> You are advocating a regressive policy that hampers growth, and it's easy to figure this out with economic thinking.
How? How is it a regressive policy? It is not like you are taxing real wealth or real income. The value of a property that is a domicile is taxed Ad Valorem. You are taxing a non income. It is not regressive but is in fact, a punitive tax.
A regressive tax policy only applies to that which has entered the economic circulation. An occupied home that is considered a owner occupied residence and generates NO income when punitively taxes is NOT progressive policy.
I don’t want easy. I want facts. Stating something doesn’t make a case for punitive taxes.
> That doesn't say I'm wrong. It just shows the formula by which the state props up each local government.
Yes. It shows that you are wrong. Because it’s NOT for local govt but for regional and state coffers. If you had looked into LCFF you’d have understood that.
>You're making at least three mistakes. The first is that you assume all property is residential.
That is not a mistake. I had stated elsewhere that my argument is only for owner occupied residential properties. Not for commercial properties or rental/investment properties. I am also not in favour of prop 13 benefits being passed on to children of the original owners.
>The second is that you assume that all property is developed. Due to Prop 13, there are several undeveloped lots with keep out signs in my neighborhood of million dollar houses.
I don’t think undeveloped lots should be punitively taxed. Property rights are the corner stone of capitalism and America. If you change that, we will have to accept that we have to amend the constitution.
>The third is that you assume that apartments can't be redeveloped to house more people.
It is not an assumption. High density occupation is not sustainable or desirable. High density homes are suitable for transitional homes and senior housing where the resource spending and consumption activity doesn’t stress the public facilities.
Example: have a high density homes for families in a city that can’t support playgrounds or schools is a bad idea. We have seen in the past that as high density increases for family homes with children, expenditure for public schools also increase. The biggest expenditure of public schools are not salaries and wages, but the pension liabilities as unions negotiate increases every year that gets accrued as pensions. This is absolutely unsustainable and will plunge the state into debt.
>Prop 13 increases the cost of doing so to not only the fixed cost of redeveloping the property but the ongoing cost of significantly higher taxes.
That makes no sense. Your entire premise is based upon the virtue of taxation. It has never occurred to you that the functioning of a state that relies on higher and higher states of taxation is abnormal and odd.
Example: The city and state has done nothing to increase the revenues of ..let’s say..google. Yet, the google employees have filled the state coffers with all manner of taxes. The state of California has had a windfall with taxable income. And yet. YET, they can’t manage their finances.
Instead of trying to keep patching the waterfall of deficit with a bandaid over the rocks, ask WHY?
The solution to our problems is not ask the Dept of taxes to act like our henchmen to collect taxes from those whom we feel are not like us.
>You're falling for a marketing trick the proponents of the initiative intended for rubes.
That’s a dumbass insult and I won’t respond to it.
>The correct way to keep the few old people in their homes is via tax exemptions, as I've already explained. It is not to give incumbent landowners a huge competitive advantage over new landowners, leading to de facto serfdom.
This makes no sense. Rubes, marketing trick, serfdom. I will address this when it makes sense to me.
>Who said that? These landlords are producing massive unearned profits. The rents go up with demand, but their costs stay low. Removing prop 13 would bring their profits in line with newer landlords.
Define Landlords. Do you mean the random person who rents a second home to pad income or real estate/rental firms that rents out apartments to people or commercial building owners?
Anytime you tax someone, that is going to be passed down to the renter. The renter or non house owner is the most subsidized person here. Because public schools are funded by property taxes. And public school expenditure is being eaten up by union negotiated pension liabilities for years to come when your children and their children will still be paying the debts. If ever there was a Ponzi scheme.
>This is economically nonsensical. Who is going to pay the taxes to take care of the elderly if not the children?
You know what sounds nonsensical? When someone puts a fixed amount in the bank for thirty years and when they ask for it when they need it, the bank says that they would be happy to lend it as a high interest loan.
That’s exactly what you are suggesting. Who educated these ‘children’? The elderly have more net worth than the children upon whom millions were spent for education.
Who paid Medicare, social security taxes, 401k contributions that became CAPITAL that the next generations enjoy. They did so they don’t have to pay more taxes.
What you are arguing for is like asking someone to make a deposit and when the time comes for withdrawal, you want to collect interest.
>The state has every incentive to make these children as productive as possible, which means educating them.
This is the problem. Parents expect the state to be the nanny state.
It doesn’t seem to have done a good job, has it? Because it looks like the educated millions of youth can’t even manage their finances and want to run back to the nanny state that raised them to impose more taxes where in fact they should be the ones paying taxes.
Someone who graduated school in 2000 should be able to pay the taxes to educate their generation’s children in public schools. The elderly have already done the job of educating the previous generation.
The youth and state are using each other as henchmen and acting like thugs to separate those who have paid their dues from their assets. If this isnt co-ordinated thuggery, I don’t know what is... the nanny and ward robbing the parent blind.