patrick.net

shrekgrinch says

Have you ever been employed by a poor person?

You know, I get so flippin sick of people saying this. My husband is employed by a working class person who runs the business because he loves it, and pays my husband a good wage because he appreciates his work. He probably has less money than we do, and often pays himself less than he pays my husband.

I know lots of people who don't work for rich people. Believe it or not there are people out there, lots of them, running small businesses not to get rich or even make a lot of money, many of them employ people.

shrekgrinch says

Yeah, and France is poorer for it.

The french do not consider a lack of walmarts a serious deficit in their culture.

shrekgrinch says

bob2356 says

The french do not consider a lack of walmarts a serious deficit in their culture.

Good for the French! But whether they like it or not wasn’t the issue. Go back and re-read.

You have a serious sense of humor deficit.

Last I checked WalMart is in Bentonville, Arkansas. They have retail and distribution channels across many states and international, just like any other retail outfit. Reason Walmart can thirve is they have an automated distribution system, few if any can match globaly.

Your point is what ?

Now make the same argument with deflationary industries like the Semiconductor business.

Why did we lose our mfg to the Philippines and Tiger Nations when the Japanese cut their prices less than US mfg costs ? Or Autos, Steel, and many other now Japanese dominated industries.

shrekgrinch says

They were throwing little old ladies on fixed income out on the street, Patrick.

So cut old people a break. We give them SS on our dime, why not a break on property taxes for a primary residence? Or at least let the taxes be a lien to be paid on sale or death.

Instead, now a huge percentage of long-held properties under prop 13 are commercial properties. And residential rentals. If I bought bought my place from my landlord I'd have to pay 10X the taxes. Or for that matter if I wanted to be landlord I am at an extreme disadvantage because of the preferential tax treatment long term landlords receive.

Please explain who is being protected here? These prop 13 parasites are no better that unions that try to stick it to junior members, and yet "conservatives" defend them tooth and nail.

OK Lets do away with Prop 13 altogether! Now what ?

thomas.wong1986 says

OK Lets do away with Prop 13 altogether! Now what ?

To break Prop 13 we don't even have to repeal it.

The easiest way would be to tax rents. That's not ad valorem so Prop 13 doesn't apply.

A second way would be replace the existing ad valorem taxes with a land title tax -- charged on land area at a specified millage set by localities. Not ad valorem either even though it closely resembles the L V T : )

With the added revenues we could restore the two state programs that gave low-income seniors and disabled a break (outright subsidies and deferred taxes that are rolled into liens).

Win-win for everyone. Except rentiers.

Rather than come up with more ways to get the profligate CA government to raise taxes "on the other guy"... have any of the geniuses here stopped to question why the fuck we don't ask the government to cut back on all the shit they spend the money on?

I don't raise my kids' allowance this week just because she blew most of last week's money on overpriced cotton candy that her school was peddling. I told her she needs to understand how to spend responsibly before she is given control over a bigger pile of money. Why do we not expect the government to display the same self-restraint before allowing it to shake us down for more?

It is not about prop 13 - you may think that it only affects the other guy. But it perpetuates and strengthens a government beast that will come after you on some other pretext next month.

I raised my kid's allowance as he needed more books for school, as bus fares went up, as he joined after school sports activities and got move involved in his community. For example.

Geeze, what is with the whole "government beast" bit? Sounds a whole lot like a Timothy McVeigh rant. I don't know about you, but this is America for Gods sake. I'm proud of America, most of it anyway. I'm proud of the Social Security system, the National Highway System. National Parks. Howzabout the US Army? Or the National Guard? The CDC?

"Government beast" my ass. Just because it needs fixing, doesn't mean it Satan. I want to say "Go fuck yourself and move to Mexico", but this is America, and we are all in this together. Don't be so cray cray and go do something constructive. Volunteer somewhere or something.

native94027 says

Rather than come up with more ways to get the profligate CA government to raise taxes “on the other guy”… have any of the geniuses here stopped to question why the fuck we don’t ask the government to cut back on all the shit they spend the money on?
I don’t raise my kids’ allowance this week just because she blew most of last week’s money on overpriced cotton candy that her school was peddling. I told her she needs to understand how to spend responsibly before she is given control over a bigger pile of money. Why do we not expect the government to display the same self-restraint before allowing it to shake us down for more?
It is not about prop 13 - you may think that it only affects the other guy. But it perpetuates and strengthens a government beast that will come after you on some other pretext next month.

Landru3000 says

“Government beast” my ass. Just because it needs fixing, doesn’t mean it Satan. I want to say “Go fuck yourself and move to Mexico”, but this is America, and we are all in this together. Don’t be so cray cray and go do something constructive. Volunteer somewhere or something.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. I don't believe raising the allowance is a good thing if the person (or the CA government, in this case) has shown a tendency to spend its current allowance unwisely. Finding new revenue sources to suck from isn't really the answer.

It has nothing to do with being proud of america, or fucking oneself or moving to Mexico or volunteering, since none of those things have anything to do with the matter.

I just hit the Ignore button on Shrek, ah...now I can breathe without hearing a Tea Bagger rant in every thread.

It feels as good as when I programmed my "Favorites" button on my TV remote to no longer have to flip through the Faux Republican News Channel pundits and all their yelling, slant, and rants.

shrekgrinch says

As a conservative, I love Prop 13 not because it protects old ladies (although that is a bonus) but because it ’starves the beast’. Whatever can fiscally fuck over out-of-control government is AOK in my book.

Yes, this is the actualilty of "starve the beast". It's not "I want a minimal government", that's just the cover story for the real operation. SABOTAGE ALL GOVERNMENT ending in Mad Max is the goal, because conservatives want to live out their Randist fantasies of being all bootstrappy and able to come out on top in a caveman world.

John Bailo says

You call yourself a “conservative” but you’re afraid of the Free Market.
Not possible.

That's how silly the Tea Baggers are, since they want to do the following:
1. Slash the Deficit
2. Make the George Bush Tax Cuts Permanent (thereby increasing the deficit by billions that they just "slashed" in #1 above)

Not Possible (except to a Tea Bagger).

Mark_LA says

John Bailo says

You call yourself a “conservative” but you’re afraid of the Free Market.
Not possible.

That’s how silly the Tea Baggers are, since they want to do the following:
1. Slash the Deficit
2. Make the George Bush Tax Cuts Permanent (thereby increasing the deficit by billions that they just “slashed” in #1 above)
Not Possible (except to a Tea Bagger).

Sure.
And democrats want to:
1. Increase or at least keep the existing spending
2. Not increase taxes, or at least by nowhere near to close the gap with spending
Continue borrowing to make ends meet, I guess forever.
Not possible, expect to O'babies.

Which is why I am not voting in this election, again.
I will when there is a serious candidate (D, R, and likely neither) who, like Churchill, offers us only "sweat, blood, and tears".
Because taxes (or other means of govt. revenue collection) have to go WAY up or spending on NEARLY EVERYTHING (incl. all three "sacred cows" of SS, Med., and DoD) has to be slashed WAY down,
and likely both.
Pretty soon, I'm afraid.

Perhaps that is impossible in a true democracy over the long term, which is why all mature democracies
(US, Europe, Japan) end up in the same debt trap, regardless of all the major political and social differences.
Then democracy would have to go.

Yes--by all means don't vote. That's definitely the adult way to handle it.

edited: I promised myself I'd be a nicer person.

Many are voting anti-incumbent in this election. And some people may vote with their money on Dec 07.

http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/bank-run-being-organized-across-europe-on-december-7-2010/

Not advocating this, just making an observation.

shrekgrinch says

This entire board is one ObamaCommie Reality Free Zone, I swear.

Absolutely, you don't even know how much.
I myself have, joining the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth Organization of USSR at age 15,
raised my hand and solemnly swore in the presence of my friends and classmates to fight for the great ideals of communism to the last drop of my blood and last minute of my live.
And I did it so well that, by age 17, I already was a deputy secretary of the class cell of the same for ideology. Hope you didn't get a heart attack, did you?

shrekgrinch says

And, the bulk of whatever taxes I pay should go to the local first, state second and feds distant last.

I mostly agree with this. It was living in Japan and seeing my city taxes be 15%, national tax at 5%, and national pension at 10% that opened my eyes. That seemed about right.

We expend so much energy at the national level and almost nothing at the state level. This is stupid, especially for a state like California which has the GDP of Canada, Russia, or India.

I do think we need to "spread the wealth around" which means state-first and local second. Otherwise you just get favelas and enclaves eventually.

Speaking of which, I think Norway does a pretty good job running their economy, much better than your desired minarchy will ever be able to achieve. But this comes from having a rational and industrious people perhaps and not the economic system itself. I think there's validity to the argument that people living Up North have to be more conscientious and socialistic communitarians, given their winter climate.

Or was that tolerant part just a bunch of bullshit as well?

Being tolerant of passive-aggressive butthurtedness is difficult, but I'm trying.

I play the ball, not the man.