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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Prop 13 harms the working poor vastly more than any one individual it might help. It’s a way to transfer money from young, poor people to old, rich ones. If you want to make sure rich people have more money that’s fine but at least have the courage to own it instead of pretending a law that massively hurts poor people is actually there to help them.

Where do you come up with these ideas? Homeowners are not automatically rich. Many leveraged their working class income to its limit and even small financial impacts will put them out onto the street.

To everyone else, I think fskimospy is saying the homeowners need to go so their property can be demolished and replaced with apartments / condos / affordable housing.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
If you notice you think in language, probably English in your case. We use works to talk to ourselves as well as others. Take the put downs that have been directed at you in this thread. They are zeros and ones that print out on a screen and are distinguished by your eye which has been trained to see those works. You hear in your head what the words are and next comes the emotional effect. You know right away they are insulting and for whatever reason others may tell themselves as to the justification for delivering them they carry an implied hurt. How do we know this. It is because language, words, carry emotional associations that evoke our past experience with them. Language then is memory of the past, and in the case of put downs memory of emotional pain. We have all been subjected to humiliation by words. A dog will read your body language and know you may be about to hurt him, but you can never make a dog hate itself. A dog can learn that some words may be followed by punishment and anticipate pain, but he will never feel that pain by thinking negative thoughts about himself in his head. He will always be present in the now reading only what is happening in the present.

This is what I believe the story of the Garden of Eden is all about. The information we acquire in building our tree of knowledge is our experience our memory of the past with all the emotional experiences that go into the learning. In this way we created the notion of good and evil, as if those were real things. They are concepts that have no reality without thought and thought has no reality without words and language. Only humans can tell other people they are bad or evil, by creating pain to go with the lesson, which creates the kind of thinking that can anticipate a future to fear. Without words there can be no thought and without thought there can be no comparison, no division of things into say good and evil, no separation of the self from all that is. It is thought that takes into the future or the past and out of the now. In the now, in presence, the state we were born in, we were one with the universe. Occasionally people awaken in the now and realize all of this. You can talk about it. You can practice techniques the wise have figured out will bring one to this, but you can't know the state of presence, something different than duality, without experiencing it. We always look for it by thinking how to get it or pretending it doesn't exist.

I can see where you are coming from. But consider the bolded parts above. Lets imagine a pre-language human society. Person X keeps hurting Person Y physically, or through body language. from the very inception of Person Y. Would Person Y not develop fear of Person X, and the accompanying self hate? There is no language involved here. So perhaps what you are saying it the memory of the past that keeps this self hatred inside us, not so much language? Because it seems to me that self hate is quite possible without language as well. Waiting for your input on this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
around here we had a sudden increase in property taxes on very nice homes in the trendy downtown area of Jersey City when the state mandated a reval. And yeah, a bunch of older folks that lived here when the place was a lot more dumpy and took the arrows that now live on fixed incomes and own their homes outright, are facing tax increases of over 10K a year if not more. How do you propose they deal with that? They obviously have to sell. Sure their brownstone is worth a lot of money now but maybe that was their retirement plan. To die where they lived and pass on their home to their kids. Or whatever. So they will be punished.

And of course by ‘punished’ you mean they will reap hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in profit. While it sure sounds sad that they won’t be able to pass an object on to their kids I imagine they can dry those tears with hundred dollar bills.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
You talk about these people like they are elitists that just want to roll around in money - 'drying their tears with hundred dollar bills' - when they aren't. They just want to retire where they bought their forever home. I think you have some class jealousy issues to just paint people with that kind of picture though.
And of course by ‘punished’ you mean they will reap hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in profit. While it sure sounds sad that they won’t be able to pass an object on to their kids I imagine they can dry those tears with hundred dollar bills.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
I can see where you are coming from. But consider the bolded parts above. Lets imagine a pre-language human society. Person X keeps hurting Person Y physically, or through body language. from the very inception of Person Y. Would Person Y not develop fear of Person X, and the accompanying self hate? There is no language involved here. So perhaps what you are saying it the memory of the past that keeps this self hatred inside us, not so much language? Because it seems to me that self hate is quite possible without language as well. Waiting for your input on this.
All the points you just made were made using language. How can you hate yourself for anything if you had no words to express it in. Self hate is caused by being put down with words, words that say you are worthless. You can’t feel worthless if being worthless hasn’t been defined to you. You can be conditioned to fear something you associate visually with pain, but you won’t perpetuate that fear state by thinking you deserve it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I'm not following you. Prop 13 does a couple of things, it stabilizes property tax rates and it limits how easily taxes can be raised in general. Which part are you saying hurts poor people?

If a poor person is wealthy enough to purchase a house, how can having a property tax that can vary greatly from year to year be a good thing? If wages are stagnant but property values are increasing how does uncapping a property tax rate of 1.1/1.2% and allowing it to go to 4% help them?

Here’s a good article on why prop 13 is such a disaster but I’ll gove you the greatest hits:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-prop-13--20160929-snap-story.html

Prop 13 hurts the poor in a number of ways.

1) It hurts the poor in the same way the recent Republican tax cut hurts the poor in that it cuts taxes for rich people and that lost revenue has to be recouped somewhere, in California’s case from highly regressive sales taxes for example. As mentioned in the article because of prop 13 Warren Buffett pays approximately $2,300 a year in property taxes on his $4 million beach home. So basically in the end this caused taxes to go up on poor people so rich people could pay less.

2) prop 13 strongly incentivized turtling and it makes California’s housing shortage even worse than it already is. When people face massive incentives not to change their housing utilization becomes suboptimal very quickly. Say you had kids and needed a five bedroom house and then they grow up and move out. Moving to a smaller house might make logical sense but it will also increase your property tax bill tenfold so what do you do? You sit in your giant, empty house. Who does that hurt? The next generation of people who has kids. Young people now have to pay more for housing because old people are sitting in homes they aren’t even using.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You talk about these people like they are elitists that just want to roll around in money - 'drying their tears with hundred dollar bills' - when they aren't. They just want to retire where they bought their forever home. I think you have some class jealousy issues to just paint people with that kind of picture though.

I don’t think they are elitists at all, I just see no reason to give people special tax breaks on enormously valuable assets just because they have an emotional attachment to them.

Have you stopped to think that the tax policy that’s letting these people realize their sentimental dream is causing massive hardship for people who have no valuable assets at all? Why should their taxes go up just so grandma and grandpa can sigh contentedly while looking at their house?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Where do you come up with these ideas? Homeowners are not automatically rich. Many leveraged their working class income to its limit and even small financial impacts will put them out onto the street.

To everyone else, I think fskimospy is saying the homeowners need to go so their property can be demolished and replaced with apartments / condos / affordable housing.

I come up with these ideas based on the statistics compiled by the California government on who benefits from prop 13 and who does not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I also have noticed that no one has attempted to give a defense of prop 13 based on the policy merits. ie: demonstrate how this policy makes the lives of average Californians better as compared to the alternative. It’s been all ‘think of the sad old people’.

This is because there is no defense of prop 13 on the merits. It makes the average Californian worse off while introducing large budget instability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
All the points you just made were made using language. How can you hate yourself for anything if you had no words to express it in. Self hate is caused by being put down with words, words that say you are worthless. You can’t feel worthless if being worthless hasn’t been defined to you. You can be conditioned to fear something you associate visually with pain, but you won’t perpetuate that fear state by thinking you deserve it.

Bring worthless does not have to be defined in words. An abused or neglected (same thing really) six month or a year old human exhibits painful and stressed behavior. Various studies have demonstrated this. An abused dog exhibits pain even when not around humans (so it is not necessarily related to association with humans at THAT moment as such). “Something” inside that dog has changed. It is deeper than visual association with pain as you assert above. There is no language involved in these cases. So I think self hate goes deeper than language
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
Here’s a good article on why prop 13 is such a disaster but I’ll gove you the greatest hits:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-prop-13--20160929-snap-story.html

Prop 13 hurts the poor in a number of ways.

1) It hurts the poor in the same way the recent Republican tax cut hurts the poor in that it cuts taxes for rich people and that lost revenue has to be recouped somewhere, in California’s case from highly regressive sales taxes for example. As mentioned in the article because of prop 13 Warren Buffett pays approximately $2,300 a year in property taxes on his $4 million beach home. So basically in the end this caused taxes to go up on poor people so rich people could pay less.

2) prop 13 strongly incentivized turtling and it makes California’s housing shortage even worse than it already is. When people face massive incentives not to change their housing utilization becomes suboptimal very quickly. Say you had kids and needed a five bedroom house and then they grow up and move out. Moving to a smaller house might make logical sense but it will also increase your property tax bill tenfold so what do you do? You sit in your giant, empty house. Who does that hurt? The next generation of people who has kids. Young people now have to pay more for housing because old people are sitting in homes they aren’t even using.

1) and yet it helps home owners and middle class people who spend a lot more than the poor and rich (in terms of sales tax revenue). If you are arguing against a regressive sales tax you'll have to show me its a bigger burden than the massive increase home owners would see in their property taxes if prop 13 were repealed.

2) This seems to be the same as #1. Wouldn't logic dictate that a stable living space is much better for economics than one that would force people to foreclose on their houses when their taxes go up a ridiculous amount? You point to Warren buffet as an example but how many buffets are there compare to lower and middle class home owners?

As far as young people not being able to buy houses because old people aren't moving, how would the repeal of prop 13 fix that? What you would have, at best, is older people renting their house out but now at an inflated rate because of higher property taxes, and at worst, you'd have banks and investors swooping up properties and sitting on them just like they did after the 2007 crash.

The cure certainly seems worse than the sickness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
I also have noticed that no one has attempted to give a defense of prop 13 based on the policy merits. ie: demonstrate how this policy makes the lives of average Californians better as compared to the alternative. It’s been all ‘think of the sad old people’.

This is because there is no defense of prop 13 on the merits. It makes the average Californian worse off while introducing large budget instability.

The defense of prop 13 is that it made property taxes more stable and allowed more people to better budget for what they can afford. That fact is born out by the relatively stable home ownership rate California has enjoyed since passing prop 13.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
1) and yet it helps home owners and middle class people who spend a lot more than the poor and rich (in terms of sales tax revenue). If you are arguing against a regressive sales tax you'll have to show me its a bigger burden than the massive increase home owners would see in their property taxes if prop 13 were repealed.

Did you read the article I linked? It does exactly what you ask. Prop 13’s benefits accrue primarily to the wealthy and it’s costs accrue primarily to the poor and middle class as the revenues it cut were instead made up by regressive sales and use taxes. If prop 13 were repealed taxes would go up primarily on the rich and would go down on the middle class and poor, something you support.

Do you support progressive taxation? Prop 13 is regressive.

2) This seems to be the same as #1. Wouldn't logic dictate that a stable living space is much better for economics than one that would force people to foreclose on their houses when their taxes go up a ridiculous amount? You point to Warren buffet as an example but how many buffets are there compare to lower and middle class home owners?

No, logic would dictate that people decide where to live based on their needs and means instead of living somewhere because they get a huge tax break for it.

As far as young people not being able to buy houses because old people aren't moving, how would the repeal of prop 13 fix that? What you would have, at best, is older people renting their house out but now at an inflated rate because of higher property taxes, and at worst, you'd have banks and investors swooping up properties and sitting on them just like they did after the 2007 crash.

It would help that by removing the incentive for people to stay in larger houses they aren’t using. Every room that sits empty in effect raises the rents and costs for everyone else as that’s one more room off the market.

As for them passing on the costs, that’s the exact same argument conservatives make against taxing businesses. Sure some of the cost will be passed on but not all. More importantly the poor and middle class are already paying that cost, just through regressive and unstable sales taxes, which could be lowered.

The cure certainly seems worse than the sickness.

I agree. Prop 13 was listed as a cure to the effects of bad housing policy on poor and middle class people. Instead, it turned out to be a big tax cut for rich people and the rest got screwed.

For any liberal minded person prop 13 repeal should be a no-brainer. There’s a reason it was thought up and promoted by Republicans, it’s a tax cut for rich people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
The defense of prop 13 is that it made property taxes more stable and allowed more people to better budget for what they can afford. That fact is born out by the relatively stable home ownership rate California has enjoyed since passing prop 13.

California has one of the lowest home ownership rates in the country. In part because of prop 13.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
California has one of the lowest home ownership rates in the country. In part because of prop 13.
You would probably like this guy’s blog, he cautioned against the housing bubble when everyone else was cheerleading, and writes some very interesting article on the whole facade of inflated home values. This article is about the decline in home ownership and household formation in California:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/...-with-renters-and-rental-household-formation/
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Bring worthless does not have to be defined in words. An abused or neglected (same thing really) six month or a year old human exhibits painful and stressed behavior. Various studies have demonstrated this. An abused dog exhibits pain even when not around humans (so it is not necessarily related to association with humans as such). “Something” inside that dog has changed. It is deeper than visual association with pain as you assert above. There is no language involved in these cases. So I think self hate goes deeper than language
There is no such thing as being worthless. There is such a thing as feeling that way. In order to feel worthless you have to believe that being worthless is real as well as being worthwhile is real. This requires the notion of opposites which requires the notion of division, of separation and comparison. This requires the existence of names for different things. Names are language and using language enables dualistic thinking, You are therefore confusing the fact that one can experience pain and as a child with any neurological or physical damage that may bring but the child will be that pain and suffering and not be separate from it nor will he feel he deserves that pain until he is taught to think it.

There is no guarantee that life is pain free or that one won't experience it. But the realization that one also suffers from feeling worthless as a result of assuming the truth of lies is something that can be realized as such and thus a delusion one can cease to participate in. It is the feeling that one is worthless that if it remained continuously in conscious awareness would lead to endless and intolerable pain. It was to save ourselves from abject misery that we separated ourselves from our pain, built a wall of ego as protection. We had to die psychically to survive physically, but we don't have to today. Remember, the last thing anybody wants to do is to know this inwardly. To awaken feels like you are going to die. No, it is only remembering and reliving when we already did. Everything we fear has already happened.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
You would probably like this guy’s blog, he cautioned against the housing bubble when everyone else was cheerleading, and writes some very interesting article on the whole facade of inflated home values. This article is about the decline in home ownership and household formation in California:
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/...-with-renters-and-rental-household-formation/

It’s a huge shame how dumb housing policy has hurt so many people yet somehow when you try to make it better people fight it tooth and nail.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Prop 13 hurts the poor in a number of ways.

1)

2) .

1. People under 13 also pay more in regressive sales taxes. We need a prop 13 for regressive sales tax to exempt basic human needs from taxation.
2. What young people other than rich young families are going to move into those empty turtle shells. That's right, young rich families that can afford the house and the massive property tax. The poor aren't in the housing market thanks to gross inequality of income.

I find your two reasons expressed here to be utter jokes. You talk about Warren Buffett and his 4 million dollar beach house. He actually lives in a 625,000 dollar house in Nebraska he paid 31,500 for in 1958. He bought the beach house for 150,000 in 1971 but because the property taxes are killing him, it's on sale for eleven million, with lots of bedrooms for up and coming poor families.

If you don't like regressive taxes why look to take prop 13. It was passed as a measure to protect people from the regressive nature on ever increasing property taxes on people ill equipped to pay them. If you eliminate it do you really think you will see tax relief in other areas? I guess you can dream.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
1. People under 13 also pay more in regressive sales taxes. We need a prop 13 for regressive sales tax to exempt basic human needs from taxation.

So now we need to come up with a new tax policy to counteract the previous dumb tax policy, haha. Revenues have to come from somewhere.

Better to just get rid of the original dumb policy.

2. What young people other than rich young families are going to move into those empty turtle shells. That's right, young rich families that can afford the house and the massive property tax. The poor aren't in the housing market thanks to gross inequality of income.

The poor aren’t in the housing market due to prop 13 and other dumb policies that have prevented California from building or efficiently utilizing its housing stock. This is why we need to radically rezone California as well to permit denser housing.

As for the new rich people moving in, people can least afford high property taxes when they first purchase a home. If you’ve ever owned a home I imagine you know most people are at their most strapped right when they buy, and less so over time. Prop 13 makes sure people pay the most in taxes when they can least afford it.

I find your two reasons expressed here to be utter jokes. You talk about Warren Buffett and his 4 million dollar beach house. He actually lives in a 625,000 dollar house in Nebraska he paid 31,500 for in 1958. He bought the beach house for 150,000 in 1971 but because the property taxes are killing him, it's on sale for eleven million, with lots of bedrooms for up and coming poor families.

Yes, I’m sure his $200 a month in property taxes is totally killing him, haha.

If you don't like regressive taxes why look to take prop 13. It was passed as a measure to protect people from the regressive nature on ever increasing property taxes on people ill equipped to pay them. If you eliminate it do you really think you will see tax relief in other areas? I guess you can dream.

I don’t think you understand the term ‘regressive’. Regressive basically means a tax that impacts rich people less than poor people. Prop 13 is a regressive tax in that rich people benefit more from it.

As for whether other regressive taxes could be lessened after we abolish prop 13 you could easily tie that into the legislation that does it. Those taxes on the poor were raised specifically because prop 13 was giving so much money to rich people that it had to be made up somehow.

It’s very interesting to see the irrational and emotional arguments people are trotting out, especially liberal people who claim to dislike regressive tax policy. What we have here is a massive giveaway to wealthy people that hurts normal working families and you guys can’t get enough of it. Who knew you were such secret fans of the Republican tax cuts? ;)
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,079
21,201
136
my issue is your cavalier attitude to what happens to folks when their property taxes jump up dramatically. They aren't all rich, nor are they all old for that matter.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
regressive sales tax to exempt basic human needs from taxation.

Sales tax is a racket which hurts the lower income people the hardest. So that there can be more govt employees with generous benefits, to do nothing. More useless and intrusive govt programs. More fraud, more corruption. Most places do exempt food items from sales tax, but there is more to basic human needs. And this of course is not a conservative vs liberal thing, since both love stealing from people to give to their pets
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
my issue is your cavalier attitude to what happens to folks when their property taxes jump up dramatically. They aren't all rich, nor are they all old for that matter.

People here seem to have an awfully cavalier attitude towards taxing poor people in order to give tax cuts to the rich. I’m a liberal, and I’m against that.

You’re right that not everyone who benefits from prop 13 is old or rich, but they are mostly older and richer. (The longer you’ve turtled in your house the greater the disparity between its value and what you pay) You’re also right that some poor and middle class people will be hurt by repealing prop 13 and that sucks. Way, way more poor and middle class people are hurt by having it though and that sucks worse.

What sucks even more is that in many cases the people who are complaining about rising home values pushing them out of their homes are ALSO responsible for that dramatic run-up in home prices because they won’t allow denser housing to be built. So they refuse to let new homes to be built, then see property values skyrocket, then demand special tax exemptions so they aren’t forced from their homes due to the consequences of their own dumb choices.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,950
16,210
126
Me think prop 13 should go, with a system that allows current owner to deferr tax til sale of said property. They still pay the current tax rate following prop 13 rules. Once sold government recoup deferred tax. For individuals, not businesses.

Cali needs density, it's just ridiculously low desnity housing spread across all the land.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,122
278
136
The left is on a never ending quest of identifying people who they think have too much and trying to get it away from them.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
People here seem to have an awfully cavalier attitude towards taxing poor people in order to give tax cuts to the rich. I’m a liberal, and I’m against that.

You’re right that not everyone who benefits from prop 13 is old or rich, but they are mostly older and richer. (The longer you’ve turtled in your house the greater the disparity between its value and what you pay) You’re also right that some poor and middle class people will be hurt by repealing prop 13 and that sucks. Way, way more poor and middle class people are hurt by having it though and that sucks worse.

What sucks even more is that in many cases the people who are complaining about rising home values pushing them out of their homes are ALSO responsible for that dramatic run-up in home prices because they won’t allow denser housing to be built. So they refuse to let new homes to be built, then see property values skyrocket, then demand special tax exemptions so they aren’t forced from their homes due to the consequences of their own dumb choices.
Right! Way way more people are hurting who have no money than people who are hurting and are wealthy, so just confiscate the money the rich have and give it to the poor. The numbers support and justify this action. Eliminate private property altogether and construct high rise settlement camps. Or let's go underground and live like ants. Some people are hurting more. Sounds like you could find there a good rational to get rid of the Jews. Let's just rename them turtles.

You remind me of the Jonathan Winters film, The Loved One, where he owns a funeral home and cemetary that as a residential subdivision would reep him millions, all the dead people posing a problem for rezoning where he says, 'Get those stiffs off my land.'
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG