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

[ivwshane]

Seek help, you don't get to gun down other people because you think they're mentally ill.

But killing fellow Americans and people who aren't like you is so patriotic!


/s

 

[ivwshane]

You look to politicians for moral authority and examples of family values?


Ahahahaha! Sure

 

[fskimospy]

Good thing I'm not liberal minded. I'll take any policy that can accomplish what it set out to do, regardless of its ideology, and in the case of prop 13 its goal was to stabilize property taxes. If you can come up with something that does just that while addressing the other issues you raised, I'll be right there with you.

Haha it is quite clear from this that you are not liberal minded, I agree. After all, you’re arguing in favor of tax cuts for rich people, funded by taxes on the poor.

If that’s something you support that’s your business but personally I think the rich have had enough tax cuts for awhile.

 

[ivwshane]

No, that's called being a weirdo. Its kind of like fat people saying they can't have cake in front of them because they will eat it. Pence is basically admitting he's so weak that being in a room with another woman is too tempting for him. That's not normal nor should it be normalized.

 

[ivwshane]

Haha it is quite clear from this that you are not liberal minded, I agree. After all, you’re arguing in favor of tax cuts for rich people, funded by taxes on the poor.

If that’s something you support that’s your business but personally I think the rich have had enough tax cuts for awhile.

Maybe you missed my reply that was bolded and embedded in the quote.

I'm also sure you don't like people straw manning your arguments so I'm not sure why you would do that to me.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you can rant all you want too and it won't erase the taste that your use of turtling-up to dismiss old people wanting to say where they live is a crass form of demonetization utilized just like Germans demonized the Jews so they could excuse their immoral treatment of them. There is a difference in degree, but not in kind, and I have no problem at all pushing those limits to shake you out of your calculating indifference. Too much intellectualism and not enough heart isn't a good thing. Look at Einstein compared to Teller.

Turtling describes an action, not a person. Trying to compare bad housing choices to the Holocaust is self-evidently ridiculous and hysterical. I’ve noticed you have no arguments for prop 13 on the merits, you only have this nonsense.

At any rate, I think the reality (not the one you think I should see but the one that will actually happen) is that Cal will reject prop 13 repeal. You don't want to beat your head in on the wall of human nature. Find a way that goes with it. Learn by expanding your understanding of a broader range of moral concerns. There are other solutions to this and many are being proposed and executed.

There are plenty of smart ideas that people reject. If that’s the case, such is life. Like I said that would just be one more bad housing decision to add to the pile.

If this is what you want, so be it. You shouldn’t complain about housing being too expensive or homeless problems then though as they are the inevitable results of the policies you fight for. I guess you could say I’m trying to shake you out of your immoral indifference to human suffering.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe you missed my reply that was bolded and embedded in the quote.

I'm also sure you don't like people straw manning your arguments so I'm not sure why you would do that to me.

It’s not a straw man, it’s the empirically measured consequence of the policy you’re arguing for. It’s like saying that the most recent Republican tax cut’s goal wasn’t to cut taxes on the rich, it was to bring US corporate tax rates in line with the rest of the world.

 

[ivwshane]

It’s not a straw man, it’s the empirically measured consequence of the policy you’re arguing for. It’s like saying that the most recent Republican tax cut’s goal wasn’t to cut taxes on the rich, it was to bring US corporate tax rates in line with the rest of the world.

Its not empirically measured at all, your link even stated as much! And its not the policy I'm arguing for, its your assertions of the policy I'm questioning.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Evangelical are not fit to lead a country of diverse people, many of which don't believe what they do.

- a guy raised evangelical

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's in America's best interest to not enlist the services of religious nutters from any background. There is no debate to that.

 

[ivwshane]

You should stop while you are ahead. You apparently don't know what communist means. Your defense of pence is bullshit as there are plenty of male politicians who can be around with women and not get into trouble. You look up to weirdo.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not empirically measured at all, your link even stated as much! And its not the policy I'm arguing for, its the policy I'm questioning your assertions about.

You should go back and read the article again then. It said there are plenty of things that are uncertain but one there’s a lot of support for is that it shifted the tax burden from richer to poorer people.

 

[brycejones]

That makes him a fucking nut case. Truly moral people don't need someone else in the room to monitor their behavior.

 

[brycejones]

And the poor bastard just starting out in life has to make up for that and 10 other people saving $400 a month when he wants to buy a house.

 

[fskimospy]

I have an issue with it because it’s regressive and estimated to cause between a tiny increase to a long term drag on economic growth in exchange for trillions in debt. (Remember how you were complaining about debt above? Haha)

So basically in the end it’s fairly likely to make the country as a whole poorer to give more money to those who need it least. Opposing it is common sense.

 

[ivwshane]

You should go back and read the article again then. It said there are plenty of things that are uncertain but one there’s a lot of support for is that it shifted the tax burden from richer to poorer people.

What did I miss?

The study by Carolyn Chu and Brian Uhler of the Legislative Analyst's Office clarifies much about the law and strips away plenty of underbrush accrued in the debate since 1978. Perhaps most important, the authors underscore how much we still don't know about the measure's impact, largely because the state hasn't compiled statistics needed for the discussion.

Chu and Uhler validate some common notions about Proposition 13. One is that it's been a particular boon to wealthier Californians. "Because higher-income households own more, higher-value homes and Proposition 13 tax relief is proportionate to home wealth," they observe. "The majority of Proposition 13 tax relief (in dollar terms) goes to higher-income households."

They calculate that two-thirds of its tax benefits go to those with incomes above $80,000, and most of that to homeowners earning more than $120,000. The benefits to renters, by comparison, are speculative. While landlords may pass some of their tax savings on to tenants, the extent to which that happens is unclear, they say.

Last time I check, 80k-120k was middle class. Has the definition changed?

That has heightened the reliance of many communities on such alternatives as sales, utility and hotel taxes, over which local authorities have more control. These have increased six times faster than property taxes — yet in inflation-adjusted per-capita terms, they still haven't made up for the revenue loss from the rollback of property taxes mandated by Proposition 13.

So not only do we have the middle class clearly benefiting from prop 13 but we also have data that shows the "other taxes", haven't even brought in the same amount of revenue as pre prop 13 brought in. In what world is paying less overall a larger burden?

Among the questions on which the Legislative Analyst's Office was able to provide only limited insight is whether Proposition 13 has shifted the weight of property taxation from commercial property to residential property, and whether it gives localities an incentive to favor retail developments over housing.

Chu and Uhler documented a shift in homeowners' share of overall property taxes to 37% now from 32% in the mid-1980s. But they're unwilling to attribute this mostly to Proposition 13, in part because growth in the number of residential properties has outstripped commercial and industrial. But the residential statistics dating back to the 1970s cover only owner-occupied homes, which may under-count the residential share.

Also murky is how a greater local reliance on sales taxes affects land-use decisions — that is, cities favoring retail developments, which typically generate more revenue than they cost in municipal services, over residential growth, where the balance is reversed.

 

[fskimospy]

What did I miss?

Are you not even reading your own quotes?

Chu and Uhler validate some common notions about Proposition 13. One is that it's been a particular boon to wealthier Californians. "Because higher-income households own more, higher-value homes and Proposition 13 tax relief is proportionate to home wealth," they observe. "The majority of Proposition 13 tax relief (in dollar terms) goes to higher-income households."

They calculate that two-thirds of its tax benefits go to those with incomes above $80,000, and most of that to homeowners earning more than $120,000. The benefits to renters, by comparison, are speculative. While landlords may pass some of their tax savings on to tenants, the extent to which that happens is unclear, they say.

More than 50% of the benefit goes to those making more than $120k a year in a state where the median income is half that. In this case a household income of $120k puts you in about the top 20% of incomes for the state, meaning more than half of the benefits go to the richest fifth.

Last time I check, 80k-120k was middle class. Has the definition changed?

So not only do we have the middle class clearly benefiting from prop 13 but we also have data that shows the "other taxes", haven't even brought in the same amount of revenue as pre prop 13 brought in. In what world is paying less overall a larger burden?

You aren’t thinking this through. The poor mostly weren’t paying property taxes because they don’t own property. They definitely pay sales taxes though. So if you reduce a tax the poor don’t pay and increase one they do, what do you end up with? Taxing the poor to give money to the rich.

You’re using the same logic that people pushing for the Republican tax cut used. Some middle class people benefit but the rich benefit far more.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[glenn1]

So not only do we have the middle class clearly benefiting from prop 13 but we also have data that shows the "other taxes", haven't even brought in the same amount of revenue as pre prop 13 brought in. In what world is paying less overall a larger burden?

@fskimospy seems to actually believe the insane notion that if Prop 13 were abolished, that Sacromento would in turn lower sales taxes and other regressive taxes thus "helping the little guy."

And apparently he also believes everyone else wants to "enjoy" the population density of Manhattan, Singapore, and other metropolii. Instead of more correctly deducing that places like SF have made their choices and that the majority of the population would accept the trade-offs of moving away rather than continuing to live there in high density. Or they can look at NYC and see people packed in at densities of 26,403 per square mile with housing costs still at 5x or more than replacement value and say "Why the hell would we want that?"

 

[ivwshane]

Are you not even reading your own quotes?



More than 50% of the benefit goes to those making more than $120k a year in a state where the median income is half that. In this case a household income of $120k puts you in about the top 20% of incomes for the state, meaning more than half of the benefits go to the richest fifth.



You aren’t thinking this through. The poor mostly weren’t paying property taxes because they don’t own property. They definitely pay sales taxes though. So if you reduce a tax the poor don’t pay and increase one they do, what do you end up with? Taxing the poor to give money to the rich.

You’re using the same logic that people pushing for the Republican tax cut used. Some middle class people benefit but the rich benefit far more.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


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.

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).

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.

 

[ivwshane]

@fskimospy seems to actually believe the insane notion that if Prop 13 were abolished, that Sacromento would in turn lower sales taxes and other regressive taxes thus "helping the little guy."

And apparently he also believes everyone else wants to "enjoy" the population density of Manhattan, Singapore, and other metropolii. Instead of more correctly deducing that places like SF have made their choices and that the majority of the population would accept the trade-offs of moving away rather than continuing to live there in high density. Or they can look at NYC and see people packed in at densities of 26,403 per square mile with housing costs still at 5x or more than replacement value and say "Why the hell would we want that?"

While that may be true in general, Californians do have a history of voting for tax raises. They just generally do so when there is a clear reason and benefit (and that benefit doesn't necessarily mean one for them).

 

[fskimospy]

@fskimospy seems to actually believe the insane notion that if Prop 13 were abolished, that Sacromento would in turn lower sales taxes and other regressive taxes thus "helping the little guy."

Just make that part of the repeal proposition. Problem solved.

And apparently he also believes everyone else wants to "enjoy" the population density of Manhattan, Singapore, and other metropolii. Instead of more correctly deducing that places like SF have made their choices and that the majority of the population would accept the trade-offs of moving away rather than continuing to live there in high density. Or they can look at NYC and see people packed in at densities of 26,403 per square mile with housing costs still at 5x or more than replacement value and say "Why the hell would we want that?"

I didn’t say anything about what people should prefer, I simply noted the inescapable economics of the situation. If you don’t want to build more housing then don’t complain about high housing costs. It’s the entirely foreseeable consequence of your choice.

 

[ivwshane]

Just make that part of the repeal proposition. Problem solved.



I didn’t say anything about what people should prefer, I simply noted the inescapable economics of the situation. If you don’t want to build more housing then don’t complain about high housing costs. It’s the entirely foreseeable consequence of your choice.

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

 

[K1052]

@fskimospy seems to actually believe the insane notion that if Prop 13 were abolished, that Sacromento would in turn lower sales taxes and other regressive taxes thus "helping the little guy."

And apparently he also believes everyone else wants to "enjoy" the population density of Manhattan, Singapore, and other metropolii. Instead of more correctly deducing that places like SF have made their choices and that the majority of the population would accept the trade-offs of moving away rather than continuing to live there in high density. Or they can look at NYC and see people packed in at densities of 26,403 per square mile with housing costs still at 5x or more than replacement value and say "Why the hell would we want that?"

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Is SF's problems indicative of California's problems regarding new home construction?

 

[K1052]

Is SF's problems indicative of California's problems regarding new home construction?

It's the most extreme example except maybe for some of the tonier hamlets around SF and LA.