting what Mr Biden had announced.

The resolution noted that Israel had accepted what Mr Biden had presented and called on Hamas to do so as well.

Hamas issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming “what was included” in the resolution.

But Mr Blinken said Hamas’s response was not conclusive, adding that that “what counts” is what is said by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, “and that’s what we don’t have”.

If the proposal did not proceed then it was “on them”, he said.

Yes, and this is all clear whataboutism. And lazy at that. So that means we both think Hamas should stop using civilians as human shields right? Sweet, tell me when they stop. And I’m gonna just ignore your attempt to equate Hamas charter with 11 points, that’s just silly on its face :)