|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:https://twitter.com/1KatieOrr/status/1088497639367135232 lol you’re welcome
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
atelier morgan posted:don't worry, your town won't need to fund things If this actually passes, maybe we could also pass something in the future that eliminates prop 13 for residential properties that are rented out/second homes, further narrowing it. A guy can dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
A full rollback of Prop 13 with the tagline of "Grandma can eat poo poo" is my utopia. Phasing it out for commercial property is a start, but ultimately the housing market isn't going to be fixed without getting rid of Prop 13 for residential property as well. Also telling NIMBY's to gently caress off along with grandma and building out more high density housing, but one thing at a time. I've probably asked this before but what authority does the state legislature have, if any, to overturn ballot props? Could the dems actually chip away at Prop 13 on their own, or does it have to be another ballot prop? Because if they can do anything I will start badgering my state reps for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Your reps will never touch it. It's the third rail. They'd never work in politics again. If Prop 13 is gonna go away, it has to come from the people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:San Diego is probably the most rightwing metropolitan area in the state. If the Republicans are losing grassroots-level offices like Assemblymen and city councilors and civic judges here then they're in real goddamned trouble. It just means they’re Democrats now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
all the big donor groups that in swing states bankroll republicans have in california, for a couple cycles now, just shifted to bankrolling right-wing dems. the string-pullers don't really care what the letter next to the person's name is if they'll still do what they want. off the top of my head you may remember the one high-profile thing last year where marshall tuck sheepishly returned a bunch of money he had taken from a charter schools donor who was also a big prop 8 booster after some media outlet reported on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
quote:A full rollback of Prop 13 with the tagline of "Grandma can eat poo poo" is my utopia. I'd even accept "Grandma can keep her single-family-zoned bungalow but her estate can eat poo poo" but we won't even get that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Would eliminating Prop 13 altogether, but then also getting rid of property taxes on primary residences, be politically feasible? It seems like that would fix the issues with the housing market (since people would no longer be encouraged not to move), would be a significant tax break for Grandma, and would significantly increase property taxes on corporations and landlords. It would be dumb that giant mansions would not be taxed, but it might be worth it to fix the rest of the issues with Prop 13. (I suppose you could instead make the first $X million property-tax free on primary residences, which would solve the mansion thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
the solution to unfucking housing is to decommodify it. much like healthcare, treating an essential resource as a marketable good has no other possible outcomes than skyrocketing prices and all the wealth continuously clumping to the very top
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:getting rid of property taxes on primary residences, Great idea if you want to permafuck public schools even more?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
one thing that would probably do a lot to reduce housing prices without much public financial cost is to decriminalize and destigmatize homelessness. there would probably be a more sensible supply-demand relationship if going without housing was actually a choice people could make and trying to sleep in a park or in your car didnt mean you would get continuously woken up and harassed and get your stuff smashed up by cops
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
You are arguing for the right to choose homelessness. No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
We need to build homes for the homeless point blank, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
im not actually seriously arguing that its a rhetorical argument to illustrate how marketable housing is strictly going to lead to market failures a modest proposal of frugal homelessness perhaps Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Great idea if you want to permafuck public schools even more? Fair point, we should probably tackle public school funding being tied to local property values first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
I literally just walked past a vandalized memorial to a homeless person that died this week. People are dying in the streets right now, with no one to love or mourn them and we need to give them Homes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
What's stopping landlords from jacking up rents to offset the increased cost of prop 13 going away?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What's stopping landlords from jacking up rents to offset the increased cost of prop 13 going away? Rent controls, in an ideal world. But in this one...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What's stopping landlords from jacking up rents to offset the increased cost of prop 13 going away? If they could do that without reducing overall profit, they already would've.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Fair point, we should probably tackle public school funding being tied to local property values first. Libraries, fire, sewer... I mean the list is quite long for things that property taxes pay for. You need to come up with alternate funding for all of them. Even the hardest-core, gently caress taxes red states still have property tax, so it would be quite unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What's stopping landlords from jacking up rents to offset the increased cost of prop 13 going away? The same thing that's stopping landlords from charging as much as they can right now: nothing. In markets, prices are set according to what the market can bear, not according to costs. Landlords are already charging as much as the market will let them get away with. Raising their taxes only cuts into their profits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Lycus posted:If they could do that without reducing overall profit, they already would've. This. Rent control is an orthogonal policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
I should have heard the stampede coming in response to that post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Libraries, fire, sewer... I mean the list is quite long for things that property taxes pay for. You need to come up with alternate funding for all of them. Ah, I didn't realize that residential property taxes were so significant, and had gotten the impression that they didn't pay for much because of how long prop 13 had been in effect. I guess I should have read up on stuff more before coming up with a "one weird trick" solution. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I guess I should have read up on stuff more before coming up with a "one weird trick" solution. Friend have you heard the good news of Georgism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Friend have you heard the good news of Georgism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:... the impression that they didn't pay for much because of how long prop 13 had been in effect. Like yeah my immediate focus was schools, but civil services would get a massive boon as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I've probably asked this before but what authority does the state legislature have, if any, to overturn ballot props? Could the dems actually chip away at Prop 13 on their own, or does it have to be another ballot prop? Because if they can do anything I will start badgering my state reps for it. Only the courts or a another proposition will be able to amend Prop 13.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 10:58
|
|
|
Ideally Prop 13 could just be removed entirely, but would it be more palatable to weaken Prop 13 by increasing the tax rate increase per year? Then it could theoretically be a slow enough increase to negate arguments about Grandma, while still get up to the market rate within someones lifespan, rather than the hundreds of years it would take now. My parents bought a house for 65k 40+ years ago that is now worth ~1.5m. It is being assessed at < $170k. Assuming the value of the house does not increase, it will take ~ 160 years (from purchase) to be taxed at its real value. If the assessed tax value increase was 15% instead of 2% it would only take 33 years. If the assessed tax value went up 1% per year it would take ~25 years, with the first 20 of that being less than 1/3rd the house value (Grandma tax). It is also possible I messed up by excel stuff and these numbers are not 100% accurate, but is there any reason why this would not work conceptually?
Pain of Mind fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jan 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 16:33
|
|
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:Ideally Prop 13 could just be removed entirely, but would it be more palatable to weaken Prop 13 by increasing the tax rate increase per year? Then it could theoretically be a slow enough increase to negate arguments about Grandma, while still get up to the market rate within someones lifespan, rather than the hundreds of years it would take now. My parents bought a house for 65k 40+ years ago that is now worth ~1.5m. It is being assessed at < $170k. Assuming the value of the house does not increase, it will take ~ 160 years to be taxed at its real value. If the assessed tax value increase was 15% instead of 2% it would only take 33 years. If the assessed tax value went up 1% per year it would take ~25 years, with the first 20 of that being less than 1/3rd the house value (Grandma tax). It is also possible I messed up by excel stuff and these numbers are not 100% accurate, but is there any reason why this would not work conceptually? “Dems want the taxman to steal YOUR family farm and ruin your retirement!” A lot of people are banking on selling their parents houses to finance their retirements, especially if they either planned poorly or were buttfucked out of their pensions by being fired at the last minute in their career. It’s the one thing stopping my working poor uncle from literally working into his grave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:“Dems want the taxman to steal YOUR family farm and ruin your retirement!” Maybe I am missing something, but if you sell your parents house why do you care what it is taxed at? Either way not everyone will like it, but it might be the difference between getting enough votes to pass and not compared to a full repeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
A full repeal ignores the problems that caused Prop 13 in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
The problems 49 other states are suffering from, but we're not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Maybe I am missing something, but if you sell your parents house why do you care what it is taxed at? Either way not everyone will like it, but it might be the difference between getting enough votes to pass and not compared to a full repeal. You don’t sell it right away. Move into it and pay less tax for more space. Or rent it out for a few extra bucks each month. Maybe sell it when you need that windfall to pay for your rest home in Maui.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:A full repeal ignores the problems that caused Prop 13 in the first place. california can't make the fed stop keeping wages down my man
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
It’s simple repeal prop 13 for corporate property owners and use the extra cash to fund *socialist utopia*
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I literally just walked past a vandalized memorial to a homeless person that died this week. People are dying in the streets right now, with no one to love or mourn them and we need to give them Homes. I agree that we need to de-stignatize mental illness and homelessness, but a lot of those people don't have anyone to love or mourn for them because they're assholes. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I agree that we need to de-stignatize mental illness and homelessness, but a lot of those people don't have anyone to love or mourn for them because they're assholes. Homelessness is a source of unimaginable stress and despair. They'd probably be nicer if they had a place to live and weren't spit on in passing by the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Homelessness is a source of unimaginable stress and despair. They'd probably be nicer if they had a place to live and weren't spit on in passing by the rest of society. Some would, some wouldn't. It's important to keep realistic expectations when dealing with this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:07 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Some would, some wouldn't. It's important to keep realistic expectations when dealing with this sort of thing. Even if not, being an rear end in a top hat doesn't necessarily mean you deserve to die alone in abject poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 04:10
|
|