|
natetimm posted: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? These cheap rhetorical ploys don't really work well. Let's deconstruct what's wrong with that sentence. First of all, we're not necessarily talking about working people, or the work and the house may be incidentally related. I'm going to inherit the house whether I work or not. I can lie around the house all day and I'll still have, y'know, a multi-million dollar house. Second, you're talking about working people getting 'knocked down' by being deprived of inheritance: something they literally didn't work for. If my parents wanted to, it would be their right to deed that house over to the Catholic Church or another one of their favorite charities. I wouldn't expect them to do it without talking to me, but I haven't done a lick of work to earn that house. Likewise, if someone bought a house for 60K and its appreciated in value because of the market to 500K, they didn't work for that 440K in appreciated value. Either in inheritance, or in increased value of the home, we're explicitly not talking about something that someone worked for. Finally, nobody is proposing anywhere close to a 100% inheritance tax, so it's not about knocking people down to the lowest peg possible. We have huge exemptions for estates now--$5,340,000, and that's without using any fancy instruments. If we lowered that back down to an exemption of a million--they'd still be getting a million! It's not the lowest possible peg to inherit a million dollars. Your argumentation is so much on the weak side I'm starting to wonder if you're just being a sophist here. I mean, like this: quote: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? Who the hell are you talking about with the working poor being whacked down? The worst possible scenario is that someone who bought a house for much less than its worth now has to sell it and then has that increased amount of money. Using this weird violent wording, talking about how we're 'ganging up' and 'smacking him back down' really just makes you look strange, it's not effective because it's so obviously far away from reality. The working poor are much less likely to own a house, the working poor are much less likely to own a house in an area that's strongly appreciated in value, and if they have, then they are no longer the working poor, they'll have a substantial amount of money. You appeal to emotion constantly, and it gets old a lot faster than you think. Try addressing the actual substance of the arguments instead of foaming at the mouth about the crab analogy and games of whack-a-mole.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:These cheap rhetorical ploys don't really work well. Let's deconstruct what's wrong with that sentence. The basis of your argument is typical socialist rhetoric that somehow a parent shouldn't be able to pass down the fruits of their labor to a child because it isn't fair to anyone else who didn't have a parent to do that for them. That's bullshit crab mentality and sour grapes, period. It's fine that you don't think that people should be able to do it, but a majority of people disagree with you and that specific mentality. Your idea that the government should be going through motions to put people as close to zero to enforce an ideal of collective poornes and fairness is only keeping everyone equal by keeping everyone down.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The basis of your argument is typical socialist rhetoric that somehow a parent shouldn't be able to pass down the fruits of their labor to a child because it isn't fair to anyone else who didn't have a parent to do that for them. It's not socialist rhetoric, though. It's also bootstrappy as gently caress. quote:That's bullshit crab mentality and sour grapes, period. Again, these folksy appeals to emotion aren't a replacement for an actual argument. There's a problem that's been brought up. You have no answer for it except appealing to all the feels. quote:It's fine that you don't think that people should be able to do it, but a majority of people disagree with you and that specific mentality. And that can change. An appeal to majority opinion is a description of the current moment, that's all. quote:Your idea that the government should be going through motions to put people as close to zero to enforce an ideal of collective poornes and fairness is only keeping everyone equal by keeping everyone down. Again, cheap ploys like talking about 'collective poorness', 'close to zero'; it's Fox-news level argument. You didn't address anything I actually brought up in my post, like: Even if we lower the inheritance tax threshold to a million and repeal prop 13, people inheriting are still going to inherit, they're still gaining something, a very large leg-up over someone who isn't. You're pretending the proposal is for everyone to have all inherited wealth taken away: nobody is saying that. That you need to stretch things so far to make your non-argument shows the inherent weakness in it, and probably that you actually know that it's that weak.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's not socialist rhetoric, though. It's also bootstrappy as gently caress. Prop 13 exists because property taxes were doubling every year and people were being priced out of their homes and forced to move. People can whine about that being propaganda but it's not hard to provide proof of it actually happening. Why do you think the situation should go back to that? What's wrong with someone getting a leg up from their parents? Is taking it away going to make someone's life better or just satisfy someone's sense of fairness? EDIT: Look at it this way: In the current system, people who think prop 13 is unfair can choose to sell their home instead of passing it on. People whio think it's fair can still benefit from it. The solutions being proposed by people in this thread all revolve around a certain group of people forcing eveyone else to conform to their idea of fairness without choice. new phone who dis fucked around with this message at 15:10 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 exists because property taxes were doubling every year and people were being priced out of their homes and forced to move. People can whine about that being propaganda but it's not hard to provide proof of it actually happening. Why do you think the situation should go back to that? WHen claiming that it's not hard to provide proof, then you should go ahead and do so. Especially of the property taxes doubling every year bit--that's a very strong claim, and it's interestingly unbounded. For how long did they double every year? How much did the house appreciate for during this? Is having to move some sort of ultimate evil to be avoided, and if so, why ignore that Prop 13 also increases home prices? quote:What's wrong with someone getting a leg up from their parents? Okay, this is getting kind of pathetic. What's wrong has been stated over and over: That it creates passed-down wealth that increases wealth inequity generationally, especially since we're in a capitalist society where owning capital gives you access to a lot of wealth generation that non-capital owners don't have. And again, the most extreme I've suggested is that people get a max of a million dollars from their parents before getting the money taxed. They're still getting a leg up. A million dollars is a leg up. Pretending that it isn't, that I'm saying something else, makes you look dishonest or like you're paying no attention at all. quote:Is taking it away going to make someone's life better or just satisfy someone's sense of fairness? Again, crude appeals to emotion, portrayal of people 'taking this away' as just doing so in some self-satisfying way: it's not convincing, it's entirely predictable. And yes, if we use the money we tax from estates to promote the general welfare, then it'll make people's lives better. You seem to be pretending that tax money gets burned in a big pit, rather than spent on things that benefit people. quote:EDIT: Look at it this way: In the current system, people who think prop 13 is unfair can choose to sell their home instead of passing it on. People whio think it's fair can still benefit from it. The solutions being proposed by people in this thread all revolve around a certain group of people forcing eveyone else to conform to their idea of fairness without choice. This is just the ridiculous "If you think income tax should be higher you should pay it". It doesn't address the systemic nature of a problem, it pretends it's an individual moral choice. We're talking about how to structure the taxation of inheritance and how to deal with property taxes in a way that is sustainable and workable as a society, this isn't a morality play. Again, I can't tell if you just have no clue how absolutely bereft of substance these arguments are, or if you know it and you're being a sophist. You pivot neatly and ignore arguments made against you that it seems more and more likely that you do understand the inherent bankruptcy of your rhetoric, but it's hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
on the left posted: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. Actually it kind of does. Services, whether public or private sector, are highly labor intensive i.e. they're performed by people who expect their wages to at least track inflation and cost of living. When you artificially restrict public revenue over time to a curve below inflation, it gets harder and harder to pay for those services. Those public sector employees live in the same communities that they serve and as we all know, cost of housing is a major component of cost of living, so yeah 'richer' neighborhoods - more expensive housing - does mean more expensive public services. As well, the number of years a particular member of the community lives in a particular house does not correlate to that person's - or family's - rate of consumption of public services. The cost of providing fire, police, storm sewer, etc. protection for my neighbors' houses is the same as for my house regardless of the number of years we've lived in them. So when I pay 10x - 12x more in property taxes, I'm subsidizing them. Prop 13 is just stupidly distortionary.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Actually it kind of does. Services, whether public or private sector, are highly labor intensive i.e. they're performed by people who expect their wages to at least track inflation and cost of living. When you artificially restrict public revenue over time to a curve below inflation, it gets harder and harder to pay for those services. Those public sector employees live in the same communities that they serve and as we all know, cost of housing is a major component of cost of living, so yeah 'richer' neighborhoods - more expensive housing - does mean more expensive public services. The price of services hasn't raised even close to the property rate. The people providing those services just switched from owners in town to renters out of town.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Actually it kind of does. Services, whether public or private sector, are highly labor intensive i.e. they're performed by people who expect their wages to at least track inflation and cost of living. When you artificially restrict public revenue over time to a curve below inflation, it gets harder and harder to pay for those services. Those public sector employees live in the same communities that they serve and as we all know, cost of housing is a major component of cost of living, so yeah 'richer' neighborhoods - more expensive housing - does mean more expensive public services. The answer to that is that most critical public services should not be paid by a levy on property with no respect to income. The only things that should be paid for with property taxes is some stuff like garbage removal, sewage fees, and other basic infrastructure stuff that is easy to judge costs based on square footage of property and reflect the costs of a property. There's not much reason at all to pay for schools/fire/police with property taxes. It doesn't make sense to tax people on unrealized paper gains, especially when most businesses are prohibited from declaring such things as income for good reason. To bring up the college degree taxation idea again, why not tax college graduates on increases to the value of their college education, as determined by the rise in tuition yearly. If your alma mater was able to raise tuition by 10k a year, clearly your own college education has risen in value and you should therefore pay some sort of capital gains tax on this gain. on the left fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The price of services hasn't raised even close to the property rate. The people providing those services just switched from owners in town to renters out of town. Setting aside the incredible classism inherent in this statement (!) that solution isn't going to keep working indefinitely. on the left posted:The answer to that is that most critical public services should not be paid by a levy on property with no respect to income. The only things that should be paid for with property taxes is some stuff like garbage removal, sewage fees, and other basic infrastructure stuff that is easy to judge costs based on square footage of property and reflect the costs of a property. There's not much reason at all to pay for schools/fire/police with property taxes. Maybe so, but what's your proposed mechanism for effecting this change? Counties don't have the authority to levy income tax and the state has been gridlocked thanks to the our favorite prop.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
On the non-arguing against dishonest diatribes side of thing, looks like SF is set to ban Ellis Act evictions for the first 5 years of property ownership. Also looks like SF will have to cut some of their water withdrawals this year because irrigation gets first priority. Not the way the farmers say it always goes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:On the non-arguing against dishonest diatribes side of thing, looks like SF is set to ban Ellis Act evictions for the first 5 years of property ownership. SF water comes the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, the way I understand it, that reservoir doesn't really service the larger bay area, so it'd be a difficult task to funnel it off to farms anyway, because of the infrastructure. That being said, they're going to be mixing the nonpotable water in the Golden Gate reservoir, with the Hetch Hetchy Water starting in 2016. They say because the Hetch-Hetchy water is so pure, blending it with this non-drinkable reservoir will still pass national standards. It seems like a very terrible idea, and I'm suspect as to how safe it'll be, but ....water crisis. (still, I don't want to drink it)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:SF water comes the Hetch-Hetchy reservoir, the way I understand it, that reservoir doesn't really service the larger bay area, so it'd be a difficult task to funnel it off to farms anyway, because of the infrastructure. That being said, they're going to be mixing the nonpotable water in the Golden Gate reservoir, with the Hetch Hetchy Water starting in 2016. They say because the Hetch-Hetchy water is so pure, blending it with this non-drinkable reservoir will still pass national standards. It seems like a very terrible idea, and I'm suspect as to how safe it'll be, but ....water crisis. (still, I don't want to drink it) SF diverts water from the Tuolumne river to fill the Hetch Hetchy, but is a junior rights holder to the local irrigation district. It's not going to have an impact on water deliveries inside the SF water system, but is contrary to the narrative that ag water supporters use. Also blending is the only way LA uses it's water from the Colorado river, so there's that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Can I just ask one question to natetimm? Why are you so absolutely convinced that giving the state and local governments the power to set property taxes will lead to disaster? Most other states grant local governments that power and it hasn't made it impossible for non-super-rich people to live there. What exactly is so different about CA that will suddenly cause the total cost of a home to skyrocket if we repeal prop 13?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
on the left posted:The answer to that is that most critical public services should not be paid by a levy on property with no respect to income. The only things that should be paid for with property taxes is some stuff like garbage removal, sewage fees, and other basic infrastructure stuff that is easy to judge costs based on square footage of property and reflect the costs of a property. There's not much reason at all to pay for schools/fire/police with property taxes. Just out of curiosity, where do you live that garbage removal and sewerage are paid for by taxes? Everywhere I've lived in the US, those services were either provided by private businesses or a governmental utility that sent out monthly or quarterly bills instead of being rolled into your taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted: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. You do pay taxes on that rent money. The more houses, the more rent, the more taxes you pay on that rent. My goodness! 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Powerlurker posted:Just out of curiosity, where do you live that garbage removal and sewerage are paid for by taxes? Everywhere I've lived in the US, those services were either provided by private businesses or a governmental utility that sent out monthly or quarterly bills instead of being rolled into your taxes. Places like that exist. For example, in San Diego, trash collection for single family residences is paid for by the city. I can't agree with on the left's point, though since property taxes don't change based on the size of the home, they change on the value of it. It doesn't cost more to remove the trash from a 1000 square foot house in La Jolla than it does for a 1000 square foot house across the freeway in UTC but the La Jolla house pays vastly more in property taxes. On the other hand, services like schools and public safety which account for a large percentage of their costs in labor, do become much more expensive as housing costs go up since you have to pay people more to cover the increased cost of housing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:SF diverts water from the Tuolumne river to fill the Hetch Hetchy, but is a junior rights holder to the local irrigation district. It's not going to have an impact on water deliveries inside the SF water system, but is contrary to the narrative that ag water supporters use. LA water is really gross, though. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Can I just ask one question to natetimm? Why are you so absolutely convinced that giving the state and local governments the power to set property taxes will lead to disaster? Most other states grant local governments that power and it hasn't made it impossible for non-super-rich people to live there. What exactly is so different about CA that will suddenly cause the total cost of a home to skyrocket if we repeal prop 13? It's a known precedent that giving those powers to communities rather than the state exacerbates the different quality education disadvantaged students receive in poor areas. The rest of the nation is figuring out that letting municipalities set and collect their school taxes ends up with privileged islands of rich whiteness in a sea of disadvantaged people of color. Having the state collect and distribute it equally is a much better solution.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Papercut posted:LA water is really gross, though. What happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas. It flows downstream.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Can I just ask one question to natetimm? Why are you so absolutely convinced that giving the state and local governments the power to set property taxes will lead to disaster? Most other states grant local governments that power and it hasn't made it impossible for non-super-rich people to live there. What exactly is so different about CA that will suddenly cause the total cost of a home to skyrocket if we repeal prop 13? I used to own a house and the county gave a special property tax discount to disabled home owners as well as people who worked for volunteer EMS. Prop 13 basically forced every county to have the same policy without regard to local needs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It's a known precedent that giving those powers to communities rather than the state exacerbates the different quality education disadvantaged students receive in poor areas. The rest of the nation is figuring out that letting municipalities set and collect their school taxes ends up with privileged islands of rich whiteness in a sea of disadvantaged people of color. Having the state collect and distribute it equally is a much better solution. So you'd be in favor of removing the part of prop 13 that requires a 2/3s majority in order for the assembly to raise taxes, then?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It's a known precedent that giving those powers to communities rather than the state exacerbates the different quality education disadvantaged students receive in poor areas. The rest of the nation is figuring out that letting municipalities set and collect their school taxes ends up with privileged islands of rich whiteness in a sea of disadvantaged people of color. Having the state collect and distribute it equally is a much better solution. You've been asserting throughout this thread that repealing prop 13 will lead to grannies being forced to sell their homes because of the incredible rise in property taxes. But this isn't a major issue for the majority of the country that doesn't have a prop 13. Why is CA different?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I believe I asked why you think housing costs would skyrocket if prop 13 was repealed, not why you think property taxes are bad. Prop 13 locks in property tax under a variety of conditions. It's value when assessed in 1978 if you bought it before then or it's price when you bought it after that. Then it locks in the rate increase at 1% a year instead of reassessing the value of your house every year. If someone in your family inherits the house they get the old rate. In many areas of ca, the houses have increased upwards of ten times over the years. A house bought at 40k can easily be worth 400k. With prop 13 repealed, the people who normally owe around 500 bucks a year in tax would end up owing around 4k to 5k instead. Wages haven't raised nearly enough in the meantime to compensate. Now you have a bunch of people living in neighborhoods they could never afford to buy into today being badgered by their yuppie neighbors who bought in at the peak for not paying enough taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Prop 13 locks in property tax under a variety of conditions. It's value when assessed in 1978 if you bought it before then or it's price when you bought it after that. Then it locks in the rate increase at 1% a year instead of reassessing the value of your house every year. If someone in your family inherits the house they get the old rate. The rest of us dont owe you anything. No one wants to pay for roads or sewage upkeep leading to your house. Pay your own part. Thats how communal/public things work. The fact that you have claimed that tax rates should be inheritable goods is completely 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
A idea so bad it was copied by Oregonians
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That 35 year old house is paid off and if you cant pay for your roads and public services then too bad. Even more to the point if the lovely spoiled child (you) doesnt want to pay for public services then get the gently caress out. You get the house (congrats!) you have to pay taxes (welcome to being a citizen!). Typical tax and spend mentality. Nobody should have it better than you. All trees made equal by the chainsaw. Ca gets it's 4th highest taxes just fine. Sorry you bought at the peak of the bubble.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The fact that you have claimed that tax rates should be inheritable goods is completely natetimm posted:Typical tax and spend mentality. natetimm posted:Nobody should have it better than you. If we cut you off from public goods, then I dont care if you dont pay taxes. I hear Somalia is nice.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
To take it even one step further I would support an extension of prop 13 to allow every native-born Californian the purchase of one home with a property tax rate tied to the median home price the year of their birth.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Typical tax and spend mentality. Nobody should have it better than you. All trees made equal by the chainsaw. Ca gets it's 4th highest taxes just fine. Sorry you bought at the peak of the bubble. Or in other words, it's okay to gently caress 95% of the population out of owning a home as long as the other 5% get to keep what they have. Public good? What's that? EDIT: Actually, that's not even a conservative rear end in a top hat mentality. It's just an rear end in a top hat mentality. TheOneAndOnlyT fucked around with this message at 02:34 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Maybe so, but what's your proposed mechanism for effecting this change? Counties don't have the authority to levy income tax and the state has been gridlocked thanks to the our favorite prop. Yes they do, my county and even my small suburban city inside the county both had their own tax rates on top of state taxes. I had to look up my specific tax rate by zip code when I lived in Maryland.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (unless their parents bought a sweet house in the '70s in which case we should totally give them more money)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (unless their parents bought a sweet house in the '70s in which case we should totally give them more money) I just said: let's expand it to all native Californians backdated to the median house price the year they were born. I agree it's unfair, so instead of eliminating it let's expand it to make it more inclusive.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I just said: let's expand it to all native Californians backdated to the median house price the year they were born. I agree it's unfair, so instead of eliminating it let's expand it to make it more inclusive. What? You moved here after college? You must be a millionaire software guy. There are no such things as starving artists who move to California because Podunk, KS gives out no arts funding. Every actor who comes out here always makes it big! Grapes of Wrath was a fairy tale and no one really moves to California without making it big! I suppose you support giving in-state tuition only to native Californians too? Would definitely save some money to keep those illegal Texan immigrants from getting a cheaper education. Maybe while we're at it we can restrict the vote for the California Assembly to people who were born in California too. People who didn't grow up here know nothing about our strange ways and water rights, so why should they have the right to vote on them until they've at least bought a house here and paid full taxes on it. But hey good run on trolling the thread. That was a good proposal to go out on.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:What? You moved here after college? You must be a millionaire software guy. There are no such things as starving artists who move to California because Podunk, KS gives out no arts funding. Every actor who comes out here always makes it big! Grapes of Wrath was a fairy tale and no one really moves to California without making it big! The true factor driving up CA real estate prices is every schmo from back east who gets fake rich and moves out here to find a McMansion. If you're a starving artist there's no way you're buying a house under any circumstance so nothing's changing on that front. Out of state tuition? I'm cool with that, too. However, I wouldn't mind expanding prop 13 to every person that con prove they were born in CA, legal or not. There needs to be a legal path to citizenship for those folks already. Bottom line is that for all the sniping and fighting over house prices and prop 13 in this thread, none of that poo poo holds a candle to the assholes that move here from out of state.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Some rear end in a top hat literally just proposed a birth lottery in order to keep his unearned loot.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Some rear end in a top hat literally just proposed a birth lottery in order to keep his unearned loot. CA takes a lot of unskilled labor to keep afloat and yes, I prefer the birth lottery system to one where people from out of state continually move in and drive the price up on everything, relegating anyone who makes less than 50k a year to "serf who rents in the desert" status. It's way better than the free market dick you're chugging down every chance you get.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay, this is getting kind of pathetic. What's wrong has been stated over and over: That it creates passed-down wealth that increases wealth inequity generationally, especially since we're in a capitalist society where owning capital gives you access to a lot of wealth generation that non-capital owners don't have. This is why I suggested taxing the poo poo out of estate sales. Because, personally speaking, I don't want to sell if I can help it. The only "leg up" I want from my parents is to have a small self-employed business that pays me as much as a typical part time job. That provides a certain amount of insurance against unemployment and means I don't HAVE to work full time, nose to the grindstone somewhere. (Instead, I probably would have in effect two part time jobs.) If I can't do that, I'm basically going to be a poor person being supported by our weak social safety net, as I failed to bootstrap during my teens and twenties (didn't bother to get a job until the recession hit), and it's looking like a significant chunk of my thirties will be live-in caretaker to ailing parents. And I kind of owe it because of property. I don't have a career, I don't have a college education, and I'm unlikely to produce the kind of income that someone who could earn the property at market value can to maintain it. Even though Natetimm is being kind of a stereotypical Reoublican butt about it ("tax and send" lol), it does to me feel a bit like I'm being told that I should have to lose something because I didn't bootstrap and earn it. I'm not saying it all should be completely free, either. I mean, I'd rather be wealthy "on paper" living a lower income lifestyle on a property I didn't earn, than liquidate possessions and have money I didn't earn. Because the only thing I can see myself doing with the money after liquidation and the subsequent tax, is buy another, lower value property. Because I have to live somewhere. The end effect of that is being relocated via gentrification. I'd still be for a 13 repeal if the current property rate went down, so that my tax bill goes up less dramatically, while yours also goes down, normalizing it because more people are paying into the system than they were. But that leads to discussion of what that rate would be, and it would have to keep being brought to debate every few years because of how stupidly inflated California is. And it also seems pointless since the people who want to repeal 13 aren't interested in that, they want to lower a bunch of other taxes instead. Keep in mind the war here is not New Homeowners VS Long Timers. It's actually about Taxing Residents For Living Here VS Taxing People For Other Things. I'm probably one of the only people on this forum who would point out that sales tax actually is one of the few taxes that does not exempt non-residential visitors, so it should be competitive but not eliminated. EDIT: natetimm posted:people from out of state continually move in and drive the price up on everything This is actually how everywhere else views Californians, which kind of means your argument is totally wrong, but oh well. Mostly because if they sell their property, they can usually move into a much larger/finer house elsewhere (The same is largely true of Massachusetts, a McMansion in the south costs the same as an poo poo-filled outhouse in MA.) The funny thing is, most the people who can't keep their property will take whatever it sells for and invest in places that hate Californians like Seattle, thus continuing a gentrification cycle. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
natetimm posted:CA takes a lot of unskilled labor to keep afloat and yes, I prefer the birth lottery system to one where people from out of state continually move in and drive the price up on everything, relegating anyone who makes less than 50k a year to "serf who rents in the desert" status. It's way better than the free market dick you're chugging down every chance you get. I'm now a free marketeer! Who knew? Being in favor of taxes makes you a free-marketer! Being in favor of minimizing Birthrights makes you a free-marketer! Being in favor of sharing the cost of public infrastructure makes you a free-marketer! You really dont know what any of these words mean. I would think you were a gimmick but youve been at this for too many years to not mess up. You are so desperate to spit out a label that you keep hitting yourself in the face. I actually agree with some of your sentiments, but you need to divorce those from your personal greed. If you want to protect the non-wealthy then you tax land and not work. If you have feelings on this issue beyond GIMME GIMME GIMME ... then check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism quote:... FRINGE fucked around with this message at 03:33 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
natetimm posted:In many areas of ca, the houses have increased upwards of ten times over the years. A house bought at 40k can easily be worth 400k. With prop 13 repealed, the people who normally owe around 500 bucks a year in tax would end up owing around 4k to 5k instead. Wages haven't raised nearly enough in the meantime to compensate. Just wanna point out that these people natetimm is super-worried about are paying less in real dollars now than they did in real dollars when they bought their house. $400 in 1978 is $1454 in 2014. But he's not even willing to let their property taxes be frozen based on their original home value in real dollars. Natetimm thinks people's property tax should decline over time, forever. Also non-native californians: get the gently caress out! Well, get the gently caress out if you came here recently. If you came here in 1978 and bought a $40k house, you're fine, I guess. Or if your parents were immigrants. Growth is bad! Development is bad! Taxes are bad! Government is bad! Fairness is bad! Taxing growing wealth is theft! natetimm posted:It's way better than the free market dick you're chugging down every chance you get. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This is why I suggested taxing the poo poo out of estate sales. Because, personally speaking, I don't want to sell if I can help it. The only "leg up" I want from my parents is to have a small self-employed business that pays me as much as a typical part time job. That provides a certain amount of insurance against unemployment and means I don't HAVE to work full time, nose to the grindstone somewhere. (Instead, I probably would have in effect two part time jobs.) The funny thing is if any of these people complaining about taxes actually could afford to own a home at current 400k+ prices, it's almost guaranteed to be because they also had some sort of "unfair advantage" earlier in their life. The convenient situation though is it's not a quantifiable asset like a house or a tax break so they get to act all smug and call people leeches and deadbeats in relative safety because they've already milked their advantage for all it's worth.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:49
|
|