|
Looks like a 2014 rematch for my district. Aguilar vs Chabot.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Approaching Los Baņos on our way to Yosemite we always run into these Jerry Brown crazy train signs and signs blaming Pelosi for the drought. Like all up and down the freeway. Has anyone seen those? Where the gently caress am I when I see that poo poo and who the gently caress is responsible for all those signs? https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/oligarch-valley/ there's an excerpt near the end of this book on where they come from; they're astroturfed by valley oligarch billionaires
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Looks like a 2014 rematch for my district. Aguilar vs Chabot. My district too. Aguilar kicked Chabot's rear end. I hate Chabot's "STOP TERRORISM AND DRUGS" platform. Doom Sleigher fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
I voted against the bay restoration parcel tax. It seemed so strange that an environmentally progressive measure would employ a regressive tax. Maybe it's less regressive in the Bay Area because anyone who owns a parcel is probably rich?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Brodeurs Nanny posted:He's a big longshot, but I am going to volunteer for Emory Rodgers for Boxer's Senate seat. For those who don't know about him: https://voteforemory.com/ hey i voted for this dude thanks to this post. break a leg on future campaigns
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:I voted against the bay restoration parcel tax. It seemed so strange that an environmentally progressive measure would employ a regressive tax. Maybe it's less regressive in the Bay Area because anyone who owns a parcel is probably rich? A $12 a year tax on land owners isn't exactly the most regressive tax in the world. I'm glad it passed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
If an extra $12/yr kicks granny out of her house, good. We need more housing on the market.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
It incrementally makes owning a house more prohibitive for the masses while it hardly effects top earners. I would have voted for it if it was an income tax or one based on the value or size of the property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:It incrementally makes owning a house more prohibitive for the masses while it hardly effects top earners. I would have voted for it if it was an income tax or one based on the value or size of the property. Yeah, this is actually something really important that feels like people over look. The trend in the US seems to be that achieving home ownership has become harder over all, but a lot of our laws and protections benefit and favor home owners. Gentrification wouldn't really be such an awful issue if the people weren't being forced out, and instead the ones selling their homes to the people who wish to move there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:It incrementally makes owning a house more prohibitive for the masses while it hardly effects top earners. I would have voted for it if it was an income tax or one based on the value or size of the property. $12 a year is a tiny amount to help improve bay access and protect our waterways. Two things that help disadvantaged communities. It's also nothing compared to the tax subsidy created by prop 13. Would you have voted for it if it was progressive but starting at $12 and went up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
I would support it if it started at $0 and went up. I agree that taking steps to protect the bay and its watershed is good. Overall I'm not disappointed that it passed but I think there were better ways to fund it.
The Wiggly Wizard fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
The granny strawman really needs to stop. Property taxes are regressive as gently caress for everyone not rich, they are forever and individual circumstances can cause people to lose their homes due to such. What I'm saying is, tax the rich, not those that are trying to pay their bills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:21
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:It incrementally makes owning a house more prohibitive for the masses while it hardly effects top earners. I would have voted for it if it was an income tax or one based on the value or size of the property. Income tax is unrealistic I think, because the effort here is local and, for whatever reason, local income taxes are uncommon at best and basically unheard of for very targeted purposes like that. That said, an appropriate millage may have been appropriate instead, except that Prop 13 would then have made it non-progressive in a different way thanks to how it screws with property valuations for tax purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/oligarch-valley/ there's an excerpt near the end of this book on where they come from; they're astroturfed by valley oligarch billionaires Cool link, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:The granny strawman really needs to stop. Property taxes are regressive as gently caress for everyone not rich, they are forever and individual circumstances can cause people to lose their homes due to such. What I'm saying is, tax the rich, not those that are trying to pay their bills. it's fun when people bring up grandma getting thrown outta her house due to those eeeeeevil property taxes to point out that this is in fact how property taxes are intended to work and in fact do work everywhere outside of california to create pressure to densify valuable, sought-after areas
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:If an extra $12/yr kicks granny out of her house, good. We need more housing on the market. This is a response, not an empty quote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
The "granny kicked out due to property taxes" line is like how small businesses are totally going under because we raise the minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The "granny kicked out due to property taxes" line is like how small businesses are totally going under because we raise the minimum wage. Would a minimum wage increase sort of be a regressive tax for small businesses? It seems like a huge corporation would have no problem handling that, while a small business might.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Would a minimum wage increase sort of be a regressive tax for small businesses? It seems like a huge corporation would have no problem handling that, while a small business might. A low minimum wage is essentially a subsidy to any company who pays wages that are low enough to qualify for welfare. The biggest beneficiaries of this are massive companies like Walmart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
b0lt posted:A low minimum wage is essentially a subsidy to any company who pays wages that are low enough to qualify for welfare. The biggest beneficiaries of this are massive companies like Walmart. Oh! small business IS the grandma..I see. Ahahaha woops. one of those nights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
And like your grandma, I plan on loving small business with a little thing I call the minimum wage increase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:it's fun when people bring up grandma getting thrown outta her house due to those eeeeeevil property taxes to point out that this is in fact how property taxes are intended to work and in fact do work everywhere outside of california to create pressure to densify valuable, sought-after areas It's really stupid; in Texas IIRC if the property is your "homestead", aka your one and only primary residence, you can't be evicted for failing to pay property taxes. All they can do is put a lien on the house. So granny can't be kicked out no matter what happens. Prop 13 creates a permanent landed gentry because your kids get to inherit the exemption! Wheeeee! In several generations some people will be paying property taxes on 1% or less of their property's true value because it will be handed down in the family and the exemption will create strong pressure to keep it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Would a minimum wage increase sort of be a regressive tax for small businesses? It seems like a huge corporation would have no problem handling that, while a small business might. if you can't afford to pay a livable wage, you can't afford to have employees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:It's really stupid; in Texas IIRC if the property is your "homestead", aka your one and only primary residence, you can't be evicted for failing to pay property taxes. All they can do is put a lien on the house. So granny can't be kicked out no matter what happens. Oh no, in Texas you can definitely get foreclosed by the county of you don't pay your property tax. (In fact, the county gets first priority when foreclosing, so say you are defaulting on $250k mortgage, but you also don't pay the $5k in property tax for the year. The county gets to take your home for that $5k debt instead of the bank. Granted, in those cases the bank generally finds a way to pay the back property taxes and extra fees themselves so they can then foreclose and take the house.) Our homestead exemption is basically reducing the taxes you pay on your primary residence. Basically, if your county/school/etc local tax rate all added up to 2%, then instead of paying 0.02(X), where X = your property's assigned value for the year, you pay 0.02(X-40000). And then when you hit 65 the assigned value is of your homestead is locked until you die or the property changes hands. Seriously, y'all hosed up with prop 13. Having increasing property tax based on property value may sound like it would be bad, but it increases development and makes housing more affordable. A surprisingly large number of my friends (people who ranged from high school grads with lower-middle-class jobs to upper-middle class college educated techies) were able to do things like buy themselves a starter home in their mid-20s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Pomp posted:if you can't afford to pay a livable wage, you can't afford to have employees. It's more of a micro-economics vs macro-economics thing with wage increases. I'm ultimately for them, but I do wish small businesses and large corporations wouldn't get lumped into the same category so quickly. While a across the board wage hike would have a very clear dollar amount impact on public facing large corporations (star bucks/walmarts etc) since you could easily calculate how much more they'd have to shell out to their employees and pass it on to the consumers.. It's a lot tougher to run a small business than most people realize, so I get why people get nervous about this stuff, which is why I guess it's easy for Big Corporations to wave them around like grannies to get protections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:I would support it if it started at $0 and went up. I agree that taking steps to protect the bay and its watershed is good. Overall I'm not disappointed that it passed but I think there were better ways to fund it. I get what you're saying in theory and I agree for the theory--like a flat $1k parcel tax would be very lovely & regressive but it's only a fraction of that in reality. Just like sales tax should be eliminated and have a higher progressive income tax, and eliminate prop 13 and put in tiered progressive % property tax that goes up on value. But really it's $12 a year on parcel tax is nothing, and no one who owns a home in the bay area is too poor to afford that (and they could just sell it for like $700k - 3 million)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:It's more of a micro-economics vs macro-economics thing with wage increases. I'm ultimately for them, but I do wish small businesses and large corporations wouldn't get lumped into the same category so quickly. While a across the board wage hike would have a very clear dollar amount impact on public facing large corporations (star bucks/walmarts etc) since you could easily calculate how much more they'd have to shell out to their employees and pass it on to the consumers.. I'm on my lunch break and too lazy to actually verify this, but IIRC wasn't there a city that attempted to implement a minimum wage hike on a schedule that ramped up based on the number of employees a business had in total? The idea being that a Walmart of a Starbucks would have to jump their minimum wages quicker than a small business would, both to give small business more time to prep, and to give them more time to hopefully realize increased profits from the additional rounds of spending generated by the hike in the community before having to increase their wages. I believe I also remember Walmart immediately suing them for this. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I'm on my lunch break and too lazy to actually verify this, but IIRC wasn't there a city that attempted to implement a minimum wage hike on a schedule that ramped up based on the number of employees a business had in total? The idea being that a Walmart of a Starbucks would have to jump their minimum wages quicker than a small business would, both to give small business more time to prep, and to give them more time to hopefully realize increased profits from the additional rounds of spending generated by the hike in the community before having to increase their wages. I believe I also remember Walmart immediately suing them for this. That seems like it'd be an outdated strategy what with all the lovely-paying employers being on a franchise model now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:That seems like it'd be an outdated strategy what with all the lovely-paying employers being on a franchise model now. Yeah I think a lot of people don't understand how the franchise model works, and just assume most Nationally Marketed and Branded Businesses are owned by a corporation themselves. They've offset a lot of their risk to individuals who wanted to start a business and make a buck... but, they should be able to offset their cost to consumers, in theory. There's this sort of small town ideal that a part time job is good for ya, and why do I gotta pay a living wage to a 15 year old working a part time job that is a learning experience, a 'living' wage? It's not like they're supporting a family or anything. I think most of us know that isn't really always the case, anymore... but if you did something like staggering the minimum wage between adults and teens...you'd basically be encouraging child labor? It's a problem with the franchise model itself, I guess...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:Approaching Los Baņos on our way to Yosemite we always run into these Jerry Brown crazy train signs and signs blaming Pelosi for the drought. Like all up and down the freeway. Has anyone seen those? Where the gently caress am I when I see that poo poo and who the gently caress is responsible for all those signs? Jerry Manderbilt posted:https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/oligarch-valley/ there's an excerpt near the end of this book on where they come from; they're astroturfed by valley oligarch billionaires I mean, I guess maybe they're on the land those people own perhaps, but that's not where they come from. A guy named Russ Waymire puts them up: http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/signs-of-the-times/article_dba3e746-a9d0-11e0-afc2-001cc4c03286.html My dad actually knows the guy. This is of course related to all the kerfuffle with the "Delta Smelt" and the reduced water being sent from the north.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Hey, if it's time for water talk: I'm pretty sure I've seen it recommended in this very thread, but everyone who is interested in ag or water in the West, including the valley, really needs to read Cadillac Desert. The fights that are happening today are echoes of the 70s and 80s. Also, The King of California is a pretty good read about how the plantation system was imported wholesale into the valley.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
My favorite water wars signs are the new ones: "Is Growing FOOD Wasting Water?" As a matter of fact, yes, using water inefficient methods of growing crops not suited to the local climate IS wasting water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Seriously, y'all hosed up with prop 13. Having increasing property tax based on property value may sound like it would be bad, but it increases development and makes housing more affordable. A surprisingly large number of my friends (people who ranged from high school grads with lower-middle-class jobs to upper-middle class college educated techies) were able to do things like buy themselves a starter home in their mid-20s. Prop 13 is recognized as a problem to anyone sane, but removing or adjusting it is really difficult without directly affecting the wealth of the middle class of the state. It dates back to a different time politically, and loving the state (via reduces taxes/etc) was kinda the theme. That and not funding schools for poor minorities. I can't see a good way out of it, because if we were smart we would phase out the part that limits increases in the taxable value of property while leaving the "capping tax rate at 1%" part alone, at least for now. It would mean going up against the richest and most powerful people in the state who are the backers of both parties. BeAuMaN posted:I mean, I guess maybe they're on the land those people own perhaps, but that's not where they come from. A guy named Russ Waymire puts them up: http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/signs-of-the-times/article_dba3e746-a9d0-11e0-afc2-001cc4c03286.html Which is related to long-term deliberate mis-management of the Trinity river water in order to send more water down south than what is allowed under the law that created the Trinity/Whiskeytown dam system. Eventually the court squashed that poo poo when it was obvious that after 30 years the government had no intention of actually following the law rather than routinely letting the salmon die off so they could send even more water south, and that the first priority of the system under the law is not to deliver water to farms 600 miles away. The system was initially spec'd to divert 48% of the water for the river down in to the Central Valley without seriously affecting the downstream communities (the river does not flow in to the Central Valley), over 30 years they took 73%. The plans the government draw up to deal with the lack of ~500k acre-feet/year of water did not involve using less, and instead increased pumping in the Delta and changing how water quality was measured so they could just suck more out than they used to. After several years of trying that, salmon and smelt numbers went to poo poo, and the court came down on them again. It kinda keeps going from there, but it all comes back to trying to take way more water for farms than we have available over the a long time period, and coming up with ways of avoiding dealing with the fact that water rights were oversold to farmers and that during droughts some farmers are going to get none. Tuxedo Gin posted:My favorite water wars signs are the new ones: "Is Growing FOOD Wasting Water?" I went by some of those signs, and they were planted in fields of cotton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My favorite water wars signs are the new ones: "Is Growing FOOD Wasting Water?" They have a farming exhibit at the Del Mar Fair this year. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:My favorite water wars signs are the new ones: "Is Growing FOOD Wasting Water?" is growing almonds and alfalfa for china wasting water? the best were those ads on NPR that were basically "this show brought to you by the almond farmers of california. please don't hate us"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:is growing almonds and alfalfa for china wasting water? but... salt-of-the-earth everyday Americans deserve to earn a living, don't they? *rapes a scarce, communal resource for massive profits in international markets*
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Out of curiosity did anyone have problems voting? For example having to use a provisional ballot when you shouldn't have had to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:is growing almonds and alfalfa for china wasting water? To be fair, California is one of the few places in the world that has a climate ideal to growing almonds. It's unfortunate that demand from China has lead to a huge uptick in growing since they're so water intensive, but for the most part growing them here makes sense. Alfalfa on the other hand is a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Sydin posted:To be fair, California is one of the few places in the world that has a climate ideal to growing almonds. It's unfortunate that demand from China has lead to a huge uptick in growing since they're so water intensive, but for the most part growing them here makes sense. Alfalfa on the other hand is a different story. well yeah, here and southwestern arizona but it is pretty funny that it's totally unregulated and as a result of massive production increases now accounts for the equivalent water demand as the entirety of the state's residential demand all by itself i think if you expand that to include all nut trees it doubles it, but i'm not so sure about more recent pistachio numbers other than that they've seen an uptick since they're slightly less thirsty trees
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
I get the water use part, but why is the export of crops to China bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:15
|
|