|
Kaal posted: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.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
It depresses the gently caress out of me to know that someone like Mimi Walters is going to represent my uni after this November's elections 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is not an aristocracy, you dont "deserve" to pay the same tax amount as your grandparents you loving leech. Ahahaha please Mr. liberal tell me more about these "leeches" not paying your rich man taxes. You're right, it's not an aristocracy, it's a democracy, and we all voted to make it this way. Don't like it? Put it back up to a vote. Don't like the result? Leave CA to the rest of us "leeches" and beat it. Haha man, all it takes is a little chance to manipulate the house market or stick it to someone else and the veneer of liberalism comes sliding right off. Happy to jump right down in the mud and roll around with the other guys who call people on welfare and receiving food stamps "leeches". Hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:OC, still holding down the title as Shithole of SoCal. East San Bernardino is worse...and apparently Shasta is the shithole of NorCal?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yup prop 13 means new homeowners don't get the big tax break. Also this isn't true because their taxes are locked in just like everyone else's were in the 70s. So they get the break, they just get it in the future when they're old and will need it more and have more use for it after their house goes up in value. Obviously that's not acceptable though because someone isn't getting their cake right loving now and thus all the "leeches" must pay for it!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Haha man, all it takes is a little chance to manipulate the house market or stick it to someone else Literally what prop 13 does. Idiot. e. Also bonus: "the majority agrees with me, therefore I'm right."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:OC, still holding down the title as Shithole of SoCal. It's the California version of colorado springs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Literally what prop 13 does. Idiot. Better than "My ideology is superior therefore what I deem fair should be fair in spite of majority opinion."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's the California version of colorado springs. Isn't Orange County pretty much the granddaddy of places like Colorado Springs or Placer County? Kaal posted:It's true, but mostly because no one lives there. Romney took Obama by nearly two to one in Shasta County, but that was still only a margin of 20,000 votes. The entire county has only 150,000 people. Redding is a shithole, and Jesus loving Christ does it get hot during the summer there. Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:East San Bernardino is worse...and apparently Shasta is the shithole of NorCal? It's true, but mostly because no one lives there. Romney took Obama by nearly two to one in Shasta County, but that was still only a margin of 20,000 votes. The entire county has only 180,000 people.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
FRINGE posted: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. But Grandma will have a rough commute if she moves to Livermore, after selling her mansion for big bucks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:But Grandma will have a rough commute if she moves to Livermore, after selling her mansion for big bucks. It's not about grandma, it's about the people living here having a right not to get priced out of their house and neighborhood by every successive wave of yuppies to invade and set up shop. Sorry, rich fucks, us poor people got smart to your house pricing poo poo and made sure our families will have a legacy despite you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Isn't Orange County pretty much the granddaddy of places like Colorado Springs or Placer County? Basically it's the spocks beard county of California
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Better than "My ideology is superior therefore what I deem fair should be fair in spite of majority opinion." This is the nature of argumentation, dude. You think you're right, and you support it with facts and evidence and logic. Majority opinion is a fallacy when supporting an argument. A majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage: but they were wrong to do so. If I don't argue for what I think is fair, wouldn't that be dishonest? The way society comes to a mutual understanding of what is fair, is by weighing different people's arguments. And we do not live in a static, forever-unchanging world. People's attitudes change over time. California used to be a red state; now it's a blue state. Over time, progressives are winning, and eventually we'll probably win on this issue too. e. natetimm posted:It's not about grandma, it's about the people living here having a right not to get priced out of their house and neighborhood by every successive wave of yuppies to invade and set up shop. Sorry, rich fucks, us poor people got smart to your house pricing poo poo and made sure our families will have a legacy despite you. Us poor people with houses worth $400k on average. You drat yuppies driving up our personal net worth to a point where we're no longer actually poor, yet refusing to let us continue to pay taxes as if we were still poor. How dare you and your economic growth push us up into the middle class! 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It's not about grandma, it's about the people living here having a right not to get priced out of their house and neighborhood by every successive wave of yuppies to invade and set up shop. Sorry, rich fucks, us poor people got smart to your house pricing poo poo and made sure our families will have a legacy despite you. You might want to turn your ire to the Google employees using San Francisco as a commuter Bedroom town, then. Everyone agrees there needs to be more affordable housing, I'm not sure what this whole 'legacy stuff' is, and why a subset of people who bought houses at a certain time get far more benefits/protection than everyone else. You talk as if these people with extremely valuable property are going to be dragged from their beds and forced to a life of poverty in the streets.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:You might want to turn your ire to the Google employees using San Francisco as a commuter Bedroom town, then. Everyone agrees there needs to be more affordable housing, I'm not sure what this whole 'legacy stuff' is, and why a subset of people who bought houses at a certain time get far more benefits/protection than everyone else. You talk as if these people with extremely valuable property are going to be dragged from their beds and forced to a life of poverty in the streets. Prop 13 also provides big tax breaks to multi-million dollars profitable corporations like Disney in Anaheim. It's pretty much a poster child for why direct democracy is a really dumb idea since it was such as far sweeping tax "reform" law.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:OC, still holding down the title as Shithole of SoCal. I wouldn't call a 5% majority of Republicans a shithole. I know it may seem that way compared to the ultra-liberal bay area. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 02:00 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:You might want to turn your ire to the Google employees using San Francisco as a commuter Bedroom town, then. Everyone agrees there needs to be more affordable housing, I'm not sure what this whole 'legacy stuff' is, and why a subset of people who bought houses at a certain time get far more benefits/protection than everyone else. You talk as if these people with extremely valuable property are going to be dragged from their beds and forced to a life of poverty in the streets. It's a process of neighborhood invasion and scrubbing out of the middle class. You get into a situation where you have to sell your home and now not only can you not buy anywhere near where you used to live and work, you're forced to incur all the expenses of relocating as well. Why? Because a bunch of rich assholes decided your neighborhood is now prime territory for them and all of their buddies to move into now that they moved their company to California because living somewhere it's poo poo-cold for 6 months a year sucks. So, you make a big dog and pony show about how lucky these people are to have their houses accrue so much value, force them to sell and ship them out further and further from any sort of desirable property to make room for the next gaggle of entitled twats who consider the people who have lived in and built the community in their neighborhood for decades "leeches" and bums for not paying those totally unfair rich man taxes you chose to pay when you decided to move out. You aren't rich or wealthy if you don't want to move, and if you sell your house and move, you get taxed on it. If you rent it out at least it has a middle class landowner doing it instead of some loving property management or investment company with a loving HOA that forces everyone to paint their house the same sickening color of gray-green and charges everyone 300 dollars a month to water a tiny island of non-native, water-sucking grass. gently caress developers, gently caress speculators, and gently caress people that think they know what's best for everyone else when it also just happens to benefit them. Thankfully the one thing the liberal mindset hasn't been able to browbeat out of Californians is their desire to leave what they worked their entire lives for to their families instead of the poo poo-show circus that passes for our government.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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. He knows what he's doing by changing the terminology. He means exactly what he says. Unless everyone pays exactly the same in taxes as they do now, he's against it. "Wait, doesn't that mean that any change to the tax code isn't 'tax neutral'?" you might say. Well, now you're catching on. natetimm posted:Sorry, rich fucks, us poor people got smart to your house pricing poo poo and made sure our families will have a legacy despite you. Yup. All those rich people who can't afford to buy a new house because Prop. 13 helps prop up house prices. All those minimum wage workers in San Francisco doomed to a life of wage slavery with no hope of home ownership are just trust fund babies in disguise trying to steal houses from the REAL poor! Who knew? Please pay no mind to the hedge funds who are the only ones able to pay cash for these properties at their current inflated prices. They're merely playing by the rules of the game unlike those whiny rich wage slaves, and they deserve the riches they'll rightly obtain by owning that rental home in perpetuity.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Yeah gently caress developers, the one thing that's sure to keep house prices from going up too much and pricing out the middle class is stopping development. And that's not how HOAs work, you can't just buy a random SFH and impose an HOA on it. e. it's fine if he wants to argue for "tax neutral" but he's claiming everyone else is arguing for it and we're not.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Haha man, all it takes is a little chance to manipulate the house market quote:Proposition 13 alters the balance of the housing market because it provides disincentives for selling property, in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members to avoid a new, higher tax assessment. More detailed evidence of this is provided in the book Property Taxes and Tax Revolts: The Legacy of Proposition 13. Tell us more about "deserving" a "legacy" of having other people pay for your greedy rear end. You "only" have a house worth half a million dollars, you "deserve" serfs paying you tribute. http://closetheloophole.com/history quote:When Prop 13 passed, it altered the way property values in California were assessed in five ways: quote:
A permanent class of Lords and Ladies of The Estates. How Wonderful! quote:Because homeowners keep their homes for longer, young households often rent for longer before buying a house. Because Proposition 13 is a disincentive to sell, there is less turnover among owners near the older downtown areas, and prices have appreciated fastest in these areas. Young people who would be wealthy in other states are "house poor" in California, and are forced to live dozens of miles from their workplace in order to afford a home. Thus, the Proposition can be seen as a transfer tax from the working classes to the retired class, as retirees are subsidized and the young have fewer working hours in their day because of long commutes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:He knows what he's doing by changing the terminology. He means exactly what he says. Unless everyone pays exactly the same in taxes as they do now, he's against it. "Wait, doesn't that mean that any change to the tax code isn't 'tax neutral'?" you might say. Well, now you're catching on. So tell me, why does Hawaii have such high home prices without a Prop 13? Could it be because it's a very desirable place to live? The idea that prop 13 is the thing holding up prices in CA is bullshit. Speculation and location are everything, and turning the working class against each other in a fight over table scraps via prop 13 is just about the worst strategy you could take to either lower home prices or increase state revenue. You could raise 7 billion in taxes alone by just repealing the commercial exemption and leave the rest of homeowners alone.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is exactly what Prop 13 does you idiot. Yep, better get those people out of their loving houses to make way for the next batch of rear end in a top hat yuppies! EDIT: Yes, me and the majority of Californians believe that what we work our entire lives for should be passed down to our kids. Including our tax rates. gently caress the Neo-liberal socialist mentality that the state is owed everything.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:So tell me, why does Hawaii have such high home prices without a Prop 13? Could it be because it's a very desirable place to live? The idea that prop 13 is the thing holding up prices in CA is bullshit. Speculation and location are everything, and turning the working class against each other in a fight over table scraps via prop 13 is just about the worst strategy you could take to either lower home prices or increase state revenue. You could raise 7 billion in taxes alone by just repealing the commercial exemption and leave the rest of homeowners alone. Supply and demand are an actual thing, you do understand at least this very basic economic fact, right? Prop 13 restricts supply. When demand is high and supply is low, prices rise. Since you also hate developers apparently, what exactly do you propose to do to make housing affordable to the lower wage earner? You are not going to drive away the "yuppies" or whatever you're fantasizing about. Reforming prop 13 won't do it all by itself, but removing the powerful economic incentive to not sell - one that gets more powerful every year that passes - would help to increase the supply of homes for sale, which will be a negative force on house prices. I suspect you will deny this very basic idea, but I don't really know how to convince you if you're unwilling to accept the basic laws of economics as being real. natetimm posted:Yep, better get those people out of their loving houses to make way for the next batch of rear end in a top hat yuppies! Your ever-decreasing tax rates, in real dollars! You believe you should get to pay less taxes each year than you did in the prior year, because prop 13 doesn't keep up with inflation. Forever. The logical conclusion of this is generational property that is literally not taxed at all. That's what you're arguing for.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Supply and demand are an actual thing, you do understand at least this very basic economic fact, right? Prop 13 restricts supply. When demand is high and supply is low, prices rise. Restricting supply is not a bad thing when it benefits the people. You are not entitled to the housing market you desire simply by existing and complaining about it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:EDIT: Yes, me and the majority of Californians believe that what we work our entire lives for should be passed down to our kids. Including our tax rates. natetimm posted:gently caress the Neo-liberal socialist mentality Its pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Restricting supply is not a bad thing when it benefits the people. You are not entitled to the housing market you desire simply by existing and complaining about it. Explain how the poor are benefited by housing prices rising faster than wages forever. You are arguing that only middle-class people whose families owned property already, decades ago, should ever get to own property. Ever. That is what restricting the supply in the face of rising demand must do. It is economic law.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
It doesn't matter because regardless of prop 13 the average CA home is going to be out of reach of the average CA wage-earner anyway. Sacrificing the remaining middle class owners in some sort of cannibalistic ritual to attempt to appeal to the house pricing gods is only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why gently caress all those people over to MAYBE delay an unavoidable situation? CA will always be desired real estate over the rest of the country and people will always be willing to pay to move here. That's never going to end.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It doesn't matter because regardless of prop 13 the average CA home is going to be out of reach of the average CA wage-earner anyway. Sacrificing the remaining middle class owners in some sort of cannibalistic ritual to attempt to appeal to the house pricing gods is only going to slightly delay the inevitable. Why gently caress all those people over to MAYBE delay an unavoidable situation? CA will always be desired real estate over the rest of the country and people will always be willing to pay to move here. That's never going to end. And building enough homes for everyone is impossible. Because gently caress developers. Therefore the middle class is already boned, so keep prop 13 to save the ones who got in early, and everyoen else from now on who isn't born into the landed gentry or a member of the wealthy elite is condemned to wage slavery forever. And you call me a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Us poor people with houses worth $400k on average. You drat yuppies driving up our personal net worth to a point where we're no longer actually poor, yet refusing to let us continue to pay taxes as if we were still poor. How dare you and your economic growth push us up into the middle class! FYI, this is the wrong way to advocate for Prop 13 reform. If you made this your main argument to the public in favor of an actual ballot initiative to reform prop 13 it would get voted down in a landslide. Property tax is basically a wealth tax on illiquid assets. Just because an assessor says the house is worth X doesn't mean one suddenly has X dollars with which to pay the taxes. If you still need to live in the house its market value is irrelevant. And a HELOC would just add interest on top of the tax burden, so no that isn't a solution either. There is a legitimate need to protect low income seniors. No, that protection shouldn't be inheritable, or apply to commercial real estate, or apply to high income owners. Don't get hyperbolic when advocating for reform or you'll get no reform at all. Also Prop 13 at most is responsible for a fraction of the increasing cost of housing - which is mostly due to constrained supply/high demand. If you completely repealed Prop 13 it wouldn't suddenly make housing affordable in places like the Bay Area. I once read an interesting article that analogized Prop 13 to 'tax insurance', i.e. how much would it be worth to buy insurance against a rising tax burden? And then the article calculated it out and figured that that's the amount of rising housing costs that can be attributed to Prop 13. I'll see if I can dig up the link, but it was a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
And then I remembered why Lowtax, in his wisdom, invented the ignore button.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And building enough homes for everyone is impossible. Because gently caress developers. Therefore the middle class is already boned, so keep prop 13 to save the ones who got in early, and everyoen else from now on who isn't born into the landed gentry or a member of the wealthy elite is condemned to wage slavery forever. Your argument is basically that some people are getting hosed so the rest of them should. Misery loves company. Repealing prop 13 isn't going to magically make houses affordable for all those future generations. Your argument is just sheer spite and jealousy because some working stiffs who aren't you got a good deal.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Family Values posted:FYI, this is the wrong way to advocate for Prop 13 reform. If you made this your main argument to the public in favor of an actual ballot initiative to reform prop 13 it would get voted down in a landslide. Property tax is basically a wealth tax on illiquid assets. Just because an assessor says the house is worth X doesn't mean one suddenly has X dollars with which to pay the taxes. If you still need to live in the house its market value is irrelevant. And a HELOC would just add interest on top of the tax burden, so no that isn't a solution either. Oh, I agree with all of this really. The only real solution to the crisis of skyrocketing living expenses and gentrification is increased development. Prop 13 is a factor, and it's important, but it's not the only or even the most important factor. But loving LOL, natetimm also hates developers!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh, I agree with all of this really. The only real solution to the crisis of skyrocketing living expenses and gentrification is increased development. Prop 13 is a factor, and it's important, but it's not the only or even the most important factor. I don't hate developers for building houses, I hate them for other reasons. Development in CA is a crook's paradise, and since it's more profitable to build loving McMansions out in the desert for cheap, they do that instead of anything even resembling intelligence. They're also working hand in hand with other crooked as gently caress politicians while they do this. Wanna know why Norcal has no water? loving crooked rear end wasteful Socal Developers. Oh, they also use borderline slave loving labor to do anything requiring unskilled work to avoid further taxes and costs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Prop 13 also has that wonderful side effect of encouraging unpermitted construction since major changes to your home like adding a room or building another level can trigger a reassessment. If you don't pull a permit then the city doesn't know you double the size of your master bedroom. It will only come up when it's time to sell and your county data don't match the house but who cares you'll get paid anyways and the new owner will have to report it (or not).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Prop 13 also has that wonderful side effect of encouraging unpermitted construction since major changes to your home like adding a room or building another level can trigger a reassessment. Of you don't pull a permit then the city doesn't know you double the size of your master bedroom. It will only come up when it's time to sell and your county data don't match the house but who cares you'll get paid anyways and the new owner will have to report it (or not). Compounded by the fact that local zoning laws, permits and taxes can be near extortionate depending on who is issuing them and what you want to do. I won't argue that this is a negative aspect of prop 13, though - it is.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
natetimm posted:
Why, though? Seriously, I wonder about this from people with your mentality: Given that we're a capitalist society, how hard is it to see that giving breaks to people to pass down capital with tax breaks increases income disparity? It seems to me you can either prize individual initiative and the idea of a somewhat level playing field, or you can rabidly defend inheriting enormous advantages. If you do the latter, that's defensible in a Hobbesian way, but don't pretend that the results don't compound: If someone starts out with a million dollars, then they pass down to their kids stuff they didn't work for, as well as stuff they did. Basically, why does labor get so despised by people with your ideology?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why, though? Seriously, I wonder about this from people with your mentality: Given that we're a capitalist society, how hard is it to see that giving breaks to people to pass down capital with tax breaks increases income disparity? At the rate these people are getting breaks it's splitting hairs in comparison to the actual, gigantic breaks the actual rich people are getting in their inheritances. Your average joe getting a prop 13 inheritance is still going to pay tax on it when he inherits it, still have to pay to upkeep, insure, and everything else that puts money into the economy and there's a good chance he's going to inherit a good chunk of the mortgage as well. All he's really getting is a reduced tax rate to make the option of staying in the property himself or renting it out more possible than it was before. Yes, that's an advantage, but it's not like he's getting a new porsche every year or a free ride to an Ivy league. He's getting a 30-plus year old house with all the problems and responsibilities that come with it assuming he doesn't have to sell it off or buy out other siblings to end up owning it completely. If he ever adds to it his taxes go up and if he sells it he pays taxes again. EDIT: As to why labor is despised by "my people", most people work jobs they don't like that drag them away from the people they love for the majority of their lives. Maybe you are one of the lucky people that doesn't, but it's nice to know when you die that at least if you couldn't be there as much as you would have liked you can leave something as a legacy in its place. new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 02:46 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Personal property up to $5.25M (for 2014) is exempt from inheritance tax. This value is indexed to inflation. [source] Insurance and upkeep will presumably be just as affordable to the inheritor as it was to the supposedly poor grandma who owned the house before she died. And he's not inheriting a mortgage because, as we've established throughout this argument, it's property owned for decades, so it's usually paid off. And the degree to which the inheritors benefit increases every year, because Prop 13 does not allow the tax rate to rise as fast as inflation, so in real dollers it goes down every year. natetimm posted:EDIT: As to why labor is despised by "my people", most people work jobs they don't like that drag them away from the people they love for the majority of their lives. Maybe you are one of the lucky people that doesn't, but it's nice to know when you die that at least if you couldn't be there as much as you would have liked you can leave something as a legacy in its place. Like for example a home worth on average $400k, which they would get entirely free of inheritance taxes? Seems like a generous inheritance for me. They don't need a property tax rate that asymptotically approaches zero over time as well. Unless you're just generally opposed to property taxes of any kind, which would at least be a rational position to take, even if I disagree with it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Personal property up to $5.25M (for 2014) is exempt from inheritance tax. This value is indexed to inflation. [source] LOL if you think those prop 13 properties haven't been mortgaged multiple times throughout their existence. It would be a rare bird indeed to get a house free and clear. Additionally, insurance is not "affordable" in CA, land of earthquakes, floods and fire. Also, utilities are a shitload more here, gas is a shitload more here, and generally just everything is a shitload more. Your only argument revolves around "that person doesn't deserve that in my eyes, let's take it for little or no gain to sustain my personal sense of fairness." The home is only worth 400k if you sell it, not if you live in it. It's not a liquid asset.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:42
|
|