|
natetimm posted: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. Can you try for once to post without littering your post with lovely insults and straw man attacks?
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Can you try for once to post without littering your post with lovely insults and straw man attacks? Hey man I hear they're hiring mods maybe you can apply and do it for real instead of constantly from the back seat!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hey man I hear they're hiring mods maybe you can apply and do it for real instead of constantly from the back seat! At least you can continue your constant streak of hypocrisy. Seriously, why would an income-neutral replacement of prop 13 (reducing, say sales or low income tax brackets) force your "bought a house on a fixed income in 1970s and now its worth 1M and I don't want to cash out grandma" to actually sell her home? Property taxes, even brought up to closer to real value just isn't a big share of the tax burden (even in other states).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:At least you can continue your constant streak of hypocrisy. If it's so minute, whay argue for it in the first place?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If it's so minute, whay argue for it in the first place? So you agree it wouldn't kick people out of their homes then?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you agree it wouldn't kick people out of their homes then? No, I think you're trying to re-purpose what you claim to be a measure that would significantly reduce house prices by making more available (gee, I wonder how) into a "this isn't even a big deal"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, I think you're trying to re-purpose what you claim to be a measure that would significantly reduce house prices by making more available (gee, I wonder how) into a "this isn't even a big deal" So you are unwilling to actually engage here, and won't answer how you think an income neutral prop-13 replacement would have the harm you claim? We can nitpick the benefits of an income neutral alternatives, but first we have to resolve if there is agreement that an income neutral alternative wouldn't have the harms you claim removing prop 13 would. Otherwise, we have no foundation to work from.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you are unwilling to actually engage here, and won't answer how you think an income neutral prop-13 replacement would have the harm you claim? You'll probably have to get into the details more. Additionally if it's income neutral then why is it even worth proposing? There's obviously some kind of statistic you're trying to alter with the proposal and "income neutral" can mean a lot of things spread out over millions of people.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
natetimm posted: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. I guess I'm not convinced that keeping prop 13 is the best way to protect people of disadvantaged income, especially at the expense of rapidly changing populations/demographics. The idea of owning a single family 3 story home in SF, and paying less a month in rent than people do for a studio apartment seems hard to defend. I can totally understand why home owners are desperate to protect it, because if you look on the other side of the fence, and see how bad it's gotten, nobody wants to be plunged into that market. Seems to me, at least, stuff like prop 13 contributes to said market.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
It's worth proposing because if it's revenue neutral for wealthy property owners it will probably be a net benefit to renters who are by and large poor.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You'll probably have to get into the details more. Additionally if it's income neutral then why is it even worth proposing? There's obviously some kind of statistic you're trying to alter with the proposal and "income neutral" can mean a lot of things spread out over millions of people. Well, like I originally posted: lets say, reducing either sales tax or low-bracket income tax, or both. Whichever of those is palatable to you and you think wouldn't have the grandma destroying impact. There are many reasons that posters better than I have given why prop 13 has had a negative impact on the income mix for California. I would suggest those reasons as starting points as justifications for proposing the change. Edit: The impacts prop 13 has on the housing market is also another good point, although I know you disagree more with that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
If sales tax or low bracket income tax actually went down, that would mean something. But that doesn't happen. Even if the state lowers it's level, municipalities can just cover the gap. I don't understand any of the rush at this point. At first it was about getting more homes on the market, which only really is accomplished by people not being able to afford the hold onto property and freeing them up for people with more money. Now we're talking about offsetting their costs with tax cuts elsewhere, which means people have more money to pay into paying higher property taxes and I wonder where everything is supposed to change. Meanwhile, we've also got anecdotes about free rides and how renting property can make you a shiftless lazy leeching bum since you don't work 9-5 somewhere. Are we sure this is still D&D?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
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. hahah great idea lets create a class of permanent landed gentry by birth, who have the right to never have to pay their share of taxes like everyone else. What could be unfair about that? Why can't you see how I'm fighting for affordable housing? You are a shitposting god among men.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You'll probably have to get into the details more. Additionally if it's income neutral then why is it even worth proposing? There's obviously some kind of statistic you're trying to alter with the proposal and "income neutral" can mean a lot of things spread out over millions of people. Do you not understand what "revenue neutral" means? If the State of California collects $X in property taxes today, a revenue-neutral repeal of 13 means A) property tax rates are normalized, which means raising actual tax rates on houses with rates that have been kept artificially low for decades and B) lowering overall tax rates to compensate. It's not "tax-and-spend liberalism" because there's no loving spending and it's not loving raising the average tax paid by the average homeowner either. It's "fair and equitable progressive taxation" because now one guy isn't paying a fraction of the tax of the next guy, on two properties worth exactly the same, just because the first guy's parents bought the house in 1950 and then gave it to him in their will. The grand history of the advent and implementation of progressive taxation over the last century and a half has at its foundation and goal two fundamental principles: first, that the wealthy can afford to give back more, and moreover ought to because they have benefited the most from the government and its services; and second, that allowing wealth to accumulate generationally into the hands of an increasingly rich aristocracy is really really bad, widening the gap between rich and poor, concentrating power in the hands of the elite and away from the lower-classed majority, crushing economic mobility and opportunity. Progressive taxation policy fights the tendency for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. Proposition 13 directly contributes to concentration of wealth with the wealthy, by providing a financial subsidy to property owners the longer they keep their property in their families. Because it doesn't even keep up with inflation, nevermind rising property values, every decade that passes the property that is owned outright - unencumbered by mortgage - is taxed less and less in real dollars. Eventually, these property owners are paying almost nothing. That financial incentive keeps older properties off the market. New homebuyers - young people, immigrants, the people who need to get to work - are pushed towards new development. New development is on the fringe, in the outskirts. They have to have huge commutes. Old properties closer to the job centers gentrify as their owners accumulate lifetimes of wealth - and become wealthy - while paying disproportionately low taxes on their grandfathered prop 13 homes. Prop 13 is a reapportionment of the property tax burden onto the people who can least afford it, and away from those who can most afford it. People with mortgages have to pay more, people with paid-off properties get to pay less. If you are a liberal and you believe that taxation should be progressive, that the wealthy should pay a higher rate than the poor, or at the very least that tax policy should not be structured to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, then you have to conclude prop 13 is terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
I'd say in the current swing of things that Prop 13 is probably my only real shot as an uneducated and unskilled person at attaining any kind of wealth. My Dad was not institutional wealth, but he was able to buy a house (which we sold) in his twenties because wages were closer to the cost of living. You may not like it because it's Wealth By Birthright, but the only conditions of that birthright was having parents who lived in a generation when the working class could match the cost of living and becoming the age they were then in a period where the working class can not match the cost of living. There are core problems here outside of California, and the state alone can't solve the US income inequality problem. California can do some things to alleviate the issues. Such as promote growth/development instead of listening to the NIMBY Alliance of people who hate what American development looks like and the wealthy who feel the more people a city can house the lower their property values will fall. Whether it's because of a San Franciscan who doesn't want any building taller than three stories, or someone in the suburb opposing a development because it's (national chain/non organic/non union/etc), NIMBY attitudes constrain the amount of new development that can be built, keeping only decades old structures standing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
predicto posted:hahah great idea Their fair share is determined by the law, not the overarching liberal sentiment of "what I, an intellectual god among men think it should be." If you don't like buying in and paying higher taxes don't do it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If sales tax or low bracket income tax actually went down, that would mean something. But that doesn't happen. Even if the state lowers it's level, municipalities can just cover the gap. They see a way to benefit their demographic and gently caress over their favorite villains the boomers in the process. They're bootstrap libertarians now.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I'd say in the current swing of things that Prop 13 is probably my only real shot as an uneducated and unskilled person at attaining any kind of wealth. My Dad was not institutional wealth, but he was able to buy a house (which we sold) in his twenties because wages were closer to the cost of living. I don't understand. Are you saying that prop 13 makes it more likely that you'll be able to buy a house? Because it does the opposite. Or are you saying that you will only be able to afford to own a house in the long term because prop 13 will keep your taxes low? Because any economist will tell you that money now is worth more than money later, so the fact your taxes later will be lower (as they stay behind inflation) doesn't make up for the fact that, due to prop 13, your taxes will be much much higher now (to compensate for all the people who are paying less taxes due to prop 13). And prop 13 proponents are part of the NIMBY alliance. They get to enjoy skyrocketing house prices and their consequential skyrocketing personal net worth, without having to pay poportionately-fair taxes on that rising net worth. E.g., they get to get rich without even having to pay the capital gains taxes that most people who get rich off of investments have to pay. If you're not saying any of those things, then I don't really understand. Do you view real estate as the only option for uneducated, unskilled people to build wealth? Because nationwide and historically, single-family homes have been a terrible investment. As an investment category it carries enormous transaction costs, is highly illiquid, requires huge costs just to maintain value, and is heavily taxed. You would be better off building wealth by taking advantage of tax-advantaged retirement investments, such as an IRA, combined with tax-efficient non-IRA investments if you don't have access to a 401(k) or similar retirement plan through work. The house buying thread goes into a lot more detail on this, if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Their fair share is determined by the law, not the overarching liberal sentiment of "what I, an intellectual god among men think it should be." If you don't like buying in and paying higher taxes don't do it. This is a Libertarian argument (let the market decide: if you don't agree with the conditions, go elsewhere) natetimm posted:Their fair share is determined by the law, not the overarching liberal sentiment of "what I, an intellectual god among men think it should be." If you don't like buying in and paying higher taxes don't do it. And yet here you are accusing your opponents of being libertarians. Which is ridiculous: you'll never find a libertarian that is promoting progressive taxation or (especially) raising taxes on any segment of the population. This is also a legalistic argument; fairness is not "determined by the law". Rather, we use laws to try to codify societal perception of fairness. "It's the law, therefore it's fair" is so completely ridiculous that I can scarcely believe you actually said it. If the law said YOU should pay all the taxes and I should pay no taxes, would you accept my argument that it's the law, and therefore that arrangement must be fair? Of course you loving wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
You guys I have this totally tax neutral plan to get all those welfare queen homeowners who spent their whole life working for something to be forced to sell so I might be able to buy a cheaper house. Why yes, I consider myself a progressive.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Yes, being forced to pay another $200 a month in taxes on my half-million-dollar house is such a burden I am forced to sell. And have half a million dollars. However will I survive?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You guys I have this totally tax neutral plan to get all those welfare queen homeowners who spent their whole life working for something to be forced to sell so I might be able to buy a cheaper house. Why yes, I consider myself a progressive. So you still refuse to actually articulate how on earth a tax revenue neutral plan to remove prop 13 would actually force anyone out of a house?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you still refuse to actually articulate how on earth a tax revenue neutral plan to remove prop 13 would actually force anyone out of a house? You've still not proven how it's going to improve the status quo or the point of implementing it unless of course you expect it to actually not be tax neutral for everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
My grandfather bought a house in Presidio Heights back in the 60s. I won't even tell you how much it's worth now, but holy poo poo, it's worth a ton. It is a beautiful, old-fashioned house. A little mansion-ish (it's got an elevator in it), but only three suite-bedrooms, so not grandiose. I'd really love if my family could hold onto it after my parent's die, but I don't care about that as much as I care about other stuff, like making San Francisco not just a playground for the rich. I also think the income disparity is way too freaking huge in this country, and I'm going to benefit massively from the outrageous break I'll get on estate tax, as well as the Prop 13 passing-down to kids thing. I'd like Prop 13 to be revoked, and for estate taxes to go up a lot. This may mean I have to sell the house when I inherit, which would be very sad, but I'd be consoled by having millions of dollars. I don't think prop 13 is the sole contributor to the enormous spike in housing prices, but it is part of it, as well as what it generally represents: a tax break for those with capital, and gently caress-all for those without it. So as someone who'll be personally affected and lose a cherished family home if Prop 13 gets revoked, I say bring it the gently caress on, revoke it. It'll be sad but you know what? I haven't actually done anything special in life to deserve a presidio heights mansion, so on what grounds would I really campaign? Basically, natetimm, stop trying to talk on behalf of people who'll be affected by this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You've still not proven how it's going to improve the status quo or the point of implementing it unless of course you expect it to actually not be tax neutral for everyone. I already defined the term "revenue neutral" for you. Stop deliberately misusing it or pretending you don't understand what is meant by it. Several of us have presented well-reasoned arguments about why prop 13 reform would improve things compared to the status quo. That you refuse to address or counterargue any of the points is not our problem. And nobody can "prove" what a given law or tax reform will do in the future, so it is a red herring to ask for proof. Policy decisions have to be made based on reason and experience, not scientific proof of future results.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You've still not proven how it's going to improve the status quo or the point of implementing it unless of course you expect it to actually not be tax neutral for everyone. I and many other people in this thread have given examples, but here I'll give you another one. Repealing prop 13 and replacing it with a revenue neutral reduction in sales and lower-income tax brackets would increase California's income stability in economic downturns. Now your turn: explain how a revenue neutral prop 13 replacement would force people out of their homes. Also, you're basically saying that if I make a proposal X, you can say that it will fail for reason Y, but are under no obligation to actually explain reason Y until I convince you that X is good. So you never have to justify yourself or your "arguments", because obviously you'll never agree I "proved" the thing you personally reject (with no evidence).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
FYI another state did a similar property tax cap idea with predictable results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_5_(1990) Oregon is even worse since it doesn't have a sales tax and Measure 5 also greatly reduced local tax base independence. So basically the counties were forced to depend on the state for school funding
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My grandfather bought a house in Presidio Heights back in the 60s. I won't even tell you how much it's worth now, but holy poo poo, it's worth a ton. If you really care about low-cost housing in San Francisco though, you could take advantage of prop 13 and rent out the rooms at way below market rate. Selling the house to take care of taxes still results in a bunch of money for you and making SF a playground for the rich.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I and many other people in this thread have given examples, but here I'll give you another one. Repealing prop 13 and replacing it with a revenue neutral reduction in sales and lower-income tax brackets would increase California's income stability in economic downturns. All you're doing is proposing to still jack up the property tax on homeowners while evening it out through things like sales tax so it ends up a wash on paper. The same people still get hosed even if it is "tax neutral" for the entire state. You're playing a shell game and using the term "tax neutral" to try and sell it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My grandfather bought a house in Presidio Heights back in the 60s. I won't even tell you how much it's worth now, but holy poo poo, it's worth a ton. Not everyone is inheriting a multi-million dollar mansion you idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You're playing a shell game and using the term "tax neutral" to try and sell it. Revenue neutral. Not "tax neutral." Of course it will raise taxes on some people while lowering taxes on other people. That's the point. But making it revenue neutral means it's not a liberal tax & spend money-grab. Its an attempt to correct a massive imbalance in tax burdens that was created by 13. If you're going to relentlessly rail against what is being proposed, could you at least make the slightest attempt to use the terminology correctly? I'm not a D&D regular but I'm starting to get the impression this is how you behave in every thread, and if that's the case, maybe I should just stop arguing with you. Anyone reading has already got enough information to make an informed decision, and you're clearly impervious to reason.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
natetimm posted:All you're doing is proposing to still jack up the property tax on homeowners while evening it out through things like sales tax so it ends up a wash on paper. The same people still get hosed even if it is "tax neutral" for the entire state. You're playing a shell game and using the term "tax neutral" to try and sell it. By "Jack up on homeowners" you mean "normalize what new and old homeowners pay". So your nonexistent grandma on 50k income with a 1M home would pay less in sales and income tax, and still pay no more in property tax then her neighbors. How is that a "shell game"?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:By "Jack up on homeowners" you mean "normalize what new and old homeowners pay". So your nonexistent grandma on 50k income with a 1M home would pay less in sales and income tax, and still pay no more in property tax then her neighbors. How is that a "shell game"? Can you save Grandma 10,000 dollars a year on sales tax? Show me how. Let's be more realistic - how about 6k a year on sales tax. 6k a year is 500 bucks a month. At the current sales tax rate grandma would have to spend 5k a month to spend 500 bucks a month on sales tax, and you would have to completely eliminate it just to break even. Not to mention that she'd be spending 60k a year on sales taxable items alone on a 50k a year income to do it. Is this the new math? new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 01:13 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:and income tax loving hell natetimm what is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:loving hell natetimm what is wrong with you What's wrong with me is that "tax neutral" isn't calculated for individuals. You can gently caress the grandma over in this scenario and save a bunch of other people money on sales tax and it's "tax neutral". Additionally, if the policy WAS tax neutral for all homeowners, what the gently caress would be the point of implementing it? Why create a bunch of administrative costs to create a "tax neutral" situation unless you are trying to engineer a scenario? If you're trying to engineer a scenario, what is it? Not letting people inherit low tax rates? That's not very tax neutral to them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:What's wrong with me is that "tax neutral" isn't calculated for individuals. You can gently caress the grandma over in this scenario and save a bunch of other people money on sales tax and it's "tax neutral". Why do you think inheriting low taxes is good? That's pretty much the most discriminatory tax policy imaginable. Sucks to be you if your family didn't have wealth before 1979.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
REVENUE NEUTRAL goddamnit and my point is that you totally ignored the "income tax" part of that statement so that you could pretend he was saying grandma is going to save six grand a year on sales taxes. nobody but you is using the words tax neutral you are inventing an argument your opponents aren't making are you always like this
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why do you think inheriting low taxes is good? That's pretty much the most discriminatory tax policy imaginable. Sucks to be you if your family didn't have wealth before 1979. Yup prop 13 means new homeowners don't get the big tax break.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
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 Is that clear enough? Its also not the tax rate. Its the assessment that the rate is applied to. natetimm posted: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 natetimm posted:The question is whether or not that person's feeling of entitlement trumps  Regale us with tales of your superior value that demands other people pay for your roads, protection, and entitlements Lord Duke natetimm. Your Privilege of Birth makes you a more worthy citizen, and certainly The Lord God has granted you the perspective to enlighten the filthy masses with the glory of your regard. Prop 13, still being championed by idiots literally repeating the 70's propaganda that brought it about. "Think of the grannies!" quote:Owners of commercial real estate benefited under the original rules of Proposition 13: if a corporation owning commercial property (such as a shopping mall) was sold or merged, but the property stayed technically deeded to the corporation, ownership of the property could effectively have changed without triggering Proposition 13's provisions. Under current law, a change of control or ownership of a legal entity causes a reassessment of its real property as well as the real property of entities that it controls. We're all arguing with a right-wing anti-tax aristocracy-fetishist. He is literally defending sales tax. The worst tax in the economy is ok as long as he gets a free house.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
etalian posted:Yup prop 13 means new homeowners don't get the big tax break. At least we're "clear eyed" that the situation is "gently caress you got mien".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:25
|
|