|
The most efficient free market seems to dictate that we spend the most on rich kids and the least on poor kids. If that weren't maximally efficient, clearly the market would correct itself.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
If the schools in poor neighborhoods aren't sufficiently educating their students then people will move to neighborhoods where the schools do a better job and the poor neighborhoods will go out of business.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What is the point of segregation if all schools are equally funded? That isn't what America is about I see you've been going to my city council meetings too. Our city has built 11 schools in the last decade but some residents are upset that with the last bond measure some other schools in the district finally updated the 7+ year old classroom computers. Of course they're the families that used to work on the farms that we plowed over to build our giant houses on.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What is the point of segregation if all schools are equally funded? That isn't what America is about Has an economist studied how much of a house's value is based on the perceived quality of the school? If two identical houses are across the street, how much more is the one that sends their kids to a PA school vs. a EPA school?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The housing market is miserably inflated still throughout much of CA. It's not uncommon for people to have bought in the last 20-30 years to have a house that's now supposedly worth 10 times what they paid for it. Most of these people don't want to move and can't afford a ten times increase in their property tax because wages haven't increased hardly at all in comparison to cost of living in the last 10-20 years. Their families who stand to inherit the property aren't exactly swimming in dough either. If they realigned the property tax to current values a shitload of people would lose their homes simply on the tax increase alone. It's great if you want to sell, but a massive influx of people being forced to sell due to taxes would be bad for the economy and housing market overall. So what? Reduce the overall tax rate and make everyone pay a fair share. Costs go up with inflation and residents shouldn't get out of paying for them just because they bought in at the right time. This is just one more way previous generations are stealing from the next ones.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Has an economist studied how much of a house's value is based on the perceived quality of the school? If two identical houses are across the street, how much more is the one that sends their kids to a PA school vs. a EPA school? Economists are good, but they are really just ivory tower elitist wanking about what is actually happening on the ground. Industry leaders and middle class homebuyers determine where the market is set, not tweed wearing dorks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Maybe along with a progressive tax we could fund schools at a state level instead of a local one. When the Palo alto kids get the same funding as the east Palo alto kids, maybe we'd see more political effort put into funding schools. You may want to reconsider this, given that Oregon's public schools have been funded at the state level in the 1990s. The results have not been good.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The most efficient free market seems to dictate that we spend the most on rich kids and the least on poor kids. If that weren't maximally efficient, clearly the market would correct itself. Fun experiment: If you went to a middle-class suburban school district, compare the per-pupil spending to the per-pupil spending of the nearest city/poor district. The results will probably not be what you expect!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:You may want to reconsider this, given that Oregon's public schools have been funded at the state level in the 1990s. The results have not been good. Agreed, it's been a disaster here in Oregon and in Washington. When funding is assured, conservative communities have no interest in supporting their schools and are happy to rely on the state to provide money, while the progressive communities have to fight tooth and nail and increase the entire state's school funding structure just to maintain existing services. Rather than tackle the intractable funding issue, progressives turn to private academies and conservatives turn to deregulated charter schools, with the poor being left to their own devices. Basically the lesson to be learned from the Oregon experiment is that state-level funding merely insulates voters from their actions.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
California's system is actually a bit of a hybrid in that schools get local funding via property taxes, and then the state gives additional funding as needed to bring each school up to the minimum limit. This is calculated with some complex formula that takes into account poo poo like school size, average daily attendance, etc., but the state average is about ~$5,500 per pupil IIRC. I can't remember the exact numbers, but somewhere around 95% of California's schools have per-pupil funding within $500 of the state average because of this (if someone wants to dig up the actual data please do, I haven't been able to find it lately). Of course there are outliers, especially on the high end. If a school takes in a more than their calculated limit from property taxes then it won't get any additional state funding at all, but the state doesn't take the excess away or anything - the two schools in the rich part of my town get ~$16,000 per pupil.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Don't all the really good public school districts raise a ton of money through PTA fundraisers?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:So what? Reduce the overall tax rate and make everyone pay a fair share. Costs go up with inflation and residents shouldn't get out of paying for them just because they bought in at the right time. This is just one more way previous generations are stealing from the next ones. It isn't a "fair share" when the markets are wildly out of wack due to speculation and wages haven't risen to compensate. Your average Californian can't afford to buy a home already, and all you're advocating for is forcing the rest of the middle class who bought earlier to be forced out of their homes to satisfy your idea of neo-liberal fairness. Luckily prop 13 is a political third rail and idiots like you are few and far between.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It isn't a "fair share" when the markets are wildly out of wack due to speculation and wages haven't risen to compensate. Your average Californian can't afford to buy a home already, and all you're advocating for is forcing the rest of the middle class who bought earlier to be forced out of their homes to satisfy your idea of neo-liberal fairness. Luckily prop 13 is a political third rail and idiots like you are few and far between. Ahh yes, the well known neoliberal lunacy of having everyone pay taxes to sustain society.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Ahh yes, the well known neoliberal lunacy of having everyone pay taxes to sustain society. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people literally cannot afford to pay the rates you're demanding without pulling up stakes, selling their homes, and moving. Turning a bunch of middle class property owners into renters again and moving them further from city centers so the wealthy can swoop in and buy their property isn't a net gain for society. Sometimes issues are more complicated than "gimme money".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people literally cannot afford to pay the rates you're demanding without pulling up stakes, selling their homes, and moving. Turning a bunch of middle class property owners into renters again and moving them further from city centers so the wealthy can swoop in and buy their property isn't a net gain for society. Sometimes issues are more complicated than "gimme money". As opposed to today, where we merely deny the young the ability to become homeowners in the first place as the wealthy still swoop in and buy the property of the middle-class when the latter no longer have a need for it. But since the young don't have skin in the game I guess it's okay to do it to them. gently caress you kids, got mine. If you want affordable housing so much why don't you suck it up and move out to Richmond? What? You want good schools for your children too? Well maybe you should have had the foresight to buy a house in Palo Alto 5 years before you were born. Someone has to pay the price (literally) for the artificially suppressed property tax regime and become a generation of itinerant workers. We're just arguing over whether current homeowners or the next generation should be the ones to "suck it up and take one for the team." Normalization of house prices will be a bitch, but it'll crash faster if Prop. 13 forces a glut of houses to enter the market, driving prices down due to oversupply, as opposed to keeping prices high long enough to complete the mass transfer of property from individual homeowners to the rentier property management companies who, other than the CEO of the latest startup and the occasional mainland Chinese factory owner looking for a place to put his hard cash for safekeeping, are the only ones able to afford the prices at today's rates. But like you said, 13 is a third rail so suck it up you kids. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:As opposed to today, where we merely deny the young the ability to become homeowners in the first place as the wealthy still swoop in and buy the property of the middle-class when the latter no longer have a need for it. People who think there's an income problem in CA probably aren't aware we already pay the 4th highest taxes in the nation, even with prop 13 the way it is. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-one-year-1977-2011 Being young and jealous of people who own property isn't a good enough reason to price them out of their housing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
natetimm posted:People who think there's an income problem in CA probably aren't aware we already pay the 4th highest taxes in the nation, even with prop 13 the way it is. I'll give you a hint: Its not property taxes preventing people from buying homes in California.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'll give you a hint: Its not property taxes preventing people from buying homes in California. No, it's rampant speculation driving the cost of houses up, which is why getting rid of prop 13 is a bad deal for Californians in general. The housing market is run by a bunch of crooks knowingly keeping the bubble as big as possible to profit, and using their inflated estimates to inflict what some people deem to be a "fair" system of taxation would just result in a shitload of people being forced to sell. It's nice if you want to take the windfall on your house and move out of state, but if you want to try to make a living here in the land of expensive everything prop 13 is one of the things that still makes that possible for many people.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Prop 13 has been devastating for the Californian state and economy, and buoys up the price of property for the benefit of land speculators and commercial real estate. Which is precisely what it was designed to do, seeing as it was developed by anti-tax conservative nativists. Measure 5, in Oregon, has had a pretty similar effect, so it's not like there's something unique going on in California. When you make real estate into a tax shelter, people are going to take advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Prop 13 has been devastating for the Californian state and economy, and buoys up the price of property for the benefit of land speculators and commercial real estate. Which is precisely what it was designed to do, seeing as it was developed by anti-tax conservative nativists. Measure 5, in Oregon, has had a pretty similar effect, so it's not like there's something unique going on in California. When you make real estate into a tax shelter, people are going to take advantage of it. Devastating in a way where Californians are already paying the 4th highest taxes in the country even without it? I've got no problem removing it on commercial or business properties but forcing everyday homeowners to shoulder the burden of rampant overspeculation through taxes is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's rampant speculation driving the cost of houses up, which is why getting rid of prop 13 is a bad deal for Californians in general. The housing market is run by a bunch of crooks knowingly keeping the bubble as big as possible to profit, and using their inflated estimates to inflict what some people deem to be a "fair" system of taxation would just result in a shitload of people being forced to sell. It's nice if you want to take the windfall on your house and move out of state, but if you want to try to make a living here in the land of expensive everything prop 13 is one of the things that still makes that possible for many people. Uh do you actually have a source for that? Because property tax is such a small portion of both total cost of home ownership and total tax burden that I doubt that low property taxes are actually making new home ownership viable. Meanwhile, the housing market is no where near as stable as your prop 13 theory would propose.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh do you actually have a source for that? Because property tax is such a small portion of both total cost of home ownership and total tax burden that I doubt that low property taxes are actually making new home ownership viable. Even with your dumbass cherry-picked graph that primarily shows the housing bubble bursting and no other trends over 30-40 years, the prices are already almost back up where they were pre-burst. People who bought houses for around 100k in the 80s and early 90s cant afford to pay taxes on the 350-500k their houses have artificially ballooned up to and prop 13 insulates them from that bullshit. Why are a bunch of leftists arguing for a situation that lets speculators and capitalists drive middle class people out of their homes?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Yes, why would leftists want to harm the petty bourgeoisie
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Even with your dumbass cherry-picked graph that primarily shows the housing bubble bursting and no other trends over 30-40 years, the prices are already almost back up where they were pre-burst. People who bought houses for around 100k in the 80s and early 90s cant afford to pay taxes on the 350-500k their houses have artificially ballooned up to and prop 13 insulates them from that bullshit. You realize there's something called inflation right? Lets use your example. Say they bought that house in 1987, so your theoretical 100k home would be worth at least 200k now due to inflation alone. Prop 13 only ensures that cities can never benefit from housing bubbles only deal with the impacts of housing crashes. natetimm posted:Why are a bunch of leftists arguing for a situation that lets speculators and capitalists drive middle class people out of their homes? Nice strawman.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Prop 13 has been devastating for the Californian state and economy, and buoys up the price of property for the benefit of land speculators and commercial real estate. Which is precisely what it was designed to do, seeing as it was developed by anti-tax conservative nativists. Measure 5, in Oregon, has had a pretty similar effect, so it's not like there's something unique going on in California. When you make real estate into a tax shelter, people are going to take advantage of it. Yeah it was a classic example for well meaning stupidity in the direct democracy concept, not to mention the hilarity of entitled home owners being able to vote in a big tax cut for themselves. Not to mention how it constrained home turnover/market supply since it provides a big incentive for people to just buy and hold properties until hell freezes over. Was also a big windfall for corporate interests given how Prop 13 also allowed them to escape higher assessments for their property by making sure the same holding company held the property. Similar to houses, a commercial property would only get reassessments after a change of ownership. A similar measure in Oregon also had predictable bad side effects for muni fiscal health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_5_(1990) etalian fucked around with this message at 17:55 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize there's something called inflation right? Lets use your example. Say they bought that house in 1987, so your theoretical 100k home would be worth at least 200k now due to inflation alone. Prop 13 only ensures that cities can never benefit from housing bubbles only deal with the impacts of housing crashes. Prop 13 allows property taxes to rise at the rate of inflation. It isn't a lock-in at one rate. It's also not a situation where people have houses worth double now, it's more in the neighborhood of 5-6 times. You're talking about a tax liability rising from around 1k/year to around 6k/year. 500 bucks a month for property tax is loving ridiculous for your average middle-class family.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Devastating in a way where Californians are already paying the 4th highest taxes in the country even without it? I've got no problem removing it on commercial or business properties but forcing everyday homeowners to shoulder the burden of rampant overspeculation through taxes is bullshit. You seem to be talking as if the fact that people are locked into property taxes based on 1970s and 1980s home prices, effectively starving the tax base, isn't part of the problem (though the supermajority needed to pass other spending/taxation changes plays a role too). And keep in mind that the new homebuyers are paying that 1% on property worth upwards of $500k rather than the <$100k it was worth in the 70s or 80s, so they're paying 5-10 times as much compared to Boomer households that had the "luck" of being alive in 1981 to buy their house when it was last up for sale. And as for "speculators driving the price gains" I don't think you're acknowledging the strong incentive to buy and hold property instead of selling it, effectively depressing the number of units on the market, driving costs even higher. Granted, reversing Prop. 13 isn't going to be a silver bullet even if it WERE to happen, since there are tons of other factors driving house prices up (like NIMBYism holding back development of condos and other denser development which would otherwise help to release some of the buyer-side pressure caused by California simply being a desirable place to live, never mind the presence of speculators and property management firms with money to spare)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 allows property taxes to rise at the rate of inflation. It isn't a lock-in at one rate. It's also not a situation where people have houses worth double now, it's more in the neighborhood of 5-6 times. You're talking about a tax liability rising from around 1k/year to around 6k/year. 500 bucks a month for property tax is loving ridiculous for your average middle-class family. Right, your average middle-class family with a $900,000 property. I mean this entire line of conversation is rather absurd isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 allows property taxes to rise at the rate of inflation. At a maximum of 2% per year. What? The long-term inflation rate is 3-4%? You don't say!  natetimm posted:You're talking about a tax liability rising from around 1k/year to around 6k/year. 500 bucks a month for property tax is loving ridiculous for your average middle-class family. Except that this is exactly the rate that today's middle-class families have to pay if they don't already have the fortune of having purchased their house 3-4 years before they were born, since the property value is reassessed upon sale of the house. But I guess this is okay since they don't already own a house.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Prop 13 increases the property tax well below the rate of inflation. It's one thing to be removed from the effects of property speculation, but you need to account for inflation. Edit: beaten by phone posting Spazzle fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Right, your average middle-class family with a $900,000 property. I mean this entire line of conversation is rather absurd isn't it? Who has owned the property for something like 20 years to have such a low tax bill (and is sitting on a shitload of wealth because of it), who must now be subsidized by all the new owners near them who have to pay actual tax rates. It's not like the people paying lower property tax than they would if they just bought the house have access to less services. making GBS threads on new owners and younger folks to subsidize people who have actual wealth is a horrible policy. It also makes people not hate property bubbles, which they should unless they are planning on selling right then. Prop 13 is a blight, and really is horrible at commercial real estate. Owners can pay taxes at absurdly low levels while getting to charge market rates for rent, meanwhile services are paid for by all the normal folks. The time to do away with it is right now as we're inflating another bubble, but I doubt it'll ever happen - too much money is wrapped up in that system, and it's too profitable for a handful of powerful people.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Right, your average middle-class family with a $900,000 property. I mean this entire line of conversation is rather absurd isn't it? Try your math again there, bub.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Who has owned the property for something like 20 years to have such a low tax bill (and is sitting on a shitload of wealth because of it), who must now be subsidized by all the new owners near them who have to pay actual tax rates. It's not like the people paying lower property tax than they would if they just bought the house have access to less services. making GBS threads on new owners and younger folks to subsidize people who have actual wealth is a horrible policy. It also makes people not hate property bubbles, which they should unless they are planning on selling right then. That wealth only exists if you sell your house, you're acting like these people are sitting on bales of money, they aren't. I've got no problem eliminating it for commercial real estate but advocating tearing people out of their homes to get at their "wealth" is just sour grapes.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
So you're really just advocating for a lower property tax in general then, right? Nothing to do with prop 13 (in that it limits how much property tax can increase year to year).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Xandu posted:So you're really just advocating for a lower property tax in general then, right? Nothing to do with prop 13 (in that it limits how much property tax can increase year to year). Absolutely. Binding state income to a form of taxation so intrinsically linked to developers and speculators is a terrible idea. The taxation system should be making it easier for working people to own property, not progressively harder, and the people arguing for the right to divvy up some working stiff's "wealth" because they resent their own tax rate need to look at what is really bothering them more closely. On the residential side, prop 13 absolutely protects average Californians. In a state where the median home price in in the 300-400k territory and the income per capita is somewhere around 30k, the idea that you need to find a way to squeeze another 500 bucks a month out of people who are mostly coming into the time of their lives where they are going to be on fixed or government-assisted income is just bullshit. It's a bunch of Boomer and old person-hating being perpetrated by a generation that resents that they don't have it as good as previous ones. Once again, the people who own most of the wealth have managed to create a situation where the actual poor are clamoring for a bigger share of the working poor's assets instead of trying to get it out of deeper pockets.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
I strongly suspect that the median income of home owners is substantially higher than 30k.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I strongly suspect that the median income of home owners is substantially higher than 30k. I'm using this as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_income The income for homeowners is going to vary on when they bought the property and how many income-generating adults live in the property. Also, by region. Whichever way you slice it, owning property in CA is becoming more and more of a thing only rich folks can do unless you're somehow grandfathered in under prop 13. EDIT: Or you want to live somewhere super undesirable.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It's a bunch of Boomer and old person-hating being perpetrated by a generation that resents that they don't have it as good as previous ones. Yeah it's all apart hating old people who were smart enough to vote themselves a big tax cut, while muni services get underfunded not to mention all the other problems such as distorting the market due to the buy and hold mentality.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah it's all apart hating old people who were smart enough to vote themselves a big tax cut, while muni services get underfunded not to mention all the other problems such as distorting the market due to the buy and hold mentality. The idea that Californians don't pay enough tax is a myth. We pay the 4th highest in the nation, even with prop 13. Also what's wrong with people who want to buy property and keep it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
natetimm posted:The idea that Californians don't pay enough tax is a myth. We pay the 4th highest in the nation, even with prop 13. Also what's wrong with people who want to buy property and keep it? It's a classic example of government intervention leading to market distortion, not to mention being yet another big subsidy for property owners especially for commercial properties. Also most sane counties for other states have the freedom to set property tax rates and assessments, while Prop 13 basically turned over muni finances to Sacramento. etalian fucked around with this message at 18:55 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:52
|
|