|
God forbid Burlingame allow even a duplex to be built in more than like 10% of the city. If I had to leave my current position to go work as an urban planner in a peninsula community I think I would shoot myself in the head.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Sundae posted:Yep! I'm in Burlingame too. I'm excited for the rent control ordinance because my wife and I are filthy renting proles. Ah, so you're in favor of prop 13 after all, you're just annoyed that the windfall went to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Ah, so you're in favor of prop 13 after all, you're just annoyed that the windfall went to someone else. Carl Lewis would applaud the leap you made there, dude. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Carl Lewis would applaud the leap you made there, dude. It seems like a pretty direct path to me, you'll just have long term renters and landlords trying to get the buildings condemned to force them out... because that is literally what landlords have and will do when faced with rent control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It happens with income all the time, property value is just much murkier and less obviously real as the amount of dollars you earn. Excluding the social security maximum, doubling your income will more than double your tax bill, does property really need to be that different? If you make more money, then you have more money to pay in taxes, so you set more of it aside. If the value of your house is going up like it has been in Silicon Valley, where do you get the extra money for that 47% tax hike because your salary probably didn't go up 47%. So property is a little different than income. baquerd posted:It seems like a pretty direct path to me, you'll just have long term renters and landlords trying to get the buildings condemned to force them out... because that is literally what landlords have and will do when faced with rent control. Also fewer apartments being built because why would anyone want to build and manage a complex where you take the same amount every year but your costs keep going up due to inflation, property taxes, etc. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
If you can't pay the upkeep, you sell, thereby lowering the cost of housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
quote:If the value of your house is going up like it has been in Silicon Valley, where do you get the extra money for that 47% tax hike because your salary probably didn't go up 47%. You sell the house and move to a smaller house or a locality you can afford like everyone else in America. I'd say that you don't have the right to live in a multi-million dollar house and not pay your bills on it, but according to the lovely combination of Prop 13 of 1978 and Prop 60 of 1986, apparently you do have that right in California. Taxes are for young people and new residents!  baquerd posted:It seems like a pretty direct path to me, you'll just have long term renters and landlords trying to get the buildings condemned to force them out... because that is literally what landlords have and will do when faced with rent control. I read his post differently, and the leap was in regard to me being in favor of Prop 13. I read it as: because I like the idea of rent control as a renter, I'm okay with Prop 13 or would be if I was a home owner. I'd rather have neither Prop 13 nor rent control, but one of those two options is political suicide while the other at least has a chance. BWM: Forgetting your lunch at home and needing to go to the cafeteria. GWM: Realizing you also left your wallet at home, and instead hunting down a presentation on site that offered free lunch. I feel like I'm in college again. Sundae fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
BC also has a property tax deferral scheme that specifically benefits old people at the cost of younger people. FYGM! http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/property-taxes/annual-property-tax/pay/defer-taxes
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Sundae posted:You sell the house and move to a smaller house or a locality you can afford like everyone else in America. I'd say that you don't have the right to live in a multi-million dollar house and not pay your bills on it, but according to the lovely combination of Prop 13 of 1978 and Prop 60 of 1986, apparently you do have that right in California. Taxes are for young people and new residents! gently caress You, Got Mine => gently caress You, Google Employee quote:I read his post differently, and the leap was in regard to me being in favor of Prop 13. I read it as: because I like the idea of rent control as a renter, I'm okay with Prop 13 or would be if I was a home owner. I'd rather have neither Prop 13 nor rent control, but one of those two options is political suicide while the other at least has a chance. I agree with neither Prop 13/rent control which is how it works in sane parts of the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Not saying this is what happened for the poster, but if your house went up by 47% in market value, absolutely it should be legal. House values jumping by 10-20% per year isn't that unusual for the SF bay area, unfortunately. No it bloody well shouldn't. What happens when—and this isn't an edge case, it's par for the course in many Australian cities, for one—a family buys a house, has kids, raises kids, and retires in the same house which is now, thanks to a stupid loving property bubble (now I'm looking your way, SF), "worth" 1-2 million dollars? How they hell are people supposed to come up with that cash flow, and to preempt the answer to that question, why the gently caress should they be expected to sell the house and move out just because Mayor Carl McSticky Fingers and property developer Rich Uncle Pennybags want to bulldoze the neighbourhood and build artistinal bespoke McMansions? Bonus points for when the bubble crashes, house prices go back to a sane level, but whoops everyone's moved now because they couldn't afford the taxes, and construction on Big Box O'Whiteyville has halted. Oh I'll just pack up my life again and move back, sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Mantle posted:If you can't pay the upkeep, you sell, thereby lowering the cost of housing. No no no, this is modern business, you hold hold hold until you get the magical unicorn tenant who makes you hassle-free profit. Failing that, you take out massive loans that you're unable to ever pay back and when the bottom falls out, the government will cushion the blow by cutting taxes* *cutting taxes for people earning enough, raising 'fees' for people who don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:No it bloody well shouldn't. What happens when—and this isn't an edge case, it's par for the course in many Australian cities, for one—a family buys a house, has kids, raises kids, and retires in the same house which is now, thanks to a stupid loving property bubble (now I'm looking your way, SF), "worth" 1-2 million dollars? How they hell are people supposed to come up with that cash flow, and to preempt the answer to that question, why the gently caress should they be expected to sell the house and move out just because Mayor Carl McSticky Fingers and property developer Rich Uncle Pennybags want to bulldoze the neighbourhood and build artistinal bespoke McMansions? Post-post edit: to be fair though, I'm totally for making sure people don't exploit a system that's designed to shield them from increased property taxes on their own home. I'd be fine with a rule like "if you secure financing against this home, your assessed value will increase to the valuation made by the financier/to the amount of the financing you took". Also, once you sell, end of shield: the purchaser is making the purchase in the current climate, not in the past. I'm interested in keeping people in their homes, not giving them easy access to cheap credit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
What in the actual gently caress. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/index.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What in the actual gently caress. Identity theft is such a profitable industry that now even banks are investing in it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:No it bloody well shouldn't. What happens when—and this isn't an edge case, it's par for the course in many Australian cities, for one—a family buys a house, has kids, raises kids, and retires in the same house which is now, thanks to a stupid loving property bubble (now I'm looking your way, SF), "worth" 1-2 million dollars? How they hell are people supposed to come up with that cash flow, and to preempt the answer to that question, why the gently caress should they be expected to sell the house and move out just because Mayor Carl McSticky Fingers and property developer Rich Uncle Pennybags want to bulldoze the neighbourhood and build artistinal bespoke McMansions? I'd be down with direct assistance to retirees to help them keep their homes, but the "your taxable property value only goes up by a trivial amount until you sell it (ps here's a bunch of ways to skirt that and have the value artifically low even after you're gone)" system is a disaster. silvergoose posted:What in the actual gently caress. quote:"At Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility, and we take action," the bank said in a memo to employees on Thursday. "Mistakes." I guess getting caught is a mistake, but that's a funny way to put it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:"Mistakes." I guess getting caught is a mistake, but that's a funny way to put it. We made over 1.5 million consecutive mistakes at an enterprise-wide level and completely solved this problem by firing a bunch of low-level people, but come on everyone makes mistakes!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What in the actual gently caress. This is amazing. 5,300 individual bad apples, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Yeah seriously guys, you're a little overdue for a Revolution by now. Chop chop (it is a guillotine joke).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
It's okay guys, they are going to refund 5 million dollars to the people who were wrongly charged over 2+ million accounts. So everyone gets at least $2.50. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Just an update on that crazy AMD guy who borrowed something like 9 grand on a credit card, then finished it off by buying a total of $13,000 of AMD stock using margin with his brokerage. He's down two grand in two weeks, one grand of which disappeared toady. Whoops! How much longer till he panic sells? Or do you think he's buying more? My bet would be he's panicking trying to take out another credit card and probably paying an excessive expedite fee to get more funds in the account. How much farther till he has a margin call? SweetSassyMolassy fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?499174-If-I-didn-t-have-horses-I-would "If I didn't have horses, I would..." quote:Saving more, travelling to see friends/family more often. quote:I'd have put money away to retire...I think. Never gonna happen as long as I have horses, which are totally worth it. quote:I'd probably eat real food that wasn't instant noodle based and sleep on furniture I actually owned quote:I would have so much money. It's easy for me to say what I'd do with it because I just bought a horse about 6 months ago and I'm just getting used to being poor. I'd buy a lot more clothes and eat out a lot more often and really, not worry about money at all. quote:Oh and my student loans would all be paid off and I'd be living in my own place. quote:I would have a LOT more money. You figure five at home, two boarded out, four at the track, and heading to the yearling sale tomorrow, and you all know I won't come away without another one, or maybe two. Do the math. quote:I wouldn't be 30 and living in my parents' basement, that's for sure!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?499174-If-I-didn-t-have-horses-I-would They should make a calendar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:I wouldn't be 30 and living in my parents' basement, that's for sure! They have to live in the basement because the horse gets the real bedroom
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
I dated a horse girl once. At least her grandparents had land with a stable. That didn't make the relationship any less of a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I dated a horse girl once. At least her grandparents had land with a stable. That didn't make the relationship any less of a mistake. What, aren't you looking for a stable relationship 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I dated a horse girl once. At least her grandparents had land with a stable. That didn't make the relationship any less of a mistake. the preferred term is centaur
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?499174-If-I-didn-t-have-horses-I-would jesus christ, horse people 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
"Likes horses" was always one of my biggest dating red flags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Obviously horse people get the most play in this thread, but is there any pet culture that spends more? What about those people who own like a dozen anacondas? Fancy show dogs? Gigantic aquariums?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Obviously horse people get the most play in this thread, but is there any pet culture that spends more?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day 42069 posted:I imagine you'll find outliers in every kind of pet obsession. I don't want to imagine, I want to know! Stories stories stories!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
People who own exotic animals like lions probably pay more. As a bonus they can eat you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Obviously horse people get the most play in this thread, but is there any pet culture that spends more? What about those people who own like a dozen anacondas? Fancy show dogs? Gigantic aquariums? I don't know, none of those things require a full separate monthly rent with large outdoor space and 20 metric tons of carrots a year. I guess you could count ranchers, who subsist almost entirely on government subsidies due to their necessity being phased out decades ago by modern farming, but they're actually getting government money to raise their pet cows so it's not quite the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:No it bloody well shouldn't. What happens when—and this isn't an edge case, it's par for the course in many Australian cities, for one—a family buys a house, has kids, raises kids, and retires in the same house which is now, thanks to a stupid loving property bubble (now I'm looking your way, SF), "worth" 1-2 million dollars? How they hell are people supposed to come up with that cash flow, and to preempt the answer to that question, why the gently caress should they be expected to sell the house and move out just because Mayor Carl McSticky Fingers and property developer Rich Uncle Pennybags want to bulldoze the neighbourhood and build artistinal bespoke McMansions? The situation is unfair no matter what you do. If property taxes are fixed, property values skyrocket as people refuse to sell their homes for fear of realizing a massive property tax increase. Which means, if they had to realize the increase regardless, many would opt to sell their house. So, property tax increases drive down home prices by encouraging people to sell, making neighborhoods more accessible. That is only "worth" $2M because so few homes are for sale in the neighborhood. It's probably easy to find two or three people a year willing to pay $2M for one, but could you find 20 or 30 people willing to pay that much? I doubt it. It's not like these people would be left homeless and destitute. They'd be millionaires for no reason other than they got lucky. The fairest solution is to just stop basing taxes on property value all-together and just charge a flat fee per resident or have an income tax.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:It's not like these people would be left homeless and destitute. They'd be millionaires for no reason other than they got lucky. Not if they took out all their equity in loans to buy stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
My wife decided to shop her resume around Silicon Valley a bit, and even with a doubling of her salary, it would have been a break-even move as our rent would be 3-4x more expensive, we'd have to start paying state income tax, and everything we buy would cost more, plus we'd likely end up in a smaller apartment and have a longer commute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Powerlurker posted:My wife decided to shop her resume around Silicon Valley a bit, and even with a doubling of her salary, it would have been a break-even move as our rent would be 3-4x more expensive, we'd have to start paying state income tax, and everything we buy would cost more, plus we'd likely end up in a smaller apartment and have a longer commute. We were thinking about it when I got a few offers in the Bay Area, but holy poo poo my mortgage would be 3x higher and I'd be making 30% more. gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
oRenj9 posted:The fairest solution is to just stop basing taxes on property value all-together and just charge a flat fee per resident or have an income tax. Totally correct, ad valorem property taxes are ridiculous and loaded with perverse incentives all around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Powerlurker posted:My wife decided to shop her resume around Silicon Valley a bit, and even with a doubling of her salary, it would have been a break-even move as our rent would be 3-4x more expensive, we'd have to start paying state income tax, and everything we buy would cost more, plus we'd likely end up in a smaller apartment and have a longer commute. Have you considered a rural location such as Des Moines?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
e: double post
BEHOLD: MY CAPE fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 05:57
|
|