|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:My parents bought a house in San Diego twenty-five years ago and because it's near the ocean it's worth some ridiculous amount of money now. They're technically millionaires but that's simply because of the theoretical value of their house. i feel like thats the story for many locals. makes for a strange intellectual obstacle course when it comes to wealth and identity
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Smythe posted:i feel like thats the story for many locals. makes for a strange intellectual obstacle course when it comes to wealth and identity No poo poo. My mother has told me it's drat weird to be a "millionaire" living on a navy officer's retirement pension.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
If a family has a net worth over $400,000 they're in the top 25% of Americans and if they have a net worth of over $1.1M they're in the top 10%. Median is $44,000 total net worth for an American family. But a lot of those people in the top 10% still consider themselves middle class so when you talk about taxing the top 10% a little bit more, they think "hey that's me, don't tax the middle class we're struggling!".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:My parents bought a house in San Diego twenty-five years ago and because it's near the ocean it's worth some ridiculous amount of money now. They're technically millionaires but that's simply because of the theoretical value of their house. lol "theoretical"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
the fact that having bought a house in california in the 70s / 80s like many of our parents did makes you one of the richest people in the world is pretty mind boggling
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Morbus posted:lol "theoretical"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Yes... Values of anything are just theoretical until there are serious buy offers on the table. And now we're back to why prop 13 sucks because it limits assessed values, allowing the top 10% of wealthiest Americans to pretend their assets are worth 1/10th that when it comes to funding public services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Still annoyed that I need to work for a living because my grandparents sold their mansion in the hills for relatively little in the 80s and now it would be around 8 figures. RIP my inheritance. Looking at the ballot stuff, is there any good site that gives a guide on who is not awful for positions with multiple dems or for smaller positions like Sheriff, Judge, and Superintendent type stuff? Don't know anything about these people, but there are 2 people running so figure it might matter. In San Mateo County if that matters. Also, thoughts on regional measure 3 (the raising bridge tolls bill) and prop 72? Kind of torn on those, generally I would want to raise taxes to fund stuff, but bridge tolls seem somewhat regressive in that they are mainly hitting the lower income people who travel from the east bay or further out. For prop 72 I want people to reduce water use so I would be happy with people storing rain water rather than using water from reservoirs, but I want prop 13 to die and don't want people to be able to avoid tax reassessments. I am thinking a yes win would mean we save a tiny amount of water, but potentially give more loopholes to keep prop 13 around, while a no win would just mean nothing happens, we don't save the tiny amount of water but there is no guarantee this would effect anything related to prop 13 anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:15
|
|
You are receiving this broadcast as a dream...We are transmitting from the year one nine... nine nine ...You are receiving this broadcast in order t
|
Pain of Mind posted:Still annoyed that I need to work for a living because my grandparents sold their mansion in the hills for relatively little in the 80s and now it would be around 8 figures. RIP my inheritance. you've pretty much nailed prop 72 if theres a race for judge or da you have no idea about just start with finding the candidate's websites or searching their names to see what local news comes up and see if one of them is full of poo poo about Protecting Our Police or hilariously patronizing and out of touch poo poo like this incumbent judge i voted against: https://m.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/karen-katz-says-her-challenge-of-judge-tara-flanagan-should-surprise-no-one/Content?oid=16110763 quote:There were other little things Flanagan said she did to create a more civil tone in her courtroom, including using the term "guest" to refer to prisoners in custody of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. "Bring out our next guest," is something she'd tell the sheriff. i have no idea how that last point was supposed to be an excuse Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
I like RM3 since it funds a bunch of important public transit projects that will offset the impact on low income commuters. VTA/BART/Caltrain hooking up in SJ, new ferry stops including redwood city, money for more frequent ferry and bart service, bus rapid transit funding, funding to help support eBART up in the delta to Brentwood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Also, thoughts on regional measure 3 (the raising bridge tolls bill) and prop 72? Kind of torn on those, generally I would want to raise taxes to fund stuff, but bridge tolls seem somewhat regressive in that they are mainly hitting the lower income people who travel from the east bay or further out. For prop 72 I want people to reduce water use so I would be happy with people storing rain water rather than using water from reservoirs, but I want prop 13 to die and don't want people to be able to avoid tax reassessments. I am thinking a yes win would mean we save a tiny amount of water, but potentially give more loopholes to keep prop 13 around, while a no win would just mean nothing happens, we don't save the tiny amount of water but there is no guarantee this would effect anything related to prop 13 anyway? I'm voting against 72 for that exact reason. Raincatchers don't mean poo poo when industry consumes 80% of our water, and Prop 13 needs to die and this will only make people more comfortable with it. If you wanna conserve water, turn the faucet off while you lather your hands. Boom. You will conserve more water doing that then you ever will by catching rain. If you really wanna be an A++ Difference Maker, then fill up a bucket when you're letting the shower warm up and use it to water your plants or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I'm voting against 72 for that exact reason. Raincatchers don't mean poo poo when industry consumes 80% of our water, and Prop 13 needs to die and this will only make people more comfortable with it. Or they could stop growing loving almonds. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Yes, precisely. gently caress 72, it's a feel-good prop that exists solely so that people can pat themselves on the back and not feel bad for doing nothing meaningful to improve the state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
Honestly if you gut the almond industry, most of the north state would be a homeless shanty town more than it already is. Might kill off the red farmer vote, replace it with weed farmers who would waste water certainly so I guess it's just margins there. What you lose in exports you hopefully make up in sales and tourism? Apparently 85% of the counties in California currently you cannot sell recreational Marijuana. That poo poo is infuriating. Our city council is complaining about being underfunded, cutting programs, criminalizing homelessness, but 4:3 vote we can't sell weed in the county or have delivery services which like is our huge black market in every county I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
revolther posted:Honestly if you gut the almond industry, most of the north state would be a homeless shanty town more than it already is. Might kill off the red farmer vote, replace it with weed farmers who would waste water certainly so I guess it's just margins there. What you lose in exports you hopefully make up in sales and tourism? The land would not lie fallow, it'd be used to grow less water-intensive crops. There's no particular reason to think that vulnerable ag workers would lose jobs, in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
revolther posted:Honestly if you gut the almond industry, most of the north state would be a homeless shanty town more than it already is. Might kill off the red farmer vote, replace it with weed farmers who would waste water certainly so I guess it's just margins there. What you lose in exports you hopefully make up in sales and tourism? I think the main issue with replacing it with weed is that you'd just over saturate the market and end up like Oregon with a million pounds of the poo poo you can't sell. Once you can export it all over the country it would make a lot more sense thats for sure. Also I think someone in here posted that the Almond industry really doesn't even employ all that many people since a lot of it is done by machines. I don't know what the right solution is but the Almond industry can go gently caress it self as really its only making a small few rich and loving the rest of us out of a 7 min shower because it might waste 10 extra gallons of water or what the gently caress ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Morbus posted:lol "theoretical" Since they have no intentions to sell their house or take out equity loans yeah all that money is entirely theoretical. Hell, they're still paying off the original purchase price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Since they have no intentions to sell their house or take out equity loans yeah all that money is entirely theoretical. Hell, they're still paying off the original purchase price. That’s not how wealth works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Hello, I'm the landed gentry. I have no intention of selling my estates, therefore I'm actually quite poor, you see
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Generally though you aren't considered "landed gentry" if all of your riches are tied up in your home and you can't actually spend any money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Just to be clear, I have no current intention of selling my house, so we'll conveniently ignore the fact that due to the rapid appreciation of its value, I could right now go borrow $200k secured by its value and not be upside down, a thing that no poor person and few middle class people could do. And that's on a mere $450k house in my case, that I paid $220k for. Or, alternatively, that if anyone in my family got cancer and due to no or lovely health insurance needed $200k in treatment, I could sell my house, move to a much cheaper cost of living area of America while keeping my work-from-home job, cover their expenses, and nobody would face bankruptcy, a thing that claims the entire family wealth and plunges into bankruptcy literally millions of Americans. This is not much different than owning stock, or foreign currency, or bars of gold buried in your back yard: the main variation is around liquidity, and minor variations are the lower fungibility (all houses are different in their details, so it is harder to treat them as a commodity, but they are still in fact a commodity) and the utility (you can live in a house, or rent it for income). Sure, the housing market could crash and you could lose your wealth. Same as the stock market crashing and a rich person becoming poor in the process. Concentrating most of your wealth in a single asset is an unwise risk (this is why diversification of assets is a fundamental principle of investing) but that does not make the value of your asset portfolio somehow "not count." Nor does living in your main asset. If you have a very valuable thing, and you could sell it, then its value absolutely counts. If you own a home worth $1M, you are actually rich, not "theoretically" rich, because you have a $1M asset. Failure to understand and accept this is widespread and a big reason why Californians still support not taxing rich people whose main asset is their house, just because they're old or something. Cup Runneth Over posted:Generally though you aren't considered "landed gentry" if all of your riches are tied up in your home and you can't actually spend any money. It is absurd to single out valuable residential real estate as not really "counting" as wealth. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The land would not lie fallow, it'd be used to grow less water-intensive crops. There's no particular reason to think that vulnerable ag workers would lose jobs, in the long run. That’s basically the status quo. During the drought a bunch of farmers got no water allocated so they switched to crops with lower irrigation needs or let the land fallow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:That’s not how wealth works. Trabisnikof posted:If a family has a net worth over $400,000 they're in the top 25% of Americans and if they have a net worth of over $1.1M they're in the top 10%. Median is $44,000 total net worth for an American family. They are middle class in income but they have all their wealth (and likely their retirement) tied up in their house. You can’t just ask them to break off an extra 10% of their homes value every year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:They are middle class in income but they have all their wealth (and likely their retirement) tied up in their house. They actually absolutely can do that, by borrowing against their equity. They could even use the borrowed money to invest, in order to re diversify their assets. Also in America, it's possible to sell property in very expensive areas and move to less expensive areas, especially in retirement, a thing that countless retirees actually do. Trabisnikof posted:That’s basically the status quo. During the drought a bunch of farmers got no water allocated so they switched to crops with lower irrigation needs or let the land fallow. During the drought, almond farmers tapped non-renewable (in human lifespans, anyway) aquifers to keep their almond trees alive, and actually expanded almond growing during that period. It is harder to temporarily shift orchards to other crops for a couple of years, because the investment in each tree is a multi-year one; if you use the land for ground crops instead, you have a lot more flexibility in what you grow each year. Not that we shouldn't grow orchard crops; citrus trees are much less water intensive than nut trees, for example. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:They are middle class in income but they have all their wealth (and likely their retirement) tied up in their house. We would if they hadn’t bought the house decades ago. Lucky for them they had the money to do it and shame on anyone else who foolishly didn’t buy houses decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
The Ag waste of water no one talks about is irrigated pasture and hay: https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf The fact we do that at all is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
My parents were brought up to consider home equity loans and the like as essentially voodoo bullshit. You could hold a gun to their heads and they'd still have to think about refinancing anything. I'm not denying they're well off compared to hundreds of millions of other people but they're hardly the sorts of people doing the real damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
If you have 20 bucks and want to buy something from me, but refuse to give me the bill because it's lowers your quality of life, in this metaphor i walk away and let you starve to death in your brazen attempts to outwit capitalism, then come back later and take your 20 dollars. Not wanting to part with your wealth to secure goods and services isn't reason for an exemption from reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
Except you can't live in a twenty dollar bill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh’s California: Everyone with any property who doesn’t make hundreds of thousands of dollars should take out loans or move elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:They actually absolutely can do that, by borrowing against their equity. They could even use the borrowed money to invest, in order to re diversify their assets. Also in America, it's possible to sell property in very expensive areas and move to less expensive areas, especially in retirement, a thing that countless retirees actually do. This is really dumb. So you want to raise income tax on people who’s wealth is tied up in housing because you expect them to refinance or take a HELOC or just ... sell and move every year to pay the every increasing tax?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Forcing people to take out HELOCs or else  sounds like a recipe for an economic prolapse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This is really dumb. You'd only have to sell and move once if you moved to an area with lower cost of living, why would you need to move every single year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This is really dumb. Not income, property tax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
I think it comes down to whether you consider value due to a legislated bubble to be wealth. Sell the house to someone and I agree it's totally wealth. You have created an exchangeable value from your property, and you can now move to Wisconsin and retire at the age of 40 off the value of your condo.  Keep sitting on it, and nope, it's just a liability plus a roof. You're not wealthy, you just live in a loving bubble that hasn't popped for 40 years because some assholes decided they're too special to pay first-world taxes or to have their precious views blocked.(Meanwhile, the same people saying a house in CA is wealth even if you haven't sold it probably think the opposite of bitcoins.  )I have neither. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You'd only have to sell and move once if you moved to an area with lower cost of living What if people have lived somewhere for decades and don't want to move because their house is suddenly Too Valuable through no actions of their own? That seems kinda 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:What if people have lived somewhere for decades and don't want to move because their house is suddenly Too Valuable through no actions of their own? That seems kinda Tough poo poo? They make a lot of money off the asset when they move. It's a natural, if unfortunate, byproduct of an area becoming more desirable; housing prices increase, and as a result of that, property taxes need to increase as well. At the very least, Prop 13 is a major issue, because people who bought in when the market was cheap pay significantly less taxes than people who buy in later when the market is more expensive. That is complete and utter bullshit and needs to change. There's also issues with old folks in California not moving because it'd be more expensive for them to move while they occupy housing in areas with great schools and close proximity to industry (the very reason they moved there so many years ago). Those houses should be occupied by younger people looking to start families (people who typically still have an income and who can afford to pay more for housing) while retirees should be moving to housing that is farther from good places to work and farther from good school districts since those are no longer major concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Tough poo poo? They make a lot of money off the asset when they move. It's a natural, if unfortunate, byproduct of an area becoming more desirable; housing prices increase, and as a result of that, property taxes need to increase as well. At the very least, Prop 13 is a major issue, because people who bought in when the market was cheap pay significantly less taxes than people who buy in later when the market is more expensive. That is complete and utter bullshit and needs to change. lol sorry grandma I know you've lived here for 50 years but you gotta GTFO now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
At this point you should probably just admit your solution to housing issues is forcing everyone to live in state-owned housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 04:53
|
|