Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the covered properties in Berkeley are legitimate landmarks of genuine architectural merit or historical importance. Every one of them was established by flim-flam for the purpose of claiming the tax abatement. Over the years this lovely property claimed more tax breaks than any other. Judge for yourself whether the public interest was served. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8567746,-122.2550107,3a,60y,...
Seems like the problem is that the system is bad at identifying historic properties with genuine value.
Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
81–90 of 91 posts
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that what I am saying is that, in practice, the well-intended solutions like the one that was listed above are effectively nullified as they do not seem to anticipate real world human reactions. What ends up happening is that it is only a subset of the people, who own land that pay higher taxes. The solution is to remove any and all subsidies. Governments of all levels have not exactly proven to be a reliable…
Well it's pretty easy to have a useless conversation if you're going to act as if the words your interlocutor are saying are "effectively nullified." My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax. A tax that is effectively not-high is by definition not a high tax, ergo is not the solution I am proposing. If I propo…
If it fails to address those now ( because those are already high ), what, exactly makes you think, it will work better if we increase those taxes? If anything, increasing those taxes will become an incentive to find ways to mitigate their impact..
The solution to remove those for everyone across the board, but we can't do that. We can't have an even playing field.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it's pretty easy to have a useless conversation if you're going to act as if the words your interlocutor are saying are "effectively nullified." My solution does anticipate real-world human interactions: don't give rich landowners tax breaks. This is baked into the premise of having a high tax. A tax that is effectively not-high is by definition not a high tax, ergo is not the solution I am proposing. If I propo…
Sigh. No. If it fails to address those now ( because those are already high ), what, exactly makes you think, it will work better if we increase those taxes? If anything, increasing those taxes will become an incentive to find ways to mitigate their impact.. The solution to remove those for everyone across the board, but we can't do that. We can't have an even playing field.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or property taxes should be eliminated because they are subject to abuse, and instead sales tax should be the primary source of income for all governments.
Is there a term for this approach? I don’t think it’s ludicrous enough to be flagged and buried at least…
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does kind of suck for Albany though that something like 10% of its population lives in the untaxable University Village.
Let's be real. Albany could double its tax base with duplexes, or any buildings taller than 10 feet, but they don't and don't want to.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like the problem is that the system is bad at identifying historic properties with genuine value.
Have you heard the news about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Sometimes the purpose of a system is what it's supposed to do and it needs some small maintenance to make it work right.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredible how far we'll bend over backwards as a country to avoid single payer healthcare. It's especially ironic that the most common argument against it is "taxes" when ...the outcome here is higher taxes.
Single payer would reduce choice and increase costs. People fantasize that price caps would fix everything, but they can't. Healthcare is just a resource and people pay high prices for it due to limited availability and regulatory requirements.
I went to the doctor because of chronic acid reflux. They charged me a copay. They couldn't help so they referred me to a gastro doc. The gastro charged me a copay (more because it was out of network—there's no in network gastro doctors in my city). I was given an upper endoscopy, but insurance only covered 10% of the cost of the procedure. I spent $500 on the medication I was prescribed afterwards.
I have "good" insurance through my employer. If I didn't have insurance, I wouldn't have been able to get treated. The fantasy universe that you're describing is the one we live in: I have almost no choice, nothing is in network, and I spent $10k on healthcare on top of what's already taken out of my pay. Nobody in countries with socialized medicine has any of these problems.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Single payer would reduce choice and increase costs. People fantasize that price caps would fix everything, but they can't. Healthcare is just a resource and people pay high prices for it due to limited availability and regulatory requirements.
Do we really know what single payer would do with any certainty? There's not really been a real test what a healthcare system with any kind of "natural" market forces at work. The current system is just a mess of tax breaks, middle man companies, hidden pricing, strange federal and local laws, employer choices and so on... Even when someone talks about single payer, I'm still unsure what they imagine that looks like.
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Single payer would reduce choice and increase costs. People fantasize that price caps would fix everything, but they can't. Healthcare is just a resource and people pay high prices for it due to limited availability and regulatory requirements.
Bullshit. The rest of the industrialized world is laughing at you for saying that. There are zero credible studies that show that socialized healthcare increases costs and plenty of bankrupt Americans because of our broken healthcare system. I went to the doctor because of chronic acid reflux. They charged me a copay. They couldn't help so they referred me to a gastro doc. The gastro charged me a copay (more because…
You can just look at the budgets of other countries and see that they pay dearly for their inferior healthcare where you will die waiting for care. At least in the US you can get taken care of and flush the debt down the toilet in bankruptcy.
>I went to the doctor because of chronic acid reflux. They charged me a copay. They couldn't help so they referred me to a gastro doc. The gastro charged me a copay (more because it was out of network—there's no in network gastro doctors in my city). I was given an upper endoscopy, but insurance only covered 10% of the cost of the procedure. I spent $500 on the medication I was prescribed afterwards.
I'm sorry to hear this. Chronic or routine issues are not what insurance is supposed to cover. Just as you cannot insure the motor oil or tires on your car and have it be worthwhile, you won't find insurance that is favorable for this under any system, no matter who is paying. The simple reason for this is mathematical and baked into the actual purpose of insurance. Insurance is supposed to protect against low probability, high cost events. The only way an insurer can stay in business, much less make a profit, is to charge more than they pay out. This applies to the government as well. Guess what happens when that gang gets permission to extract as much money as it takes to provide a modicum of healthcare? You get a lot of corruption and a shitty experience, and don't have the money to pay for anything better either.
>I have "good" insurance through my employer. If I didn't have insurance, I wouldn't have been able to get treated. The fantasy universe that you're describing is the one we live in: I have almost no choice, nothing is in network, and I spent $10k on healthcare on top of what's already taken out of my pay.
Your limit is $10k per year out of pocket no matter how much the treatment costs. Of course, the premiums technically come out of pocket too, just like taxes would in the case you dream of.
>Nobody in countries with socialized medicine has any of these problems.
You have no idea. I see stories all the time about people who wait for months to see a specialist in those utopian countries, and even die waiting to be seen "for free" (as 40% of their pay or more goes to fund the damn system). If you're in Canada, you may find your complaints about the system met with a recommendation for euthanasia, like that disabled veteran who made the news a couple of years ago. I suggest you do some research into these kinds of stories and temper your expectations...
Re: Property taxes going up? The 340B Program might be partly responsible
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a term for this approach? I don’t think it’s ludicrous enough to be flagged and buried at least…
I guess it would be a consumption-based tax. The usual argument against it is that it's regressive: the poorer people spend higher percentage of their income on consumption, and therefore end up with a higher tax burden relative to their income. This can be counterbalanced by e.g. not taxing groceries/food but it becomes a whackamole tax breaks game quickly---should we also exclude fuel/housing/educational expenses/e…