Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
What regions belong in the Pacific Northwest?
Alaska, US
British Columbia, CA
Washington, US
Oregon, US
Idaho, US
Montana, US
Wyoming, US
California, US (MODS PLEASE BAN ANYONE VOTING FOR THIS OPTION TIA)
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
Property taxes are insanely regressive and need to loving go though, same with sales tax. There's no way we'll ever pass an income tax without getting rid of at least one of those.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

ElCondemn posted:

That seems unlikely considering most other states tax property and sales in addition to income. We don’t even have the highest sales and property tax in the country. Adding an income tax wouldn’t be much if at all worse than most other states yet I’m certain people here would never have it.


twodot posted:

gently caress that, if a human being is going to claim to own a piece of land, they can pay society for the privilege.

lmao okay have fun tilting at windmills then. An income tax will never pass without some concessions. Frankly it is unreasonable to jack up someone's home prices because all of a sudden rich white people want to move to their neighborhoods, which is how property taxes work right now.

Unless you are willing to completely nationalize housing how the gently caress do you make rents affordable? We didn't buy a house because we wanted to, we bought a house because in our area it's cheaper than renting at the insane prices scumlords are demanding.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Yeah and sure, until then you are going to pursue policies which will do active harm to lower income home owners, like adding an income tax on top of already difficult to pay property taxes and regressive as gently caress sales taxes.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

You own a house because owning a house was cheaper than renting, why are you complaining about property taxes, if you've already calculated that owning was a better choice?
edit:
Like, "Home owners are strictly better off than not home owners, also it is very important we care about the taxes paid by home owners" what?

Because poor people shouldn't get priced out of their loving homes??? Why are rising property taxes any better than a slumlord raising rents every year?

We need progressive income taxes so that people will actually be paying their fair share, property taxes on business and rentiers is fine, property taxes on single home homeowners are pretty much the same as rising rent costs.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

Slumlords are bad because they own slums. Rents are supposed to go up, that is called capitalism. Like I said, if we want to nationalize the housing industry, great, but in that case people are also going to get relocated. Socialism for land owners, and capitalism for renters is untenable.
edit:
Capitalism is the very thing that even enables land ownership, it's extremely annoying that land owners can argue, "but now markets are bad" after benefiting from that very market.

Bolded is the loving problem. I don't even think we're in disagreement in general but gently caress you for wanting me to be priced out of a place to live and be forced to relocate even further away from my job, friends, etc. Because apparently that is what you support.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Thanatosian posted:

Sales taxes are waaaaaayyyyyy swingier than income taxes (see: California).

Also sales taxes pretty much ensure that the poor pay a greater percentage of their income than the wealthy.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

I mean if we're playing this game, gently caress you for wanting me to be priced out of a place to live and be forced to relocate even further away from my job, friends, etc. Because apparently that is what you support, because I'm not a land owner, and you want to grant land owners special benefits that will drive rents up. If you agree capitalism is the problem, privileging capitalists makes no sense. If we're going to have a property market, everyone needs to be affected.

Institute a progressive income tax that considers all sources of income such as investments, capital gains, rent, etc and you won't need to have lovely regressive taxes in place.

But yeah, while we're at it let's just do away with capitalism entirely and give everyone a unicorn. I don't know what the answer is but there's a pretty big problem in that most of our current taxes are regressive and continue to ensure that the poor pay way more than the wealthy. Adding an income tax while that is still the case is unacceptable to me.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

ElCondemn posted:

Even with the steep increases in property taxes it doesn't equal the rate that slumlords raise rents, a 1 million dollar home is taxed at about 1%... so less than 1000 a month for a 1 MILLION DOLLAR HOME. Anyone complaining about property taxes is a loving idiot.

Hmm to some people, say, people that don't live in million dollar homes and have to budget every month, having your housing price go up no matter by how much can be loving difficult! Especially when COL and merit raises are a thing of the loving past, and you have to pay PMI because hey let's gently caress poor people some more! It's almost like how much of a burden something is depends on how much that person has to begin with. :thunk:

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

Property tax is not lovely. It is the proper cost of a person demanding exclusive access to a unique, irreplaceable asset that should be governed socially. The idea that any human should be granted a cost-free, in perpetuity ownership of land is absurd on its face.

You failing to see how lovely it is in practice despite not being lovely in concept is your own failing, you dimwit.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

You insisting that renters prop up your personal failed financial decisions, when they are, in your own estimation, worse off than you, is your failing.

:rolleyes:

Yes it is the fault of the single family home owner that lives in their home that rent is bad.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

"Hey guys, I'm just saying we should shift the burden of property taxes from single family home owners to rentiers (who will just pass the cost down to renters), why would you blame single family home owners for increases in rent?"

It is literally their fault. They are obstructing more dense buildings being built, they are demanding tax cuts unavailable to renters, they have achieved a position of privilege, and they are demanding to retain that position of privilege at the cost of people, who again, in your own estimation, are worse off.

In a radical world where we could actually get people to pay taxes that are proportional to their wealth, I would hope we would have rent controls in place to prevent rentiers from doing that. Also could you believe that there are places where the housing demand is not the same as Seattle? And that no one is clamoring to have vast blocks of apartments built in place of houses?

Also, this:

Mr. Lobe posted:

Hey here's a thought, maybe low income homeowners at risk of losing their housing and those who own no property at all due to financial incapacity have common interests, which are counterposed to a class of people who actually dictate the terms of the markets and then extract profits from it, like the real estate investment firms who speculate on property.

Maybe it would make more sense to go after the latter class of people and somehow redistribute their wealth so everyone in the former class can have housing?

You are crab bucket mentality personified.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

Those places don't have skyrocketing prices, and therefore don't have skyrocketing property taxes, and therefore don't matter for this conversation? In places without high demand property taxes are just a cost of ownership no different from roof replacements or whatever.

Property taxes don't have to "skyrocket" to cause problems for homeowners in this wacky world where wages haven't budged in 40 years to even keep pace with inflation. Anything that rises consistently is a hardship on people who don't have their earnings increased correspondingly.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

But that's literally everything? You've already acknowledged that you know inflation exists. If the problem is that wages aren't matching inflation, we need to fix wages, not destroy the entire concept of prices going up sometimes.
edit:
Like the federal minimum wage buys less today than it did last year, that's absolutely true and absolutely a problem, but you'll never fix it by caring about property taxes.

Yeah but people do support things that help them because they can't wave a magic wand and have full communism now or whatever. Like, I actively support higher minimum wages, single payer healthcare, and pretty much everything else that a modern society should guarantee it's citizens. I am also supportive of nationalized/socialized housing. But for the moment I have to live in the world we're stuck with, and since rising property taxes directly impact me then I am going to oppose them in favor of taxes which impact the wealthy more significantly, like a progressive income tax.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

Ok, so you are openly "gently caress you got mine" when it comes to renters paying property tax, but my problem is that I have a crab bucket mentality?

I am openly "I need to survive in a lovely capitalist economy so long as that is what we have to live with right now."

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Peachfart posted:

Property taxes are fine, but get rid of sales tax and fold that into a heavily progressive income tax that hits only higher earners.

I would honestly take that. The problem is our legislators never propose that, they just keep making ineffectual stabs at an income tax while the sales tax remains.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
Not that Washington doesn't have it's share of troubles caused by its dumbass Libertarian streak, but Washington State politics has always seemed like a pretty good case study in why just electing Democrats isn't enough. You need to participate in primaries and vote for actually good politicians in order for voting D to mean much of anything beyond just treading water.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

KingFisher posted:

Yes 100% single family home owners selfishly hoard land that should be used to house more people.

It's very simple, we need more multifamily housing and most of the city is zoned so selfish fucks can have thier private homes.

All of Seattle should be up zoned to allow for 7 story residential multi family housing. gently caress selfish rich people unwilling to make room for the rest of us who can't afford million dollar homes.

Everywhere is not Seattle, which you would know I've already pointed out if you hadn't been so quick to rush and pour a little gas on arguments that passed by you days ago.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

You're going to need to accept that "home owners in ordinary real estate markets need protections from the ravages of inflation" isn't a common argument.

It's not just homeowners in ordinary real estate markets, it's pretty much everyone stuck living under a system where cost of living steadily increases predictably year after year and wages and incomes don't.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

twodot posted:

And your solution to that is to care about the property taxes of single family home owners, why?

I'm not going to do this with you again twodot, I've already explained my stance repeatedly.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.b3de2ebd7d8b

Jesus Christ. I just heard about the Devonte Hart family murder/suicide. These guardians were monstrous. This poo poo is horrifying and every other article I read about this situation reveals another layer of terror. This is probably going to keep me awake tonight.

e: In case it's not clear I posted in this thread because they apparently lived in Woodland, Washington. Washington State CPS had them flagged.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Apr 11, 2018

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

anthonypants posted:

When one of their kids had their picture taken hugging a cop, I think I remember hearing that their parents were extremely exploitative, but I don't recall anything conclusive.

Looking into it reveals a lot of bizarre poo poo. It's like they both wanted to be Sandra Bullock from The Blindside, but they were horrible rage monsters who flipped out over every little thing and abused the poo poo out of their adopted children.

There's a lot of weird stuff relating to the racial aspect too, like dragging their kids to Ferguson to hug it out with the cop and pushing an All Lives Matter attitude.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

FRINGE posted:

My cynicism tells me that this is just a new reason to tear places apart down to the framing, the same way they tear cars apart when the dogs "signal" because they were cued to.

"Oh sorry we had to officer dog told us to! No liability!"

Yeah they're just prepping for nation wide legal weed.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
Wtf is going on with Portland?

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
No but see they are self-reliant real men who will flourish once they are free of the tyrannical I5 corridor.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Thanatosian posted:

Tacoma races to the bottom

I hope Rainier erupts and gives them the Pompeii treatment.

I was incredibly embarrassed to see this, and especially embarrassed to see old acquaintances posting this on Facebook as something to be proud of. Don't worry Tacoma, with King County residents buying up our real estate and sending rent prices skyrocketing, we'll all be homeless soon enough. Or moving to barfo places like Parkland or Graham.

Just for fun a few months ago I checked out rent prices at the first placed I lived post-college and saw that rent there for a 1bdr has nearly doubled since 2008, and utilities are no longer included. Guess what's happened to my wages since 2008! (Small hint: they certainly haven't doubled!)

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 22:18 on May 22, 2018

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
gently caress that kid anyway. At fifteen you are absolutely capable of comprehending what you are doing when you throw fireworks into dry brush during fire season. He won't end up paying 36 million dollars anyway so you can stop handwringing about the poor child.

Oh and if it was a black kid he'd probably be serving some serious jail time, so I guess if you need me to I can play the world's tiniest violin for him.

Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 01:28 on May 23, 2018

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

ElCondemn posted:

No loving duh won't be paying 36 million because normal people don't earn that much in their wildest dreams. What it will definitely do is make it hard for him to afford poo poo like a home and to provide for himself and his family. Acting like he'll get leniency later is loving stupid.


What is your point here? Because people are racist this kid should have his life ruined too?

Maybe you should go back and read the loving article, because he absolutely will be eligible for leniency later, and this isn't going to destroy his life. poo poo, the 1900 hours of community service might even open up a number of possibilities for him down the line, because white kids get treated like people who made mistakes and are capable of redemption.

My point about race is that if he was a black kid he'd probably get thrown in jail for at least ten years and then his life would actually be pretty loving ruined.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
Ten years of financial restitution seems pretty loving lenient to me considering the scope of destruction he caused.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

xrunner posted:

Ah yes. This is the good law and order throw away the key bullshit I love.

Do you think there might be a different level of intent between rape/murder and playing with fireworks? Or are you the type that thinks only the outcome matters and intent is irrelevant? Since you brought up rape/murder would you say there is no difference between accidentally killing a cyclist opening a car door without looking vs willfully running one off the road? Because I 100% promise you’ve opened that door without looking before and thankfully 99.99999% of the time there isn’t a cyclist there.

I promise you that plenty of the people moralizing played with fireworks as kids and a few probably even started fires. It’s bullshit to take what amounts to stupid kid poo poo and turn it into lifelong consequences.

Playing with fireworks is a helluva step removed from taking homemade fireworks into a

xrunner posted:

Ah yes. This is the good law and order throw away the key bullshit I love.

Do you think there might be a different level of intent between rape/murder and playing with fireworks? Or are you the type that thinks only the outcome matters and intent is irrelevant? Since you brought up rape/murder would you say there is no difference between accidentally killing a cyclist opening a car door without looking vs willfully running one off the road? Because I 100% promise you’ve opened that door without looking before and thankfully 99.99999% of the time there isn’t a cyclist there.

I promise you that plenty of the people moralizing played with fireworks as kids and a few probably even started fires. It’s bullshit to take what amounts to stupid kid poo poo and turn it into lifelong consequences.

Yeah playing with fireworks as a teenager is exactly the same thing as making homemade fireworks, taking them into a State Park, and throwing them into dry brush at the height of fire season. It's way closer to running someone down on their bike in your car to opening your car door without looking, to use your dumb analogy.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

xrunner posted:

The reality is it makes you feel better and more in control to punish people when something outside your control significantly harms something you care about. You’d rather poo poo and moralize and penalize and preferably make the kid personally significantly suffer then deal with the fact that bad poo poo happens sometimes.

Reasonable consequences to deter future people from doing the same idiot thing make sense. Massive financial consequences for poor decision making don’t. Sorry you felt powerless. A 15 year old is a good comfortable punching bag at least.

Thanks for the unneeded and unwarranted psychoanalysis, broham. Whatever makes you feel morally superior on the internet.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

xrunner posted:

You’re showing you’re hand so clearly it isn’t even hard. Go on. Get your hate out. The universe makes sense and you don’t have to ever think about how insignificant you are if you can just punish people when things go wrong.


Jail is honestly probably inappropriate for 80% of the things we put people in it for. Is the kid going to throw fireworks into another forest? No. That means jail is entirely inappropriate.

:rolleyes: wow man you're sooooo evolved.

Lol he's not even going to jail, he'll just have to pay fines for ten years and do community service because he's a poor little white child who didn't realize what he was doing was wrong, sniffle.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

xrunner posted:

Dude asked why not jail. I answered. Good to see you’re as good at reading comprehension as you are at being petty. I just don’t waste my life salivating at the opportunity to make people suffer for making me feel small. The community service is more than enough. It sends a message, it forces him to reflect, and it gives back to the community. Some lol huge fine that maybe goes away in ten years and maybe not who knows is wrong spirited and intentionally cruel. It’s meant to make it harder to ever be successful. It doesn’t give back and it is punitive.


You may be slightly overstating what actually happened.

Nah, if it had honestly been an accident and had just been playing around then I agree the community service would be fine. But this went well beyond that and it's plenty proportional given that they're not even going to garnish his wages. But go on pretending like this is some petty personal bullshit and you're better than everyone else.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

ElCondemn posted:

If it had honestly been an accident he shouldn't have faced any punishment... what the gently caress...

I mean, illegally lighting off fireworks during a burn ban is still a crime, whether your motivations are malicious or not. He intentionally did it in a way as to make what he was doing arson. Do you think if he was just lighting off sweet fireworks and caused the same poo poo he just wouldn't be culpable?

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

I would love to see comprehensive prison reform in the United States, up to and including letting most people currently in jail for non-violent offenses out, and hopefully adopting a rehabilitative system akin to something like the way prisons are operated in Sweden.

Luckily this kid isn't facing jail time!

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

xrunner posted:

If it was arson he would have been charged with arson. A felony. He actually did the thing you described in your first sentence which is why he plead to a misdemeanor.

If he didn't it's extremely likely they could have easily charged him with felony arson based on what he did.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

BrandorKP posted:

Cougar killed and started to eat a biker out by me, even made the NYTs.

Cougar Attacks Two Bicyclists in Washington State, Killing One https://nyti.ms/2IYfUtv

The time to stop building suburban McMansion sprawl for lovely white people who don't want to see the poor/minorities was like 40 years ago btw. Look forward to more and more of this poo poo. One of the places where I work is still fairly rural but there are plans for a big development that's going to basically wipe an entire hillside of wildlife habitat and there have already been several cougar sightings where they are going to be clearing for their idiot houses. At this point I'm rooting for the cougars.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus
Instagram and online dating photos have loving ruined hiking in this state.

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

BrandorKP posted:

Only on the weekends. I don't even try to go to anything popular on weekends. Living out here makes it easy in the afternoons, it's much, much better during the week. Save the trails people don't know about for Saturday and Sunday.

Yeah and unfortunately as long as the misses has a M-F job that's what we get for the time being. Unless we get up early enough to be at a trailhead by 7 or 8 it's usually not worth it. Seen a lot of people taking their dogs into State Parks lately too; people just don't seem to give a gently caress about anyone else.

This is probably very "old man yells at cloud" ish. :smith:

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

BrandorKP posted:

They don't pick up thier dog poo poo either. Then others scream obscenities at people in town as we walk our dogs. Yay.

I used to actually say things to people but one time I called out some Ed Hardy douche bro and his large teenage son for being an rear end in a top hat to ducks in a park (during baby duck season) and almost got my rear end beat. I wish we lived in a society in which people were capable of feeling shame for their bad behavior, but alas I'm not sure such a thing even exists.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Professor Beetus
Apr 12, 2007

They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

HEY NONG MAN posted:

I was just on a popular trail in anchorage and there was dog poo poo everywhere there too. So it’s not just a WA/OR thing where people are selfish shitheads.

I don't doubt it it's just annoying when there's like twenty prominent NO DOGS ALLOWED signs at pretty much every state park trailhead. Of course everybody's ill behaved lovely dog is a "service animal" now so... :rolleyes:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply