101–110 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For what? Schools. Roads. Sewers. Water. Clean air. Power. Safety. Just to name a few. Nothing important really.
You joke surely? - I live in the Bay Area, we largely have some of the worst schools on average. Yes some areas are perfect but the majority you don't want your kid going to. - Roads? What roads? The roads that are over-congested? The roads that have potholes that are measured in feet deep? - Power, water, clean air? Surely some of that is covered in the fees I already pay for? I pay some of the highest water/sewer/e…
Also, feet-deep pot-holes? So how many cars are bottoming out each week?
California's tax burden is ~9%, and within 1% of the median: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur...
If you pass this without passing radical reform of zoning and building millions more homes, it will be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from poor consumers to wealthy California landholders. Rents will eventually match the increase in income as way too much demand chases an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. Which, amazingly, is one of the reasons this could actually pass. Californi…
You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…
Can they not do basic math? There are around 30 mil adults in California. Even if provision 18992.1 (b) is 5 mil people, that's still 25 mil people. That's 25 mil * $12,000 = $300 bil a year. The ENTIRE California state budget for 2020 is only $220 bil. They would have to more than double the tax revenue for a state with already very high taxes. Now, assuming the most generous interpretation of their 10% VAT proposal…
This is just a guess but the GDP of California is estimated to be around $3tn. So $300bn is approx 10% GDP. So, by VAT, maybe they mean a 10% haircut on absolutely everything?
Whew ...
If you pass this without passing radical reform of zoning and building millions more homes, it will be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from poor consumers to wealthy California landholders. Rents will eventually match the increase in income as way too much demand chases an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. Which, amazingly, is one of the reasons this could actually pass. Californi…
You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…
If ten families want houses and there are only nine on the market, one family will go without whether you have auctions, price caps, land taxes, means testing, subsidies, or any other economic intervention, because nine is less than ten
If you pass this without passing radical reform of zoning and building millions more homes, it will be yet another wealth transfer mechanism from poor consumers to wealthy California landholders. Rents will eventually match the increase in income as way too much demand chases an incredible, inhumane, History Will Judge You shortage of supply. Which, amazingly, is one of the reasons this could actually pass. Californi…
You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…
People who say this are only ever looking at the node level, not the network level. Sure, new wealth is added to the network, but at a miniscule trickle compared to the everyday activities of the economic network.
"Wealth is not zero sum" essentially, if taken to its logical conclusion, means "everyone can be a billionaire!" No, they cannot.
Very mixed feelings on this. I'm in favor of UBI, but the devil is in the details and this bill doesn't pass the smell test. As noted elsewhere, $1000/month for all adult residents adds up to more than the state's current budget. The bill doesn't appear to remove other welfare programs. UBI is usually touted as a moral-judgement free program that replaces all the targeted welfare programs (food stamps, housing allowa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You write as if markets are a zero sum game, however they are most certainly not. You say the poor tenant will transfer wealth to the wealthy landlord as if the tenant is losing. However -- they are both gaining. Say the rent is $1000. Obviously, the property usage right is worth to the landlord less than $1000, otherwise he would've just used the property himself. He gains. The property usage right is worth more tha…
Housing markets are a zero-sum game if you refuse to build more housing when demand exceeds supply If ten families want houses and there are only nine on the market, one family will go without whether you have auctions, price caps, land taxes, means testing, subsidies, or any other economic intervention, because nine is less than ten
> (b) California residents who are 18 years of age or older and receiving benefits under the Medi-Cal program, the County Medical Services Program, the CalFresh program, the CalWORKs program, or Unemployment Insurance shall not be eligible to receive a universal basic income under the CalUBI Program. I must be misunderstanding something. If you're unemployed and getting unemployment benefits you don't get your UBI? I…
This bill is false advertising. The U in UBI means universal. Those rules above are the opposite of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just a guess but the GDP of California is estimated to be around $3tn. So $300bn is approx 10% GDP. So, by VAT, maybe they mean a 10% haircut on absolutely everything?
"It's easy, we only need 10% of the total economic output of California" Whew ...
That's assuming a fully costed proposal, which this one isn't.