|
Mayor Dave posted:Yeah, I don't think I've ever really heard right-wing types talk about overturning Prop 13. Not to say you haven't, but it's a massive benefit for both corporate and wealthy long-term property owners. Consider Disneyland: It's also a fairly clever trick in wine country like Sonoma, basically you split the vineyard ownership among multiple people to meet the 50 percent loophole and then don't have to pay any additional taxes despite doing piles of upgrades to the property. It's all good though since greatly local governments would only waste the money on things like school or libraries.
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So why do firebreathers hate it? Do you have any specific quotes on what they said? I'm genuinely curious, I used to listen to a fair bit of right wing radio back in the day and they would always talk about prop 13 being the gold standard of the Everyman fighting against excessive taxation. They would also have the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on frequently to talk up whatever new anti-tax schemes they were dreaming up too.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
quote:The main thing that drove prop 13 was the image of the poor grandma getting forced out of her home by big property taxes, Counterpoint: Most grandma homeowners have already paid off their drat mortgages... quote:not to mention the idea of tax cuts for everyone has lots of appeal to your average voter. I'm beginning to realize that tax cuts often have a sinister motive, not a pragmatic and budgetary one. (Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, as I'm sure there are plenty). Tax increases, however, seem to address things that truly need more funding. The only corruption I can see happening is higher-ups hoarding our cash for themselves or government ineptitude. I see this as less of a problem than policies that cause wealth to accumulate while the lower and middle classes get shafted. quote:It also ended up being a big giveaway to corporations since they could avoid paying more property tax by holding onto the property even after doing big upgrades to the property. I initially thought it applied only to homes, not corporate property! Amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Do you have any specific quotes on what they said? I'm genuinely curious, I used to listen to a fair bit of right wing radio back in the day and they would always talk about prop 13 being the gold standard of the Everyman fighting against excessive taxation. They would also have the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on frequently to talk up whatever new anti-tax schemes they were dreaming up too. It certainly was a conservative coup in a now-liberal state, which is why the GOP fervently supports Prop 13. I could potentially see a conservative moderate being against Prop 13 because it's basically the definition of people voting for the state to give them money, which is precisely the kind of populist unsustainability that they often rage against when liberals do it with welfare entitlements. But it's an issue that few Californian homeowners are going to get worked up over, because they are the recipients of the handout. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:38 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It certainly was a conservative coup in a now-liberal state, which is why the GOP fervently supports Prop 13. I could potentially see a conservative moderate being against Prop 13 because it's basically the definition of people voting for the state to give them money, which is precisely the kind of populist unsustainability that they often rage against when liberals do it with welfare entitlements. But it's an issue that few Californian homeowners are going to get worked up over, because they are the recipients of the handout. Yeah it's the insidious nature of Prop 13 since it benefits a certain voting bloc(corporate property/"old" grandfathered in home owners) and over time people come to accept it as the status quo since it benefits them greatly. Also Prop 13 also had a clever poison pill wording which requires a 2/3 voting majority to either get rid of the law or even amend it which is not likely going to happen seeing how it benefitted certain groups really well. The GOP also from idealogical point of view is perfectly happy to give corporations big tax cuts such as Prop 13 but on the flip side gets meltdowns over social safety net spending as "entitlement programs" Also remember if you are new homeowner in California all the Prop 13 honey money doesn't apply to you, so enjoy a bigger tax burden than your neighbor who owned the same sort of house for many years. etalian fucked around with this message at 06:49 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you can find me another state where people are sitting on 400k houses they bought for 40k in the 70s where the median income for the state is about 30-40k a year then maybe you can use that state as a comparison. http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20130401/bci_data/median_income_table.htm code:code:quote:April 15, 2014 Your mythic single person making $30,000 and living in a $500,000 house by themselves is a stupid line of argument. You live near SD, so in your area: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html code:predicto posted:You could have a "poor granny" exemption based on actual income and assets predicto posted:They live their lives having other people carry more of the tax burden than they do, and not surprisingly, they aren't going to vote to change that. predicto posted:Oh, and don't believe any statistics you see from "The Tax Foundation." They are a business organization dedicated to cutting taxes, and manipulate and overstate every report they issue.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Has there been anything new about that Silicon Valley venture capitalist who proposed splitting California into multiple states? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/petition-to-split-california-into-six-states-gets-green-light/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Has there been anything new about that Silicon Valley venture capitalist who proposed splitting California into multiple states?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Has there been anything new about that Silicon Valley venture capitalist who proposed splitting California into multiple states? He's still "campaigning" as far as I'm aware.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What is wrong with people from Silicon Valley? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html quote:Ocean state would have no welfare, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Do you have any specific quotes on what they said? I'm genuinely curious, I used to listen to a fair bit of right wing radio back in the day and they would always talk about prop 13 being the gold standard of the Everyman fighting against excessive taxation. They would also have the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association on frequently to talk up whatever new anti-tax schemes they were dreaming up too. Slightly paraphrased (not exaggerated, it just isn't a word-for-word quote. She said stuff like this all the time) from one particular ex-coworker: "Prop 13 lets Illegals and people living in Oakland and Temescal pay basically nothing in rent while everybody else has to pay through the nose. If we could just get rid of it [Prop 13] and let the free market work, rents would plummet and normal people could afford to buy houses in the Bay." She was an out-and-proud Republican. We work in sales and she'd use politics like that as an opener for potential clients. It was a bold tactic and one I've opted not to emulate. Other people who tend to agree with her politically have said similar things. One guy used it as an aside while justifying other states sending their homeless to SF. His only problem with it is that they were sending their homeless here as opposed to us sending our homeless there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Has there been anything new about that Silicon Valley venture capitalist who proposed splitting California into multiple states? I've been accosted 3 times in the last two weeks by his signature gatherers. He's still going for it as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What is wrong with people from Silicon Valley? A lot, but that guy does not represent everyone or even a majority of people in Silicon Valley. Internet self-diagnosed aspberger libertarians notwithstanding. Keep in mind that high tech only employs like 15% of people in the bay area. It gets a lot of media attention and is definitely an important sector here, but Google/Facebook/Apple employees are not representative of the region or its people. (I get annoyed being lumped in, even though I work at a big software company, because most of us are actually just normal people with social skills and well-rounded lives. Startup slaves and venture capitalists and stereotypical programmer nerds are a minority.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Slightly paraphrased (not exaggerated, it just isn't a word-for-word quote. She said stuff like this all the time) from one particular ex-coworker: Sounds like your republican sample consists of idiots who don't have a clue what prop 13 actually does; they're against it because they're stupid, rather than because of an actual ideological alignment with the actual law.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
That's entirely possible. It's a small sample size because I try to avoid rightwing lunatics, but since it seemed common based on my (limited) set I thought it was a trend.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
I just want to say the grandmother story definitely exists. My elderly mother owns two houses, living in one and renting the other. Rent and social security make up her only income. Her rent is among the most reasonable values in town when we look at Craigslist etc. If you raise property taxes on her dramatically, she will just have to raise the rent, which will probably squeeze out the people living there now. I'm not saying Mom should be considered a savior, but they're a nice family who couldn't believe they didn't have to live in apartments anymore. This feels a bit out of the misguided logic of what last crashed the economy. Though nowhere near as illogical as sub-prime loans, the sales pitch behind predatory lending was that they were helping anybody who wanted to own a home have the chance to. Of course, this is how right wingers distorted it into an attack on the Community Investment Act (and Those People), but what we learned was that it's not in everybody's financial interest to buy with an eye on total ownership. The argument here seems to be that people who want to buy, can't, and one reason is rentals. California has so much demand (because it's pretty) that you'll probably never have to make bad loan decisions, because there's a wealthy person looking to buy for every home that goes on sale. So does that mean rentals should be encouraged to sell? Because if you do that, you're removing one of the few ways for people to move into a home they couldn't afford at market value. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 10:46 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Your point is lovely enough, stop making things up on top of it. You do understand "household" typically means multiple incomes, right?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I just want to say the grandmother story definitely exists. My elderly mother owns two houses, living in one and renting the other. Rent and social security make up her only income. Her rent is among the most reasonable values in town when we look at Craigslist etc. If you raise property taxes on her dramatically, she will just have to raise the rent, which will probably squeeze out the people living there now. I'm not saying Mom should be considered a savior, but they're a nice family who couldn't believe they didn't have to live in apartments anymore. People invested in dropping Prop 13 aren't interested in the human element because they have such a boner for sticking it to boomers and corporations. They're fully invested in the "tax more" mentality even though CA is raking the taxes in at the moment. Really, they're just the next group of speculators looking to manipulate the CA house market and gently caress over the middle class for their own ideology. Prop 13 actually came into being because someone killed themselves over not being able to pay their property taxes and being forced to sell their home. It's keeping tons of people closer to their place of work and needed services in a state with overall lovely public transportation and frankly the argument that the state doesn't get enough money from everyone is bullshit. CA still needs its low-skilled workers to survive, and with the job market at that scale already swamped with cheap labor, prop 13 is one of the few things enabling families to remain in their homes in the face of pressure to sell from all kinds of different interest groups, whether they are property management speculators or neo-liberals towing the ideological line that somehow CA would be better if we moved all the poors further out and juiced them for a shitload more in taxes. It's basically a bunch of whiners complaining that it's not fair Californians came together and democratically decided to insulate themselves from volatile market forces and speculation. Obviously they should submit to their intellectual superiors who know what's best for them and be forced to sell their homes for the good of glorious redistribution instead of keeping the property in the family and obtaining more economic freedom. It sucks that corporations managed to get advantages along with homeowners when the measure passed, but nobody with a brain is going to vote against their own interests for the sake of neo-liberal fairness and gently caress themselves over.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
I got approached by two signature gatherers for that harebrained scheme to split California up into six states, and they just weakly said "I know this is probably never going to happen in my lifetime...but it would be nice if it did..." after I told them I couldn't support the prop in good faith. Maybe I'd have had more respect for them if they'd been more honest and said "we want to give the GOP a free six to eight new senate seats".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
I always felt a north/south or north/central/south split might be doable since each area has a decent economy, but a six way split is nuts. Imagine the water rights nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I always felt a north/south or north/central/south split might be doable since each area has a decent economy, but a six way split is nuts. North/South split actually makes sense in a lot of ways. We should be either paying or somehow compensating the North for all the water we use but as it stands we just get it by default because we're in the state. There's a good chance Socal would go red in elections, though. Lots of military and Catholics here.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:(I get annoyed being lumped in, even though I work at a big software company, because most of us are actually just normal people with social skills and well-rounded lives. Startup slaves and venture capitalists and stereotypical programmer nerds are a minority.) You should look up the statistics on political contributions of Apple/Google/Facebook employees. It's a matter of public record and they are overwhelmingly toward Democrats. The rank and file in the tech sector is fairly liberal, yes even the engineers. The CEOs of Silicon Valley have a lot more in common with CEOs of other industries than they do with their own employees. (Who could have guessed?)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
"California has so much demand (because it's pretty) that you'll probably never have to make bad loan decisions, because there's a wealthy person looking to buy for every home that goes on sale. " Hahahahaha. Welcome to every real estate boom/bust ever. In fact, it turned out, come the crash, that "wealthy" people didn't actually want to live in Richmond or Alameda, they were just priced out of the places they wanted to live. In a boom market, things that are less desirable or undesirable rise in price just like the jewels. When the only way to get a jewel is to pre-bid with an all-cash order and no inspections *before* the house gets on the market, auction fever sets in on everything. There's a simple way to cut the Gordian knot of "but old peoples". Kill Prop 13, freeze property taxes when the owner hits 65. Solves that owner's problems, makes the elderly less inclined to come out in force because I've got mine, and expands the tax base.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I got approached by two signature gatherers for that harebrained scheme to split California up into six states, and they just weakly said "I know this is probably never going to happen in my lifetime...but it would be nice if it did..." after I told them I couldn't support the prop in good faith. Maybe I'd have had more respect for them if they'd been more honest and said "we want to give the GOP a free six to eight new senate seats". Actually the GOP would lose out pretty terribly if California split into six states. The GOP would pick up Central and Jefferson States, but the DNC would pick up North, West, South*, and Silicon Valley. And the DNC would be competitive in Central fairly quickly, given the political trends. *South would be a little soft for the Dems, but it still would lean blue. Given how much the papers are freaking out over the idea of splitting up the state, it's pretty clear that the establishment isn't ready for the concept. But Californians deserve fair national representation and splitting up the state is the only way of constitutionally doing that. It should be remembered that even the smallest proposed state of Jefferson would have nearly twice the population of Wyoming's half-million. West and South California would still be 20 times larger. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/21/california-six-states-plan-tim-draper/5673283/ http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/california/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:46 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I wonder how long that six-way split would last if it ever passes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
natetimm posted:North/South split actually makes sense in a lot of ways. We should be either paying or somehow compensating the North for all the water we use but as it stands we just get it by default because we're in the state. There's a good chance Socal would go red in elections, though. Lots of military and Catholics here. It's pretty unlikely that SoCal would go red. Romney lost Los Angeles by more than 1 million votes. When you look at California in a population distortion map, the liberal dominance appears more clearly. What remains of the California conservatives live out East, and for the most part they are dwarfed by the Pacific city populations and are now being engulfed by liberal economic immigrants. http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1007 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:I wonder how long that six-way split would last if it ever passes. Considering that it cuts off the Central Valley from all its water sources, I'm guessing not long.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I just want to say the grandmother story definitely exists. My elderly mother owns two houses, living in one and renting the other. Rent and social security make up her only income. Her rent is among the most reasonable values in town when we look at Craigslist etc. If you raise property taxes on her dramatically, she will just have to raise the rent, which will probably squeeze out the people living there now. I'm not saying Mom should be considered a savior, but they're a nice family who couldn't believe they didn't have to live in apartments anymore. Well, two things: first, your grandma owns two California homes outright? Congratulations, she's probably a wealthy person. OK, so she's using a big chunk of her wealth as an investment and living off of the proceeds - that's the rental house. But if her property taxes went up and she felt that she couldn't afford to pay them with that arrangement, she could sell the rental property, and take the proceeds - which, if the house has a median value in California, could be like $400k - and invest them in bonds and then live on the income. A property is not the only way to make your nest egg pay for you. Second: a rental house that goes up for sale is not necessarily taken off of the rental market. Plenty of investors buy properties to rent out. If the property already has a renter occupying it, and that renter is a good one, that's an incentive to a cash investor to buy it as an investment property. Of course, if that rent is well below market, the tenant might well get booted. But one of the reasons rents are super high is because of people clinging to homes they'd otherwise sell because they've got such fantastic grandfathered Prop 13 tax rates. I made assumptions about her property values here, of course, but if her properties are worth a lot less than the average, then her taxes would not be as high either. Generally speaking though, someone who owns outright two homes in California is sitting on upwards of three quarters of a million dollars in equity, and shouldn't really be thought of as "poor." natetimm posted:You do understand "household" typically means multiple incomes, right? The first number he gave was individual income, at $48k. You quoted individual income in part to use the smallest possible number you could to compare to the big number of median home value, but when it comes to home ownership, it's household income that matters because most homeowners are married couples with two incomes. You should address the fact that you said individuals in california average "$30k to $40k" and yet his number says $48k. natetimm posted:People invested in dropping Prop 13 aren't interested in the human element because they have such a boner for sticking it to boomers and corporations. The "human element" is a sob story designed to tug at your heart strings; and, of course, most of us arguing with you have specifically addressed it anyway. An end to Prop 13 does not have to ignore people with low wealth/incomes who would be disproportionately impacted by it. Several goons have suggested options. quote:They're fully invested in the "tax more" mentality even though CA is raking the taxes in at the moment. This is dishonest and you know it. Several goons, including myself, have specifically pointed out that an end to prop 13 can (and in my opnion should) be revenue-neutral. That's not "tax more," it's "tax more fairly." CA is currently "raking in" taxes that land disproportionately on people who bought homes more recently, while giving a disproportionate break to people who bought homes a longer time ago. And of course, commercial property too. quote:Really, they're just the next group of speculators looking to manipulate the CA house market and gently caress over the middle class for their own ideology. You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. It is the middle class specifically that would benefit from an end to prop 13. Prove me wrong. quote:Prop 13 actually came into being because someone killed themselves over not being able to pay their property taxes and being forced to sell their home. No. Prop 13 came into being because businesses recognized an opportunity to manipulate voters into giving them a gigantic tax break. They used the tragedy you refer to as the face of their enormous money grab, and millions of voters bought into it. An honest attempt to help out people whose property taxes were unaffordable would not have included commercial property. It would still have been misguided, but at least it would have been honest. quote:It's keeping tons of people closer to their place of work and needed services in a state with overall lovely public transportation and frankly the argument that the state doesn't get enough money from everyone is bullshit. Well this is a new argument. How so? Are you suggesting that retired grandmas who owned their homes for 30+ years can't get to work if they have to sell and move into the burbs? The people protected the most by Prop 13 are the ones who have owned homes the longest - that's not the young, middle-class, have-to-get-to-work sector; it's older people, mostly retired or about to be. quote:CA still needs its low-skilled workers to survive, and with the job market at that scale already swamped with cheap labor, prop 13 is one of the few things enabling families to remain in their homes in the face of pressure to sell from all kinds of different interest groups, whether they are property management speculators or neo-liberals towing the ideological line that somehow CA would be better if we moved all the poors further out and juiced them for a shitload more in taxes. It's basically a bunch of whiners complaining that it's not fair Californians came together and democratically decided to insulate themselves from volatile market forces and speculation. Obviously they should submit to their intellectual superiors who know what's best for them and be forced to sell their homes for the good of glorious redistribution instead of keeping the property in the family and obtaining more economic freedom. It sucks that corporations managed to get advantages along with homeowners when the measure passed, but nobody with a brain is going to vote against their own interests for the sake of neo-liberal fairness and gently caress themselves over. So many people have addressed your claims and you still doggedly stick to them. I don't think anyone is getting through to you. Ending prop 13 is not a "neo liberal" idea. It's a liberal one, right at its core; one of the central tenets of liberalism is progressive taxation, while conservatives seek regressive tax policies. Prop 13 disproportionately benefits the wealthy landowners at the direct expense of the working class. Ending 13 is a liberal cause.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
We disagree with him so we must hate old people, the middle class and apple pie. QED. Jeez liberals why do you suck so bad!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, two things: first, your grandma owns two California homes outright? Congratulations, she's probably a wealthy person. OK, so she's using a big chunk of her wealth as an investment and living off of the proceeds - that's the rental house. But if her property taxes went up and she felt that she couldn't afford to pay them with that arrangement, she could sell the rental property, and take the proceeds - which, if the house has a median value in California, could be like $400k - and invest them in bonds and then live on the income. A property is not the only way to make your nest egg pay for you. It isn't JUST grannies who benefit, it's the notion that you get to pass the property to your family at the same tax rate instead of having the state step in and rake you over the coals because a bunch of speculators ran up the market. The reason 70% of Californians like prop 13 is because it allows them to leave the legacy of affordable housing to their descendants instead of being confiscated for "betterment of all" and the benefit of the supposedly free market. The people who want to repeal 13 are in the minority, not the other way around, and there's nothing wrong with the members of a democracy deciding they aren't going to let a bunch of tax and spend socialists and real estate speculators run off with their legacies they spent their lives working for. EDIT: It's essentially the same argument you're seeing in regards to gentrification in other states. Should a bunch of people with more money be able to flood a community, drive up the property values and force the original residents and their families, who may have lived there for generations, to leave because of the "free market"? Last I looked New York still had rent control and wasn't going broke. new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It isn't JUST grannies who benefit, it's the notion that you get to pass the property to your family at the same tax rate instead of having the state step in and rake you over the coals because a bunch of speculators ran up the market. The reason 70% of Californians like prop 13 is because it allows them to leave the legacy of affordable housing to their descendants instead of being confiscated for "betterment of all" and the benefit of the supposedly free market. So, basically, taxes are bad. Got it. Things like bridges and schools and firemen should be a la carte, to be paid for individually when needed. You have just switched from "Prop 13 is good because GRANNIES MIGHT SUFFER" to "Prop 13 is good because it moves houses out of the progressive tax system forever." Police protection for Granny's house has gone up in cost since she bought it. Road costs for Granny's house have gone up in cost since she bought it. You're saying that Granny's heirs shouldn't pay for those increases in cost (which were a hell of a lot more 2% per year since 1975) because what, exactly? Taxes are not just abstract bad things that make people suffer. Taxes actually pay for shared benefits and services. Granny's house is worth more than it was in 1975 because, in part, of the continuing maintenance money paid on town and county services. If town service costs had been capped at a compounded 2% per year, Granny's home would be in a slum.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I got approached by two signature gatherers for that harebrained scheme to split California up into six states, and they just weakly said "I know this is probably never going to happen in my lifetime...but it would be nice if it did..." after I told them I couldn't support the prop in good faith. Maybe I'd have had more respect for them if they'd been more honest and said "we want to give the GOP a free six to eight new senate seats". I asked in the GOP thread a few months ago why Texas doesn't do this, and it was pointed out to me that Congress is not going to come together to approve a one sided Senate-packing scheme. natetimm posted:North/South split actually makes sense in a lot of ways. We should be either paying or somehow compensating the North for all the water we use but as it stands we just get it by default because we're in the state. There's a good chance Socal would go red in elections, though. Lots of military and Catholics here. I have a massive loathing for Los Angeles that runs through some irrelevant elements of my daily life (such as their sports teams) and it mostly comes down to water? Why? Because I grew up in the north, where the south gets water on a friend deal for being in the state. Then I moved to Nevada, where Lake Mead is slowly drying and people who live nearby are seeing massive civic changes (no lawns allowed in new construction, for instance) because most of the remaining water was claimed by California half a century ago when Nevada wasn't near it's current size. As a result, it's easy to think of LA and picture the Kardashians in a pool of some other region's water. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It isn't JUST grannies who benefit, it's the notion that you get to pass the property to your family at the same tax rate instead of having the state step in and rake you over the coals because a bunch of speculators ran up the market. The reason 70% of Californians like prop 13 is because it allows them to leave the legacy of affordable housing to their descendants instead of being confiscated for "betterment of all" and the benefit of the supposedly free market. You just keep making poo poo up and ignoring everything people say that refutes you. Only 58% of Californians support Prop 13. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Poll-finds-support-for-Prop-13-change-4559564.php) And then you're conflating rent control & prop 13. Those are so very different and the fact you act like they are the same is just more of your dishonest argumentation. So now your argument is changing to the fact that old people deserve to make sure their houses can go to their kids and that the kids get to pay well below what their neighbor pays in property taxes. Edit: Your own example disproves your point....NY has property taxes that are more than 2x those in CA. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
I don't agree with Natetimm's rhetoric about socialist tax and spenders, but I agree with the general economics, but it's kind of hard for me not to since I'm one of the people you think are being libertarian tax-dodgers this time around. One thing that was overlooked in talking about the history of 13 is a dislike of local government around the time it was approved. The long effect of 13 is that cities became more dependent on the state government to give them money. I can only speak for Sonoma County, but in my lifetime that never seemed like too much of a limiting factor. City councils around here have resisted growth for the past few decades, only recently starting to relent. But one of the few ways to have higher taxation property is to have new developments that weren't in existence in the 70s. My hometown of ex-beatniks and hippies rejected a grocery store for Being Too Large and destroying the small town charm with it's big box retail designs (it helped that a locally-owned Whole Foods like store was helping fund the opposition to lock out competitors, but he had support of the most politically vocal residents.) They accepted a big box store years later only after losing at the ballot box twice. Meanwhile, the town to the south is larger but also infamous for rejecting growth proposals at City Hall is beginning to transform some of it's empty lands into development. My point is that if these cities were honestly hurting for money that deeply, they wouldn't spend have spent close to 20 years rejecting new buildings to be assessed at market value.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You just keep making poo poo up and ignoring everything people say that refutes you. The people who buy those new houses know the situation they are buying into, nobody is holding a gun to their head and saying "buy this house with taxes higher than your neighbor." The question is whether or not that person's feeling of entitlement trumps the democratic majority of people who want to continue to provide their families a place to live or a legacy through prop 13. It's absolutely a gentrification issue and Californians as a whole don't want to be forced out of their homes by speculators and people who bought into a situation with both eyes open. In 20 years the person who bought that house today is going to be receiving the same benefit through prop 13 as long as they keep their property. Everyone benefits from it eventually, and it's a stupid idea to repeal it just because someone who just bought in isn't seeing the benefit RIGHT NOW.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The people who buy those new houses know the situation they are buying into, nobody is holding a gun to their head and saying "buy this house with taxes higher than your neighbor." The question is whether or not that person's feeling of entitlement trumps the democratic majority of people who want to continue to provide their families a place to live or a legacy through prop 13. It's absolutely a gentrification issue and Californians as a whole don't want to be forced out of their homes by speculators and people who bought into a situation with both eyes open. In 20 years the person who bought that house today is going to be receiving the same benefit through prop 13 as long as they keep their property. Everyone benefits from it eventually, and it's a stupid idea to repeal it just because someone who just bought in isn't seeing the benefit RIGHT NOW. Everyone who is a homeowner you mean. gently caress renters am I right? Those 44% of Californians can suck it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The people who buy those new houses know the situation they are buying into, nobody is holding a gun to their head and saying "buy this house with taxes higher than your neighbor." The question is whether or not that person's feeling of entitlement trumps the democratic majority of people who want to continue to provide their families a place to live or a legacy through prop 13. It's absolutely a gentrification issue and Californians as a whole don't want to be forced out of their homes by speculators and people who bought into a situation with both eyes open. In 20 years the person who bought that house today is going to be receiving the same benefit through prop 13 as long as they keep their property. Everyone benefits from it eventually, and it's a stupid idea to repeal it just because someone who just bought in isn't seeing the benefit RIGHT NOW. Yeah, makes sense. I mean, you probably should just be born into a family that already owns a house anyway. Those suckers who weren't smart enough to invest in homes before they were born, or have parents put their house in a trust, well, they're probably worth vilifying.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Yeah, makes sense. I mean, you probably should just be born into a family that already owns a house anyway. Those suckers who weren't smart enough to invest in homes before they were born, or have parents put their house in a trust, well, they're probably worth vilifying. Except eliminating prop 13 isn't going to do poo poo for those people. The idea that getting rid of it is somehow going to magically make houses super affordable for your average renter is ridiculous. It'll just end up with a bunch of property investment and management corporations scooping them up and making the money instead of allowing working folks to pass an affordable house to their kids. It's unfortunate everyone couldn't buy at the ideal time, but it's a giant slice of crab mentality that people are openly arguing for forcing people out of their homes because they happened to benefit over time.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Except eliminating prop 13 isn't going to do poo poo for those people. The idea that getting rid of it is somehow going to magically make houses super affordable for your average renter is ridiculous. It'll just end up with a bunch of property investment and management corporations scooping them up and making the money instead of allowing working folks to pass an affordable house to their kids. It's unfortunate everyone couldn't buy at the ideal time, but it's a giant slice of crab mentality that people are openly arguing for forcing people out of their homes because they happened to benefit over time. I realize this is anecdotal(as much as the honest working family that wants to keep their house), but my neighbors kids are in their 40s, smoke pot all day, and are basically able to live off sky-high rent they're able to charge, because the renter market is insane in San Francisco. They don't have to maintain their property, and it's essentially a weird slum-lord situation. At some point, 'passing down an affordable house' eventually becomes a method to abuse market inequalities, and make bank without really contributing back, whatsoever. It seems to me like people are essentially getting a free ride out of an investment made a generation ago. Condos are blowing up in the city this year, and we have this waterfront issue on our ballot a second time, it seems like they're pretty much going to get their way eventually, no matter what.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I realize this is anecdotal(as much as the honest working family that wants to keep their house), but my neighbors kids are in their 40s, smoke pot all day, and are basically able to live off sky-high rent they're able to charge, because the renter market is insane in San Francisco. They don't have to maintain their property, and it's essentially a weird slum-lord situation. At some point, 'passing down an affordable house' eventually becomes a method to abuse market inequalities, and make bank without really contributing back, whatsoever. It seems to me like people are essentially getting a free ride out of an investment made a generation ago. Condos are blowing up in the city this year, and we have this waterfront issue on our ballot a second time, it seems like they're pretty much going to get their way eventually, no matter what. I know lots of people whose only method to stay near the area they work in and near the services they need is through Prop 13. I work on a military base in Coronado and the vast majority of people who work here and own houses probably average 50k a year and are able to maintain a reasonable distance to work and services due to prop 13. These people's livelihoods aren't going to stop revolving around their place of employment, and forcing them out of their homes and further out of town for the sake of tax income and gentrification is only going to cause more traffic, pollution and stress where it isn't really necessary. I can understand the frustration new buyeers have with people who were grandfathered in, and like I said I'm in favor of repealing 13 for business properties. I just don't see it as a net gain to price people out of their own houses over a serious case of sour grapes. Hell, even add a tax if the property is rented, but it's tough to make ends meet in CA and letting people continue to have a place for their family and sustain already-built communities is a net good for society, even if it costs the state a little more in money and logistics.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:45
|
|