|
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/10/business/la-fi-free-and-clear-20130110quote:Zillow also found that the nation's most elderly were the most likely to own their homes, with 77.6% of those 85 and older owning their homes outright, followed by those ages 74 to 84, at about 62.7%. One outlier was those homeowners ages 20 to 24. Out of that relatively young demographic, about 34.5% owned their homes outright. These homeowners could be young millionaires, those with trust funds or those who received help from their parents. Rare birds indeed.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/10/business/la-fi-free-and-clear-20130110 77.6% of less than 10% of the population own their homes! new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Hold the loving phone, you can't say "THINK OF THE GRANNIES" and then say "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GRANNIES". Jesus Christ. But since you're not actually arguing in anything approaching good faith, it's safe to say that you're a moron and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
We're discussing inheritance. By far the largest source of inheritance is old people. Is that confusing to you? Or are you going to keep saying "LOL if <fact> is true" and then when someone posts <fact> you just shift to something else or move your goalposts or keep being terrible at arguing anything?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Hold the loving phone, you can't say "THINK OF THE GRANNIES" and then say "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GRANNIES". Jesus Christ. But since you're not actually arguing in anything approaching good faith, it's safe to say that you're a moron and leave it at that. I'm not saying think of the grannies. That statement is being put in my mouth. I'm saying the people who have lived in those neighborhoods and their heirs deserve not to be priced out by yuppie assholes through property tax.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted: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? I am saying I am in line to inherit property from my Mother, who you said earlier should have to sell a house and invest into bonds for a more just society. The problem is, this inheritance is the only shot I think I will get in my life as otherwise the millennials have basically been set up in a position to fail. I'd especially be set up in a position to fail, as I have no other career prospects to speak of. I kind of expected I could work a dead end job, supplemented with rent, without really a Plan B. In the meantime, I've been busy learning property law and taking care of an elderly woman while people my age are working 9-5. You keep talking about property owners as this permanent oligarchy, but aside from that theoretical wealth on property, I am not an elite. I don't have a college education, I don't have a career history. I'm too broke to even buy a loving haircut when I need one. I don't know a lot about property tax. I always imagined any increases in it will be passed along in a rent increase. I also pointed out that presently we have tenants who can't afford to live in a house at current values as an example of prop 13 helping people who haven't owned homes for 40 years, or even bought a house anywhere ever. My core concern is your talk about how all these rentals need to be put up for ownership, like the biggest problem facing the state is people owning property that isn't also their primary residence. It's to me it feels a but like watching someone pull Social Security when you're 50. In your ideal world, I have to sell houses for a one time infusion of cash and whittle it away to live in an apartment in some undesirable lower income neighborhood (which is going to be really rough, as our neighborhood is declining as is). Or at the very least, I have to sell off a house to afford to keep the other. This is because I should have worked harder and the houses need to be taken by my more financially well-off peers, or something like that. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We're discussing inheritance. By far the largest source of inheritance is old people. Is that confusing to you? The prop 13 generation came of age in the late 70s. Show me some stats on how many people ages 50-70 own their home outright and we'll talk. "Grannies" aren't just people 85 and older.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I am saying I am in line to inherit property from my Mother, who you said earlier should have to sell a house and invest into bonds for a more just society. Sell your house leech, the crabs insist.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
natetimm posted: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. Leperflesh posted:http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/10/business/la-fi-free-and-clear-20130110 natetimm posted:77.6% of less than 10% of the population own their homes! This deserves to be reproduced all on one page. quote: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." My homeowner's policy is $557 a year. My earthquake insurance is $641 a year, and I live a quarter mile from the nearest major fault line. My utilities average $200 to $250 a month, for gas + electric + water + garbage. My house is 1200 square feet, three beds 1.5 baths built in 1958: extremely typical of what today's grandmas would own if they bought between 1950 and 1970. But you just keep on spewing ignorant bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
natetimm posted: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. Also, Prop 13 literally encourages McMansion development. Building a bunch of lovely homes in the desert creates more tax income than redevelopment, which often doesn't trigger property reassessment. Therefore a wise county will approve more and bigger homes and big box stores to maximize the amount of property tax they receive back from the state. If you have the boneheaded way that developers pursue new construction projects, you should logically oppose Prop 13.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
And yet prop 13 passed in the late 70s, not 1970. Keep reaching further back and maybe you'll find someone who bought a house for a dollar! Then you can really steal the gently caress out of that person's house!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Also, Prop 13 literally encourages McMansion development. Building a bunch of lovely homes in the desert creates more tax income than redevelopment, which often doesn't trigger property reassessment. Therefore a wise county will approve more and bigger homes and big box stores to maximize the amount of property tax they receive back from the state. If you have the boneheaded way that developers pursue new construction projects, you should logically oppose Prop 13. Prop 13 is not the cause of these things, the desire for profit is. Arizona, Florida, and any other booming real estate market are chock full of McMansions just fine without a prop 13 to prop them up. Sorry fellas, prop 13 isn't the terrible boogeyman worth stealing people's poo poo to repeal you think it is. new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 04:11 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 is not the cause of these things, the desire for profit is. Arizona, Florida, and any other booming real estate market are chock full of McMansions just fine without a prop 13 to prop them up. Sorry fellas, prop 13 isn't the terrible boogeyman worth stealing people's poo poo to repeal it you think it is. The tax code makes this type of development profitable. Change the tax code, change the incentives. But guess what, we can't change the tax code or else literally everyone in the middle class will be herded into camps!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:The tax code makes this type of development profitable. Change the tax code, change the incentives. But guess what, we can't change the tax code or else literally everyone in the middle class will be herded into camps! And yet states without that tax code still have the same problem! It's almost like you're full of poo poo and blaming everything on other people who you perceive to have gotten a better deal than you!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Prop 13 is single-handedly responsible for all the budget problems the state has had since Reagan was governor. You must be living in some sort of bizarro-reality to deny this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Prop 13 is single-handedly responsible for all the budget problems the state has had since Reagan was governor. You must be living in some sort of bizarro-reality to deny this. Yes you've been taught your talking point very well. Despite the 4th highest taxes in the nation, prop 13 has reduced CA to a desert wasteland devoid of life. There has been no growth in the real estate market and it's impossible to buy a new house. Oh wait, they're making GBS threads them everywhere like crazy and all this hand wringing over prop 13 is just a bunch of folks trying to play playground monitor with other people's stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I am saying I am in line to inherit property from my Mother, who you said earlier should have to sell a house and invest into bonds for a more just society. Alright, well let me make clear that I think income disparity is a huge problem, and I think the lack of affordable housing is also a huge problem. So I think your situation is quite illustrative. On the one hand, you evidently can't afford to live at a standard of living that you feel would be adequate; you have an inheritance of a home, and living in that home would achieve your dream of home ownership, which you otherwise cannot afford on your present or likely future income, assuming home prices do not fall significantly in the future. A lot of factors lead to that situation; a lack of development is the biggest one, particularly inner city redevelopment and increase in density. There is a large demand for housing close to employment centers, and because California is generally prosperous and has an increasing population, demand for limited housing has been driving up prices for decades. Meanwhile, real wages for the middle class have stagnated nationwide, and while California has a higher minimum wage and better worker protections and more unions than the average American state, it's nowhere near enough to counterbalance the forces that have been driving concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%, shrinking the middle class, overburdening higher education (one of the few remaining ways to climb out of poverty) with usurious, giant student loans that cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy, and otherwise loving people like you over pretty badly. The solutions are difficult. In addition to a lot more new housing, though, the state needs to make sure that it uses its tax authority to incentivize behavior that benefits the middle class, the principle of economic mobility, and generational equality. It should not use taxes to favor the old over the young (or vice-versa), the investor class over the working class, the inner-city resident over the suburbanite (or vice-versa), or the business over the citizen. So in "my ideal world", the reason you wouldn't have to sell your grandma's house would be because it hadn't pentupled in value over the space of 20 years even after accounting for inflation. Because smart development, overcoming the dragging force of NIMBYism and gently caress-you-got-mine, would allow for housing to be constructed fast enough to keep up with demand. Property taxes would be reasonable. They could be indexed against income, but only if the definition of "income" includes capital gains, so that the ultra-wealthy who live off of investments are not taxed at a lower rate than workers who live off of wages (which is the current situation with both state and federal income taxes compared to capital gains taxes). Moreover, businesses would be carrying their weight, paying reasonable property taxes that weren't easily escaped through the loopholes offered by prop 13, so the state could afford to have an overall lower property tax rate on residential real estate. Zoning would be used to discourage inefficient suburban sprawl, which overutilizes limited resources of land, water, and transportation infrastructure. Local governments would be able to zone infill and higher density without sacrificing the huge tax income benefits that come from zoning sprawling suburban housing developments, auto dealerships, and huge malls. Increasing density would also ease the burden on (very expensive) transportation infrastructure, freeing more tax dollars for education, health care, or just reducing tax rates on California wage-earners. But prop 13 runs against all of those principles. It sucks that re-normalizing property tax rates would mean you'd have to sell your inheritance instead of living in it, but the alternative is worse for people who are just like you, but who don't have the benefit of a grandma with a valuable house who is going to bequeath it to them in their will. I hope you would agree that your luck in having a grandma with a significant chunk of wealth shouldn't come at the expense of your economic peers having to bear a much heavier tax burden themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:And yet states without that tax code still have the same problem! It's almost like you're full of poo poo and blaming everything on other people who you perceive to have gotten a better deal than you! Guess what, you're right! The tax code as written in most states encourages single-family dwellings. Here in California, we can't change that tax code or all homeowners with an income less than $1 million will be shot in the street!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Sell your house leech, the crabs insist. Having your support feels like being a respected statesman whose speeches are being megaditto'ed by a screeching pundit on talk radio. While I suppose it's nice to see somebody understands, watching you piss into the wind here with others is doing nobody in this thread any favors.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Oh wait, they're making GBS threads them everywhere like crazy and all this hand wringing over prop 13 is just a bunch of folks trying to play playground monitor with other people's stuff. Development is not keeping up with population increase. You can tell this by how prices are still rising. Law of supply and demand. This is basically incontrovertable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Yes you've been taught your talking point very well. Despite the 4th highest taxes in the nation, prop 13 has reduced CA to a desert wasteland devoid of life. There has been no growth in the real estate market and it's impossible to buy a new house. Did you work hard to pull this strawman out of your rear end, or is it something you have a lot of practice with? quote:Oh wait, they're making GBS threads them everywhere like crazy and all this hand wringing over prop 13 is just a bunch of folks trying to play playground monitor with other people's stuff. I don't care about other people's stuff, I just want them to pay their fair share of taxes. And that "fair share" is more than 1-2% of your property's cash value, sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I don't care about other people's stuff, I just want them to pay their fair share of taxes. And that "fair share" is more than 1-2% of your property's cash value, sorry. Fair share of taxes really should be determined by income level, rather than the value of illiquid assets. If people are on board with taxing such opaquely defined assets though, why not also count stuff like college degrees? We can value them at the current yearly tuition price of the school, and for schools that have been shut down, we can use an index of tuition rates nationwide to correctly assess value. Statistically, college degree holders are richer on average, so we can levy a small percentage tax and use this money to pay for schools in underprivileged areas.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
on the left posted:Fair share of taxes really should be determined by income level, rather than the value of illiquid assets. On the contrary, income is irrelevant. This is about wealth. Assets, illiquid or not, are part of someone's wealth. And if there is one thing Piketty's book hammers home, it is the fact that taxing income doesn't do much, and it is wealth that should be taxed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Arguing with stubborn assholes is practice, but maybe not after 5 pages...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It sucks that re-normalizing property tax rates would mean you'd have to sell your inheritance instead of living in it, but the alternative is worse for people who are just like you, but who don't have the benefit of a grandma with a valuable house who is going to bequeath it to them in their will. You don't seem to get that people who can afford to buy a house are wealthier than people who can't afford to pay the bills to keep a free house. After all, they have the money to buy the house and then on top of that pay those same bills. And yet you keep talking about this as a boon to society's least fortunate. What mental gymnastics do you make with that claim? The only way the poorest get screwed is if I sell the property at the peak of a bubble to an even wealthier person who gentrifies the area, whole I go to another place and gentrify it with the money I made in the sale. Given that I want to keep the property, I'm not doing that. As was mentioned to the SF Presidio Mansion guy (our homes are suburban and not nearly as nice) , whoever he sells it to will be an ultra rich person who will continue to keep SF a rich persons paradise. By living in the mansion himself, he would resist against turning the city into a rich persons paradise. By renting it to someone at a low cost subsidized by prop 13, he can have a resident who can't afford to buy a place at market value. Both of those fight against classism more than selling the manor to a multi-millionaire and becoming a smaller millionaire yourself. I feel like this thread keeps conflating the concept of oligarchy and plutocracy. Yes, prop 13 puts power in the hands of a fortunate few (oligarchy), but those few aren't necessarily elite by any other lifestyle standard and whoever they sell out to is going to need a lot of money to cover the cost and the new taxes the previous owner couldn't pay. On a large scale, this means a change from oligarchy to plutocracy. I support removing prop 13 from corporate property, and increasing the housing supply with more development which will lower property values and thus make the transition less painful. I just don't want to have to live worse than my parents did. If rather live in the same house with a lower metaphorical value, since I'm not a speculator. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:46 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:On the contrary, income is irrelevant. This is about wealth. Assets, illiquid or not, are part of someone's wealth. And if there is one thing Piketty's book hammers home, it is the fact that taxing income doesn't do much, and it is wealth that should be taxed. If you aren't actively converting an asset to money, how is it wealth? A good example of this in practice is something like highly-valued artwork owned by a family. Also, if assets are required to be valued at market value, this would dramatically change existing accounting rules, and not for the better: Many books have been cooked by using artificially high valuations of assets to create the illusion of income.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
I am convinced that the cure to gentrification is increased supply of housing. That should lower property values, and that, along with a rise in real wages, is the only way for lower income people to become homeowners. Hoping for an inheritence is not an effective way to get land into the hands of people who otherwise can't afford to buy. And you're right that the people who immediately benefit from a revenue-neutral repeal of 13 are the ones currently shopping for houses, which are currently very expensive, so they currently must be making more money or have more assets or both. Of course, those people are presumably already paying a lot more in income taxes. But in the longer term, if I'm right that getting rid of 13 leads to increasing supply, and if we also have some of the other reforms I mentioned (and I've consistently said repeal of 13 on its own is not sufficient), that should help to lower property values overall, and that should help everyone who otherwise can't afford to buy. I understand there are multiple steps required to get there, and while I'm convinced repealing 13 is a necessary one, it's not the only one. If all we did was repeal 13, and otherwise we did nothing else to help create and sustain affordable housing, then you're right that you - and people like you - would lose out. Although without exact numbers it's hard to say for sure how many or by how much. And I think the alternative - not repealing 13 or reforming it - is disastrous in the long term. Right now, we have people who bought in 1970 or later benefiting from it, so "only" 44 years or less of having property taxes decreasing in real inflation-adjusted dollars. But in another 44 years, you'd have every house that exists today in that situation, plus every house that is already in that situation with another 44 years of tax decreases. The real estate tax burden will be shifted entirely onto a much smaller new generation of potential homeowners. You really will have California controlled by a landed gentry class, and funded by the small minority who can still afford to buy at whatever prices happen to be then. Even if new home construction increased to exactly keep up with population, the affect of inflation outpacing the increase in assessment value means property taxes approach zero in real dollars for everyone benefiting from 13. If you believe that everyone should pay at least something in property taxes, then eventually you must accept reform of prop 13.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
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. Hawaii is a weird example because of a couple reasons. First is its high proportion of military who pay tax not to hawaii, but to their home state. They also exempt military retiree pay. There's also a bunch of foreign investment in real estate, particularly from Japan that exploits weird tax rules to act as a tax haven. For local residents, there's a floor exemption for primary residences to help with the income poor, land rich folks with an even higher exemption for the poor gramma in the prop 13 example. On top of all that, there's a bunch of real estate that isn't owned outright, but held in 99 leases by bishop estate, the vestige of royal and old plantation money.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
on the left posted:If you aren't actively converting an asset to money, how is it wealth? A good example of this in practice is something like highly-valued artwork owned by a family. This is a surprisingly complex question. Right now most people would consider a stock portfolio to be "wealth", even though like a house, a security is not actually money until it is sold. One main difference between real estate and stock is liquidity, and liquidity is a continuum between extremely illiquid assets (like residential houses) and extremely liquid assets (like a money market account at the same bank that you have your checking account). So where do you draw the line between "actual" wealth and "non-wealth asset that nonetheless has a market value"? What, exactly, is the degree of liquidity where wealth becomes liquid enough to consider worth taxing? Of course a house is also a place you can live, and that's special. But a family portrait isn't. Many assets have various degrees of what we'd call utility, and there's a whole branch of economics related to that. But as with liquidity, utility is variable along a continuum and not easy to quantify (such as for tax purposes). Does one's primary home have more utility than one's second home? Earlier someone was arguing their grandma shouldn't have to sell her second, rental house. How much property should a person be able to classify as untouchable by ordinary taxation due to sentimental value, or utility, or both? There is also such a thing as an asset that is too valuable to afford to keep. Just leaving aside taxes completely, if your family's net assets are $410k, and $400k of it is in a house, your family is living as paupers in order to keep that house. Concentration of one's assets in a single asset class is overly risky: having it concentrated in a single asset is even more risky. One of the habits of wealthy people who remain wealthy is asset diversification. A family in this situation that wants to provide for its children's financial future would be well-advised to sell the house and diversify in order to reduce the risk of losing everything if the value of their one significant asset goes down a bunch. Leaving that aside, there is the valid point of sentimental value. And I can definitely understand why a family might want to ensure the family home, which family members grew up in, remains part of the family forever. All I can say is that I think such a family ought to be able to do that while still paying the going rate in taxes on their asset; that ought to be accomplished by real wages keeping up with real property values, and that ought to be accomplished by a package of regulations and stimulus and tax policy that is fair and wise. Prop 13 cannot be part of that package. There needs to be a different way for families to be able to keep their homes, without shifting the tax burden unfairly onto newer homebuyers. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 05:48 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
Not to mention Prop 13 pushed a radical private and corporate property tax freeze plan on every single CA county which is pretty undemocratic IMO. Counties should be allowed to vote and decided how they maintain their tax base. Counties that drink the tax cuts koolaid are welcome cut taxes such as property rates assuming they don't mind all the costs associated with underfunding important local services such as education or transportation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I am convinced that the cure to gentrification is increased supply of housing. That should lower property values, and that, along with a rise in real wages, is the only way for lower income people to become homeowners. Hoping for an inheritence is not an effective way to get land into the hands of people who otherwise can't afford to buy. I agree in principle that increased supply is good, although usually in D&D the true cure to gentrification is not to allow the market to do what it does when left unchecked; which is fuel a desire by rich people to live by other rich people and gentrify the area by clumping together in proximity. The solution usually looks like a mix of higher income and lower income people living in the same area. Your solution being so market based is why you've been called a libertarian (albeit by less tactful posters.) Likewise, the reason you're being called a friend to speculators is because Prop 13 encourages long-term ownership of property, which discourages flipping. You may disagree, but there's a school of thought that people who are settled in for decades instead of years are more concerned about the quality of life in their community. From a gentrification standpoint, just repealing 13 while making more houses will either make McMansions that will lower the value of old houses by drawing all the wealthy buyers there, or making a neighborhood for the proles after they've been priced out of their old area. Either one leads to a desirable area and a less desirable area and thus gentrification. People being able to live in areas they can't afford to buy via inheritance puts lower income people in higher income neighborhoods. This widens the income strata and reduces the Elitist Country Club effect. I mean, government intervention is going to be required to put poorer people and richer people together in the same neighborhood. So, why not the property tax cut, since it's there already? I'm fine being taxed up the rear end if I sell a property, to make up for lost property tax revenue. I'd rather be encouraged to hold onto property and fight gentrification than take incentives to sell to someone wealthier than me, and let them contribute to building gentrification in the area. You seem to be more upset about the unfairness of the situation than anything else, trying to resolve that by telling property holders to take their million dollars and leave. And you wrap it up in anti-gentrification. It's mind boggling compared, again, to what I usually hear around here.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
So then repeal 13 and lower property taxes across the board? Shift the tax burden by raising taxes on capital gains while giving everyone the same break on homes? I'm not necessarily saying everything should be solved by the free market, mind you. I am saying that one cannot simply ignore market forces and pretend they don't exist. Unless the government starts literally fixing house prices directly, the simple forces of supply and demand determining prices are going to continue to act. One thing that would discourage homes as speculative investments would be reducing the rate at which homes have been appreciating in value to something more like their national, historical long-term average (which is only just barely above inflation). If houses aren't lucrative investments, then their main value is in their utility, and home ownership becomes more about investing in a community and the lifestyle of ownership, rather than trying to flip a home in five years (and therefore seek lowest-payment financing options like sub-prime ARMs, etc.). But I don't believe there's any way, short of the government stepping in and saying "these houses cost X, and no more, irrespective of what the market prices them at," to avoid the requirement to develop enough housing to satisfy demand or accept bidding wars and accelerating prices for real estate. Recognizing that market forces exist doesn't make me a libertarian, and neither does agitating for people of similar economic background, with similarly-priced assets, being taxed at similar rates. I'll repeat myself again: taxation should be progressive. Prop 13 amounts to, over time, regressive taxation, and I find that unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Yes you've been taught your talking point very well. I am fine with you tax dodging, as long as we sever water/power/police/roads from you. Make your own way Rugged Libertard! natetimm posted:Born lucky, I deserve it. I smart! on the left posted:Fair share of taxes really should be determined by income level, rather than the value of illiquid assets. Wealth must be taxed. You dont get to be an Aristocrat that is swimming in piles of money and then pull the "Well I am not making any money!" while lounging in your mansion and using public services paid for by everyone else. Craptacular! posted:I just don't want to have to live worse than my parents did. Craptacular! posted:I'm fine being taxed up the rear end if I sell a property, to make up for lost property tax revenue. Leperflesh posted:I can definitely understand why a family might want to ensure the family home, which family members grew up in, remains part of the family forever. All I can say is that I think such a family ought to be able to do that while still paying the going rate in taxes on their asset; that ought to be accomplished by real wages keeping up with real property values, and that ought to be accomplished by a package of regulations and stimulus and tax policy that is fair and wise. Unless, say, they end up with more than one house, and they just dont want to pay taxes because they are a special class of people that gets to collect rent and pay nothing. You know... like a loving feudal lord. Maybe we can drop all property tax on a single property under $xxx, and tax all additional properties at 40%. But then the leeches wont be able to own multiple homes when they are finally done waiting for relatives to die. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Completely and utterly wrong, of course. It's very easy to tax an asset when it is converted into money somehow. It's very difficult to tax an asset when it isn't touching the "real money" portion of the economy. Also, when it comes to housing, just because your neighborhood is getting richer doesn't mean that public services become more expensive. There are a lot of good reasons to value assets according to book value rather than market value. As I mentioned before, if you are so keen on taxing unrealized wealth, you should get behind an asset tax on total amounts spent on higher education. The 200k that you spend on a private education means you have a lot more wealth to spread around than someone who went to a public in-state college or didn't go to college at all. The low rate of 1% a year will be assessed to the combined yearly tuition of every institution attended after high school. If you cannot pay due to lack of a job, this can be added onto your student loans after interest and penalties.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's very easy to tax an asset when it is converted into money somehow. It's very difficult to tax an asset when it isn't touching the "real money" portion of the economy. Adding to student life-debt is a bad plan in almost every way. Thats had (and will have more Im sure) its own threads.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
natetimm posted:
This really doesn't answer my question in the least, it just slips to the side and dodges it while tugging at heartstrings. It's basically an endorsement of the buildup of wealth inequality over generations. How does your answer address the situation of second-generation wealth, where the person grew up rich and was one of the 'lucky ones' precisely because of our generously low inheritance taxes and an enormous boon of Prop 13's property tax rate being passed on down to them?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If someone literally has some hidden buried gold, sure. Regarding houses, cars, yachts, and various paper rich-banker accounts, these are easily assessed. Why is it a bad idea to tax the possession of an extremely valuable asset whose replacement value is growing at double the rate of inflation? Why are houses and cars different from a college degree? We should ideally be taxing the people most able to afford it: people who went to expensive private colleges, especially people who doubled/tripled the investment by going to med/law/professional school. If you spent 200k+ getting a bachelors+law at a private university, surely you can afford to contribute 1-2k in extra taxes a year instead of forcing people who can't afford those things to pay the bill for society. The big reason you won't see support for that here though is because the user base here does have a college degree and doesn't own a house. Both groups spent hundreds of thousands in loans/cash to get something that was promised to appreciate in value and are viewed as a societal good.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why is it a bad idea to tax the possession of an extremely valuable asset whose replacement value is growing at double the rate of inflation? Why are houses and cars different from a college degree? We should ideally be taxing the people most able to afford it: people who went to expensive private colleges, especially people who doubled/tripled the investment by going to med/law/professional school.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This really doesn't answer my question in the least, it just slips to the side and dodges it while tugging at heartstrings. It's basically an endorsement of the buildup of wealth inequality over generations. Why is it someone's job or mission in life to make sure every working person gets knocked down the the completely lowest peg possible in life? Should true progressive values be rooted in attempting to bring people up out of poverty and bad situations or should it be a game of whack-a-mole where every time one of the working poor gets a helping hand up everyone gangs up to smack him back down into his perceived place because life is unfair otherwise? new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 13:50 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:You havent looked into the student debt issue at all, and this isnt the thread for that particular quote dump. If you are interested in it beyond just spitting out random ideas then hunt around for stuff. Hmm, you are saying that the high leverage people have take out to buy homes/pay for education means it's a bad idea to incur tax obligations on unrealized gains? The student debt bubble is exactly the same situation, and remember that if you try to measure wealth as assets minus liabilities, it leaves an insanely easy loophole to hide all your wealth (large, low-interest personal loans).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:54
|
|