patrick.net

still1bear says

He is not socialist, the country is (and getting more so by the day).

Is that why the politicians are further to the right than ever ? OR is that why federal income taxes are far lower than they were in 1965 ?

Or it that why there are big movements towards privatizing things like the post office, and public schools ?

I think you may be confusing socialism with fascism.

dublin hillz says

There seems to be a perception in society that prop 13 is unfair because over time, the homeowner will pay taxes that are significantly less than 1.25% of the market rate of the property.

This is the usual fallacy the prop 13 haters keep pushing. Forget the property, you pay taxes out of your income. If you lost your job and have some savings, prop 13 will keep you alive.

The liberal nutcakes think the taxpayer is a magic milking cow, he can give milk without feed.

marcus says

Is that why the politicians are further to the right than ever ? OR is that why federal income taxes are far lower than they were in 1965 ?

Or it that why there are big movements towards privatizing things like the post office, and public schools ?

I think you may be confusing socialism with fascism.

No, it is because I forgot about socialism much more than you will ever know. You seem to be addicted to the socialist theory, and I have about 30+ years of socialist practice. They are very different things.

still1bear says

No, it is because I forgot about socialism much more than you will ever know. You seem to be addicted to the socialist theory, and I have about 30+ years of socialist practice. They are very different things.

Actually, I'm quite sure your definition of socialism is quite different from the actual definition.

But even using your (incorrect) definition: excessive government handouts and subsidies, and the corruption that goes along with these, I do not see the country as getting more "socialist."

The propagandists that many right wingers listen to, are actually really talking about who to subsidize.

Should it be the rich and the corporations ?

Or should the country invest more in things like, education, training, research, infrastructure etc..?

They mostly speak against the latter, and they are backed (funded) by those who endorse the former.

FortWayne says

our problem is high taxes, not the fact that your grandma is still living in dignity. You think your taxes are too high, take it up with the unions and bureaucrats who keep on raising your taxes... they are the takers.

Without prop 13 you would be paying a lot more for everything today.

I didn't say tax are to high.

My problem is when my property tax is $700/month and my neighbors who has a bigger/nicer house pays $100 a month because his grandma bought it a long time ago and they did some legal mumbojumbo to get it in his name without reassessing property taxes. Yet my neighbor gets all of the benefits and increased home value that goes along with better schools and infrastructure in the neighborhood.

marcus says

But even using your (incorrect) definition: excessive government handouts and subsidies, and the corruption that goes along with these, I do not see the country as getting more "socialist."

The only incorrect thing here is your arrogance. Here is the right definition: excessive government control of the economy, no matter handouts.

http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/10/chart-a389a0ab-8f84-47b6-befa-74f05f06f38e-87612e48-cc0d-4a7e-93a1-10e83a9b0351

Handouts go to whoever buys the current government, and liberals always buy much more of it.

still1bear says

Here is the right definition: excessive government control of the economy, no matter handouts.

http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/10/chart-a389a0ab-8f84-47b6-befa-74f05f06f38e-87612e48-cc0d-4a7e-93a1-10e83a9b0351

If your definition is mostly based on the percentage of GDP spent on government, then your graph shows that to have peaked in the Reagan era, and steadily decreased until the financial crisis in 2008, which lead to current liquidity trap monetary situation, huge unemployment and GDP far below what had been forecast for now.

The recent higher percentage spent on government is because of bailing out states to pay for their govt services, unemployment benefits, and greatly reduced GDP, not because of some increase in socialist policies (ie spending put in motion before 2008, was now being done when GDP is far below what it was expected to be).

This has nothing to do with an increase in socialism, unless what socialism means to you is a drop in GDP relative to government spending.

It's the government picking winners and losers, plain as day; rewarding one class of owners at the expense of the rest.

This wouldn't matter if the biggest supporters of this policy weren't those who endlessly proclaim their ardent opposition to redistribution, in a chorus of loud, metallic honking that echoes throughout our churches, markets, workplaces, and schools.

marcus says

If your definition is mostly based on the percentage of GDP spent on government, then your graph shows that to have peaked in the Reagan era, and steadily decreased until the financial crisis in 2008, which lead to current liquidity trap monetary situation, huge unemployment and GDP far below what had been forecast for now.

If you forget about small blips on the graph, you will see that gov't part of GDP has grown from ~20% to ~40% over the last ~50 years. This is a historical trend, and it is only going to accelerate. In the West socialism propagates gradually by small increments. We are not going to lag too much behind France and Britain, and both of them are going to increase gov't sector dramatically. The same applies to the state of CA which is now experiencing one-party rule. Since CA is usually leading indicator, the same is going to happen to the rest of US. In the nearest future we will see massive increase in gov't spending everywhere. Current level of gov't spending "is not good enough" for the liberal nuts.

still1bear says

If you forget about small blips on the graph, you will see that gov't part of GDP has grown from ~20% to ~40% over the last ~50 years.

I think I'm pretty good at reading graphs and trends. If you forget about small blips then the trend is flat (total) to down (federal) from 1983 - 2008. And then the big uptick from 2008 to now is the result of 2 things:

1) The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (ie bailouts, stimulus etc)

2) GDP way below expected levels

still1bear says

In the nearest future we will see massive increase in gov't spending everywhere.

If that's true, it's only because of dealing with medicare, SS, and deficits, Not because of your make believe liberal nutjobs.

If only so much hadn't been spent on tax cuts and off the books wars in the past 12 years, we would be FAR better off.

Prop 13 impair liquidity in housing market. People who keep they asses for years in 1000sqft old shacks, can’t upgrade, downgrade, move closer to work, because can’t digest paying higher property taxes.
In other places e.g. New Jersey, very high property tax cause that retired people, who had paid off mortgage cannot afford to live on fixed income in they own houses.
Many countries impose very low, even negligible property taxes or no property taxes at all and still doing well.

marcus says

And then the big uptick from 2008 to now is the result of 2 things:

1) The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (ie bailouts, stimulus etc)

2) GDP way below expected levels

Which is exactly the result of relying on the "free market" which is overregulated to death and hardly free anymore. There is no way the gov't spending can be replaced by the stock market bubble (Clinton) or housing bubble (Bush). In either case we have to go back to the tried and false mechanism of growing gov't spending, which is the *real* growth component of any Western economy.

marcus says

If that's true, it's only because of dealing with medicare, SS, and deficits, Not because of your make believe liberal nutjobs.

This statement is self-contradictory. Medicare and SS sinkholes are created by the unstoppable tendency of the liberal nuts to grow any gov't program out of control. Not that I am against these programs in general, but their growth has to be controlled, which is impossible as long as the libs control everything.

Interesting perspectives of Prop 13.

still1bear says

Medicare and SS sinkholes are created by the unstoppable tendency of the liberal nuts to grow any gov't program out of control.

This is nonsense.

Here are two of the biggest issues, having nothing to do with liberals.

The SS surplus during the years when more was paid in than going out, should have been accounted for differently. As it was, it actually contributed to the deficit, because the surplus was seen as ordinary federal tax revenue. Right wingers wanted to treat it that way, basically as federal income tax paid by lower income people, because otherwise they would have to pay more. The social security surplus was literally given to the rich in the form of tax cuts.

As for medicare, there is a problem there, but a huge part of it is the out of control health care costs in this country. The aging of the baby boom is going to force us to solve that problem.

Social security and medicare are both popular programs funded by special deductions to peoples pay checks. How do you get that liberal nutjobs are making them grow too much ? THat sounds like nothing more than some right wing BS propaganda to me. Gullible much ?

evilmonkeyboy says

FortWayne says

Prices are too high because someone is willing to pay too much and banks are willing to lend you and everyone else money for 30 years. Not because your grandma can still afford to live in dignity in a comfort of her own home.

Socialist.... why do you hate our country.

read up on prop 13.. FW is right on several points regarding higher taxes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

Howard Jarvis is no communist either..

If the house is so dang pricey that property taxes are too much to bear, take out a HELOC. You can't have it both ways. That is, you can't have your heirs benefit from the tremendous equity appreciation of the asset, yet not use it to pay the taxes.

marcus says

FortWayne says

Oh it's not twisted, you said it. You are fine with government throwing people into poverty as long as unions (your team) gets everything you want.

I didn't say anything close to this. I made one point that you won't respond to. My second point was tongue in cheek (about "lap of luxury") and was primarily pointing out the benefits to the California economy of govt employee compensation in it's entirety going back in to the California economy (private sector mostly) and with the same taxes paid as well (you know those taxes that are driving everyone in to poverty).

Sorry if as usual you either didn't understand, or you wished to make it conform to your entirely dishonest and highly twisted view of the world.

Quit regurgitating your ideological hogwash.

This bulsshit notion that people that actually work for a living, should thank the union shleps because their wages circulate back into the local economy.

Their wages are actually just every other workers wages, chopped up and heisted into their bank accounts. The majority of their graft goes straight back to the ownership class (plenty of which are from across the ocean), when they mistakingly use their trumped up pay to bid up house prices and then send someone elses hard earned money off as a mortgage payment. And to boot, they make housing unaffordable for those of us in the real economy

"They pay taxes too" LOL

Why the double taxation? Every dollar that lands on a public union lackeys lap, was already created via taxing a productive persons wages.

Your ability to be brainwashed is repulsive

Blurtman says

If the house is so dang pricey that property taxes are too much to bear, take out a HELOC. You can't have it both ways. That is, you can't have your heirs benefit from the tremendous equity appreciation of the asset, yet not use it to pay the taxes.

If democrats gave a shit about wealth disparity, they'd be advocating a 100% transfer tax on inheritance, greater then 10k.

"All men are created equal",,,,,,,

errc says

Blurtman says

If the house is so dang pricey that property taxes are too much to bear, take out a HELOC. You can't have it both ways. That is, you can't have your heirs benefit from the tremendous equity appreciation of the asset, yet not use it to pay the taxes.

If democrats gave a shit about wealth disparity, they'd be advocating a 100% transfer tax on inheritance, greater then 10k.

"All men are created equal",,,,,,,

Problem is the collected tax money would still go to the banks ;)

All anti prop 13 arguments boil down to usual communist garbage, expropriate from those who have, and beat everyone down into equal sharing of misery... because they think raising taxes on everyone will somehow make it more affordable (stupid).

errc says

If democrats gave a shit about wealth disparity, they'd be advocating a 100% transfer tax on inheritance, greater then 10k.

That's what communists did in Cuba and Soviet Union... sure worked out well...

It is fair till owning the house. But once someone sells it for profit, propery taxes on market valuation for each year should be paid back to make it fair. Otherwise, it makes no sense why other pays higher tax.

FortWayne says

High prices come from demand being higher than supply

And you can't comprehend why prop 13 limits supply ? What percentage of Californians will never sell because of prop 13 ?

"Yeah,..but me no understand what you say."

It's such BS.

Taking prop 13 away wouldn't throw old people out on the street. If we hadn't had it, it wouldn't even decrease the massive inheritance that many would get from parents in upcoming years.

But it would prevent you from inheriting your parents house and continuing to pay property taxes based on their 1978 tax basis.

FortWayne says

You are free to go move to a state where you can buy a 200k house

I probably will one day.

Hey, if you're worried about housing for the elderly, would you get behind a new social program for that ? A national subsidy for elderly housing ?

Where my parents live (not in California), the city takes the budget amount and divides by the total value of all the houses. That yields the percentage tax amount. Why not try combining that idea with a 2% increase in budget each year (to keep rates in check).

Proposal: Figure out how much property tax California collected last year. Use that as the tax collection target and adjust upwards by 2% each subsequent year. Then, divide that target by the sum of all house values to yield the tax rate each homeowner pays. You'll have your tax stability and each person will be paying approximately the same. During a housing bubble the sum of house values will rise so that the percentage tax rate will fall.

If we did that, I'd be curious to know what the tax rate would be. I'm guessing it would be somewhere around half a percent. By increasing the total amount collected by only 2% per year, it would keep California from grabbing all the wealth of the citizens (in my opinion, the only useful feature of Prop 13).

SunnyvaleCA says

If we did that, I'd be curious to know what the tax rate would be. I'm guessing it would be somewhere around half a percent.

Interesting idea, but complicated to implement, at least during the transition.

"I'm guessing it would be somewhere around half a percent."

Hard to say, because housing in California would have appreciated less under such a plan.

John Bailo says

FortWayne says

even playing field

Even playing field isn't the point.

It is if you communists constantly bring it up.

John Bailo says

Only when it comes to Property tax do we allow people to hide value and escape from paying fair and proper taxes in proportion to actual services rendered! It's completely ludicrous!

Oh here you go again with your "fair". You know whats fair? 0 is fair.

FortWayne says

You want soviet style socialism

Actually what you want is closer. Under soviet style communism, members of the party got special treatment.

People that bought houses long ago in California are sort of like members of the soviet communist party. They magically deserve special treatment, and special rules that only benefit them, and that others aren't entitled to.

donjumpsuit says

however instead of re-zoning and creating housing, these industrial spaces languish under the protection of antiquated taxes, not forced to become anything else because the owners of the properties have no incentive to sell, if the carrying costs aren't burning the bills out of their pockets.

I hadn't thought of this one. In other words, prop 13 prevents the "market" from finding the "highest and best use" of properties.

Good analysis.

marcus says

People that bought houses long ago in California are sort of like members of the soviet communist party. They magically deserve special treatment, and special rules that only benefit them, and that others aren't entitled to.

Everyone gets same treatment, you buy a property and pay taxes based on the year you bought it (plus 2% annually). That's same treatment for everyone. Renters don't pay any taxes, while enjoying same benefits everyone pays for... what about that special treatment?

Or union thugs get special treatment, now that's socialism. They are close to government, they have all the government perks, can't be fired, can avoid all work, and just slack off being unproductive, and still get paid a lot and get annual raises.

You want to talk about special treatment, go look in the mirror.

FortWayne says

Everyone gets same treatment, you buy a property and pay taxes based on the year you bought it (plus 2% annually).

So you assume somehow that buying a home in california recently, when interest rates are the lowest they've been in several decades will work out similarly to how it did for people that bought in the 70s ? The home they buy for 300K will be worth what, 7 million dollars in 2045 ?

If the net effect is that this limits supply causing excessive appreciation, then it isn't sustainable. How are young people supposed to afford buying a home currently in california ?

I know it's probably too much for you to read, but you should check out donjumpsuit's excellent analysis above. Not that you are about learning anything that doesn't fit with your ignorant and dishonest views.

What's it like to have an entire perspective based on lies ?

FortWayne says

have all the government perks, can't be fired, can avoid all work, and just slack off being unproductive, and still get paid a lot and get annual raises.

Right. More lies. But hey, I get it. You must be so proud of yourself. And you're not alone. Quick, go to one of your many sources for reinforcing all the stupid fucking lies that you believe.

FortWayne says

All anti prop 13 arguments boil down to usual communist garbage, expropriate from those who have, and beat everyone down into equal sharing of misery... because they think raising taxes on everyone will somehow make it more affordable (stupid).

My contention is that prop 13 gives to those who already have, while those who have much less or own very little pay for this privilege to be extended to those who came first.
FW, I understand that Prop 13 affects you directly, and I'm not advocating raising property taxes on retired people, but surely you can see that letting large landholder corporations (like the Irvine corp.) hold vast tracts of land, real estate, land leases, etc) while paying very little tax on these assets is inherently unfair? Why not at least repeal this for corporations? Also, the inherited tax break is fraudulent and should be repealed immediately. There's no conceivable reason that the heirs of a property should pay 10 times less tax than their contemporaries.

My parents are retired, and their state reduced their property tax to 25% of normal assessment when my mom turned 65. This seems fair, and would eliminate the argument about "kicking granny out of her house."

Lets consider the following example. A single family home in fremont mission hills. Purchase price in mid 1990s = $570K. Current market value is $1.3M. With base +2% per year, assume that due to prop 13, they are paying property tax on approximately $798K today. Thus, current property tax is $9975. Prop tax without prop 13 would be $16,250. Assume, rental value of residence is $4,000 per month or $48,000 per year. Thus, with paid off house, the house dividend is $38,025 which works out to about 2.92% yield based on current market value of property. Without prop 13, housing dividend would be $31,750 or a 2.42% yield. Do you guys really think that without prop 13 the owners would sell and hence increase supply?

That 's about 40 years of tax payments from a HELOC tapping only the increase in equity. Granny is not getting evicted, but her deadbeat heirs are seeing their gravy train evaporate, and that is what Prop 13 is really all about.

FortWayne says

John Bailo says

FortWayne says

even playing field

Even playing field isn't the point.

It is if you communists constantly bring it up.

John Bailo says

Only when it comes to Property tax do we allow people to hide value and escape from paying fair and proper taxes in proportion to actual services rendered! It's completely ludicrous!

Oh here you go again with your "fair". You know whats fair? 0 is fair.

Fort Wayne is unusually stupid today!

That said, why is it that we don't want an even playing field? Are we saying that we want some people to have unearned advantage? Isn't the very definition of fair "free from favor"?

It's fine if you want to be nice to Grannie, but wouldn't it be unfair to do it at the expense of the new homeowner? What if the new homeowner is your Grannie?

And on what planet is 0% fair? This is retarded, even for rhetoric.

Blurtman says

Granny is not getting evicted, but her deadbeat heirs are seeing their gravy train evaporate, and that is what Prop 13 is really all about.

Please do not refer to FW as a deadbeat heir.

CL says

That said, why is it that we don't want an even playing field? Are we saying that we want some people to have unearned advantage? Isn't the very definition of fair "free from favor"?

FW is saying that young people today are free to buy a home in California just like previous generations did, and that 30 years from now they'll have the same advantage.

Problem is homes aren't nearly as affordable now as they were then (in inflation adjusted dollars), in part because of the excessive appreciation caused by prop 13.

But the logic involved in this would be too strenuous for FW to grasp. Besides, he thinks reasoning is all about choosing which lies you like the best.