California Must Be Doing Something Right Despite Trump hating it so much

[brycejones]

That's a really long way of saying FYGM. BTW I don't buy your story at all given your explosive shall we say debut in P&N.

 

[glenn1]

You're learning the wrong lesson here. NYC population density (especially Manhattan) has declined enormously over the decades. It's still declining as replacement cost rises due to increasingly restrictive zoning.

If SF didn't want to grow then it should have stoped approving office construction. They didn't do that. You can't have the jobs and money from them without the humans too and failing to implement appropriate housing policy is negligent.

So we should aspire to the over 100k persons per square mile population density of Manhattan in 1910 vs. ~ 66k per square mile today?

Either way it's not like SF is really slouching in this regard, they're already the 2nd densest city in the U.S. at around ~17k people per square mile population density. Which is probably 5-10 times more than the preferred population density for the overwhelming supermajority of the U.S. population.

That's a really long way of saying FYGM. BTW I don't buy your story at all given your explosive shall we say debut in P&N.

As opposed to the "Fvck you give me yours" philosophy of the progressives?

 

[ivwshane]

Do you live on an island by yourself? If you don't then you didn't do it all by yourself.

Reading some of your posts though, you might want to go back to school and maybe take a civics class and maybe some American history.

 

[fskimospy]

And what you are missing is that they are using total dollars and not number of households. Of course more expensive property benefits more in terms of overall dollars but that's not the same thing as say comparing percent of income to tax benefit. It also still ignores my point that there are many more poor and middle class home owners than there are wealthy home owners.

The issue with the Republican tax cuts wasn't necessarily their argument, it was the underlying facts that contradicted their argument. Their tax cuts A) will not cause the growth (wages or gdp) they claimed B) Does not benefit the poor or middle class in the way they claimed (since their tax cuts expire) C) Will not be increasing revenue.

Almost every highly regressive tax cut the Republicans have passed benefits far greater numbers of middle class and poor people than it does the rich, it just benefits the poor and middle class in a very small way and the rich in a very big one. The same is true here. There’s a reason it was Republicans who came up with prop 13 and it wasn’t because they were excited about middle class tax benefits.

Total dollar amount is used because that’s what makes the most sense. I’m unaware of any credible public policy analysis that would use counts of beneficiaries as a superior measurement to net gains by groups.

The issue for me isn't whether or not the rich benefit, its whether or not the poor and middle class home owners benefit (more specifically, benefit them in the way it was originally claimed to benefit them, as in stable property taxes).

All policies have costs and every dollar not collected because of prop 13 must be paid for either through increased taxes or reduced services. Certainly the poor and mostly the middle class overall are net losers under prop 13.

Your argument essentially sounds like the same argument conservatives make about welfare, that the whole system should be scraped because there are a few who are abusing the system.
Or its similar to voter ID laws where a small minority of violators warrants laws that will negatively impact hundreds of thousands.

Tax law like this has nothing to with welfare or voter ID. Prop 13 should be scrapped because it is a net negative tax wise for a majority of Californians and creates perverse housing incentives that further damage affordability in a state experiencing an affordability crisis.

It’s a net harm to the residents of the state and I believe we shouldn’t do net harm to ourselves. Hence, scrap prop 13.

 

[fskimospy]

California definitely has a housing shortage I'm just unaware of how that relates to prop 13. Are they related?

Yes, as prop 13 encourages suboptimal housing use.

Say you live in a five bedroom house because you have four kids. Then they grow up and move out. In most places people would at least consider downsizing their living arrangements because having all that unused space is pointless and often expensive. In California moving to ostensibly cheaper and more sensible housing can end up costing you more money as your property taxes will skyrocket. Instead, you sit in your big empty house and the next person with five kids has to pay more because that’s one fewer house on the market in their range.

 

[K1052]

So we should aspire to the over 100k persons per square mile population density of Manhattan in 1910 vs. ~ 66k per square mile today?

Either way it's not like SF is really slouching in this regard, they're already the 2nd densest city in the U.S. at around ~17k people per square mile population density. Which is probably 5-10 times more than the preferred population density for the overwhelming supermajority of the U.S. population.

Constraining the housing supply and distorting what gets built hasn't done anything good to affordability for people who actually want to live there.

Again if SF didn't want density then don't add employment and a workforce who will actually want to live in the city. Arguments about what density Americans (waaay too broad a category to be useful) might prefer are pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you joking? Older people downsize their housing after their kids leave all the time, it’s a very common occurrence. Prop 13 offers a powerful incentive not to do so based purely on tax policy instead of what people actually want. My argument is based on facts, yours is based on your feelings and apparently your grandmother.

Reals over feels, brotha.

 

[glenn1]

Constraining the housing supply and distorting what gets built hasn't done anything good to affordability for people who actually want to live there.

Again if SF didn't want density then don't add employment and a workforce who will actually want to live in the city. Arguments about what density Americans (waaay too broad a category to be useful) might prefer are pointless.

NYC and SF aren't really positioning themselves as affordable options but rather "premium products" where people are willing to spend more to live there because they think they're so great. They'll pay some amount of lip service to affordability because they hold generally hold progressive political views and it's an important part of their identity to be in support of the poors, but as you point out their actual actions directly contradict that surface piety about the poors.

 

[ivwshane]

See bolded.

Almost every highly regressive tax cut the Republicans have passed benefits far greater numbers of middle class and poor people than it does the rich, it just benefits the poor and middle class in a very small way and the rich in a very big one. The same is true here. There’s a reason it was Republicans who came up with prop 13 and it wasn’t because they were excited about middle class tax benefits.

No that's complete and utter bullshit. For one, most poor and middle class Americans don't pay federal taxes. Two, the proper way to look at a benefit would be to use a percentage of income and here too Republican tax cuts barely benefit poor and middle class tax payers.
This article exemplifies this as they used the overall percentage of benefit versus the overall dollar amount.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center


Total dollar amount is used because that’s what makes the most sense. I’m unaware of any credible public policy analysis that would use counts of beneficiaries as a superior measurement to net gains by groups.



All policies have costs and every dollar not collected because of prop 13 must be paid for either through increased taxes or reduced services. Certainly the poor and mostly the middle class overall are net losers under prop 13.

That certainly seems like that's what would happen but as I pointed out to you, the other types of taxes levied to make up for the missing revenue haven't equaled what pre prop 13 brought in.


Tax law like this has nothing to with welfare or voter ID. Prop 13 should be scrapped because it is a net negative tax wise for a majority of Californians and creates perverse housing incentives that further damage affordability in a state experiencing an affordability crisis.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the analogy and point being made. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

It’s a net harm to the residents of the state and I believe we shouldn’t do net harm to ourselves. Hence, scrap prop 13.

I get that you believe it's a net harm, you just haven't proven it to be so. The data on its affects seem to be inconclusive so far but it certainly warrants further looking into.

 

[fskimospy]

See bolded.

I get that you believe it's a net harm, you just haven't proven it to be so. The data on its affects seem to be inconclusive so far but it certainly warrants further looking into.

I’m unaware of any evidence that indicates prop 13 is a net positive for the average Californian. If you have some I’d love to see it.

Alternatively I have provided you with evidence that shows the benefits are overwhelmingly concentrated among the richest people there, that these lost revenues are addressed through regressive taxes, and that it encourages bad housing use which makes housing costs worse. If that doesn’t convince you that it’s probably a bad idea then I doubt anything else I say will.

Oh, don’t forget the budget instability it introduces. That’s bad too!

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, as prop 13 encourages suboptimal housing use.

Say you live in a five bedroom house because you have four kids. Then they grow up and move out. In most places people would at least consider downsizing their living arrangements because having all that unused space is pointless and often expensive. In California moving to ostensibly cheaper and more sensible housing can end up costing you more money as your property taxes will skyrocket. Instead, you sit in your big empty house and the next person with five kids has to pay more because that’s one fewer house on the market in their range.

How does a potential tax rate that could be higher then what one pays now at their current house increase the likelihood someone would consider downsizing when they otherwise wouldn't? That sounds like blind faith to me. People downsize because they are or will be retiring and their income will be fixed or lessened and they wish to maximize their retirement. Buying a smaller home with a widely adjustable tax rate doesn't afford them that stability.

Personally I'd rather have empty nesters and retirees be economically stable and contributing to the economy rather than them reentering the job market and causing higher unemployment for those below them just to afford rent and increased taxes on property, of which both are likely to increase.

 

[repoman0]

No it won't turn Blue, thank god the democrats are only moving to Houston, Austin and Dallas.

So you'll have two blue senators, a blue governor, and your EC votes will go to the blue presidential candidate. That sounds pretty blue to me.

Leaving the rest of the state an example of why Conservative values win. If I had it my way we'd tell all the democrats coming from failed states like Illinois, Michigan and New York to stay out, real Texan's are hostile to these non Texan's, we actually don't want them here, and they are quite unwelcome.

Unfortunately for you, they are soon to be the majority in your state and certainly don't care what you think about them.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m unaware of any evidence that indicates prop 13 is a net positive for the average Californian. If you have some I’d love to see it.

Alternatively I have provided you with evidence that shows the benefits are overwhelmingly concentrated among the richest people there, that these lost revenues are addressed through regressive taxes, and that it encourages bad housing use which makes housing costs worse. If that doesn’t convince you that it’s probably a bad idea then I doubt anything else I say will.

Well I guess we don't agree on the facts then as we both read the same article and came to different conclusions.

I have no horse in this race as I said I like good policy that's effective. Right now the current policy works in my favor and unlike the majority on this board I don't consider myself rich. If you think the repeal of prop 13 would be a net benefit then surely I'd benefit as well, you just haven't convinced me it would.

Anyone else want to chime in and give their take on the article in question?

 

[glenn1]

How does a potential tax rate that could be higher then what one pays now at their current house increase the likelihood someone would consider downsizing when they otherwise wouldn't? That sounds like blind faith to me. People downsize because they are or will be retiring and their income will be fixed or lessened and they wish to maximize their retirement. Buying a smaller home with a widely adjustable tax rate doesn't afford them that stability.

Personally I'd rather have empty nesters and retirees be economically stable and contributing to the economy rather than them reentering the job market and causing higher unemployment for those below them just to afford rent and increased taxes on property, of which both are likely to increase.

No doubt @fskimospy watched this scene in "Up" and rooted for the developer.

 

[K1052]

NYC and SF aren't really positioning themselves as affordable options but rather "premium products" where people are willing to spend more to live there because they think they're so great. They'll pay some amount of lip service to affordability because they hold generally hold progressive political views and it's an important part of their identity to be in support of the poors, but as you point out their actual actions directly contradict that surface piety about the poors.

That isn't what happened. SF/NYC became expensive because people wanted to live there but entrenched property owners decided to capture the zoning process and turn it to their own ends resultantly sending affordability into the dumper.

NIMBYism knows no ideological barrier and claims to the contrary expose a bias. I know hardcore libertarians who'll rail that somebody has the gall to build a 3 floor building instead of a 2 floor building in their quaint suburban downtown and think the city should outlaw it.

 

[repoman0]

I'm quite sure they're smart enough to do just that.

and we aren't afraid of using our own brand of justice.

Petty traffic infractions for days ... that will show them!

 

[ivwshane]

That's some good old fashioned Russian trolling right their folks!

Tell us again how you plan on hurting Americans?

 

[repoman0]

That's some good old fashioned Russian trolling right their folks!

Tell us again how you plan on hurting Americans?

Likely. Even Texans don't have such poor spelling

"realgion"
"infarction"

 

[fskimospy]

How does a potential tax rate that could be higher then what one pays now at their current house increase the likelihood someone would consider downsizing when they otherwise wouldn't? That sounds like blind faith to me. People downsize because they are or will be retiring and their income will be fixed or lessened and they wish to maximize their retirement. Buying a smaller home with a widely adjustable tax rate doesn't afford them that stability.

No, it's economics. People generally downsize their houses in order to save money on housing costs, be that maintenance, property taxes, or a mortgage if they haven't paid it off yet. Under prop 13 property taxes are reassessed at the time of sale. Presumably in my scenario those elderly people have been living in that house for a couple of decades, meaning their property taxes are a tiny fraction of what they would be upon reassessment. Because increased property taxes eat up a lot of the savings they would get from downsizing they don't move. Bad housing policy.

Personally I'd rather have empty nesters and retirees be economically stable and contributing to the economy rather than them reentering the job market and causing higher unemployment for those below them.

This result sounds like blind faith to me. What is your basis for the argument that prop 13 is providing economic benefits that outweigh the costs in this respect?

I'll give one more crack at it, here's a piece from an economist who has a pretty good track record in understanding the housing market. Perhaps he's better at explaining the problems with prop 13 than I am.

http://beaconecon.com/blog/prop_13_its_time_to_stop_being_railroaded_by_the_third_rail

 

[fskimospy]

They should, Texan's don't take kindly to invaders. We have our own way of doing things down here, and we aren't afraid of using our own brand of justice. If they manage to take over the state I hope they are smart enough to avoid rural area's, because they are already getting targeted by the local sheriff's for any infarction they can make stick because they want these foreigners from California, Illinois ect gone. This isn't America down here, this is Texas, we are Texans first and American's second.

You certainly have your own way of using punctuation, haha.

 

[ivwshane]

No, it's economics. People generally downsize their houses in order to save money on housing costs, be that maintenance, property taxes, or a mortgage if they haven't paid it off yet. Under prop 13 property taxes are reassessed at the time of sale. Presumably in my scenario those elderly people have been living in that house for a couple of decades, meaning their property taxes are a tiny fraction of what they would be upon reassessment. Because increased property taxes eat up a lot of the savings they would get from downsizing they don't move. Bad housing policy.



This result sounds like blind faith to me. What is your basis for the argument that prop 13 is providing economic benefits that outweigh the costs in this respect?

I'll give one more crack at it, here's a piece from an economist who has a pretty good track record in understanding the housing market. Perhaps he's better at explaining the problems with prop 13 than I am.

http://beaconecon.com/blog/prop_13_its_time_to_stop_being_railroaded_by_the_third_rail

No that didn't help at all. In fact I could barely get through it as his argument were mostly appeals to emotion. His argument that grandma could afford higher property taxes because her property was now worth more and is actually a good deal, was quite specious as was his argument that localities don't want to build new homes because it will reduce everyone's tax rate, as in property values.

That's not to say there aren't issues with prop 13 (I covered one issue already in a previous post) its just that I'm not convinced those issues can't be dealt separately while keeping the core of prop 13 intact.

 

[fskimospy]

No that didn't help at all. In fact I could barely get through it as his argument were mostly appeals to emotion. His argument that grandma could afford higher property taxes because her property was now worth more and is actually a good deal, was quite specious as was his argument that localities don't want to build new homes because it will reduce everyone's tax rate, as in property values.

I would suggest you give it another go as it's definitely not an appeal to emotion, it's an appeal to facts and logic. In fact, it's a rejection of prop 13 supporters' appeals to emotion. I mean the arguments you're complaining about being specious are simply factual. Taxes need to be paid one way or the other and they can either be paid by people who have access to enormous wealth in their assets or by people who don't.

Second, you appear to have misunderstood what he was saying in the second argument you claimed was specious. He didn't say that localities don't want to build new homes because it would reduce tax rates, he was saying the best way to reduce property taxes is to build more homes because then everyone's property is cheaper.

He says in that argument what we all know is actually true about prop 13, homeowners don't want it to save the elderly from being priced out, they want prop 13 because it increases their personal wealth.

That's not to say there aren't issues with prop 13 (I covered one issue already in a previous post) its just that I'm not convinced those issues can't be dealt separately while keeping the core of prop 13 intact.

The core of prop 13 IS the issue. There is nothing about it that can be saved because the fundamental principle is economically unsound.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll let others chime in.

 

[Darwin333]

16 Reasons Not To Live In California

Top Ten Reasons Why California Is No Longer The Place To Be Or Move To

Why a lot of people are moving out of California from CNN, fake news?

Did you even read the 2nd link?

Reason 7: California Forces Liberal Ideologies Down Peoples Throats. Literally.

Vaccines, which are proven to cause neurological issues, are being forced on the population...

Many infants have been killed by vaccines administered by deluded physicians against their parents' explicit instructions to never give a vaccine. Surviving infants are raised with permanent disabilities including OCD, Tourette's, ADHD, and other psychological disorders.

 

[Muse]

1. Hollywood is run by a bunch of sexual predators.

2. Jerry Brown, who I admire and in another thread I said would make a great President, is a great governor because he embraced fiscal conservatism.

3. So honest question, what specific liberal policies can you point to that made California great?

1. Well Harvey Weinstein, for sure. All the others? Dunno.

2. Jerry Brown ran for president multiple times and yes he was serious.

3. Well, at least California isn't trying to bulldoze all illegal immigrants over the Mexican border. It's officially a sanctuary state. That, I believe, qualifies as a liberal policy.