6 ms·

I love when people pretend that money not taken in in taxes is lost money, as if the government has default claim to it and is missing out by not confiscating i

by shaftoe 11y ago

I love when people pretend that money not taken in in taxes is lost money, as if the government has default claim to it and is missing out by not confiscating it.

jacobolus 11y ago
In this case, the losers are local roads, public transit, public utilities, schools, police and fire departments, social services, emergency management, parks, libraries, museums, street sweeping, garbage collection, food inspectors, building inspectors, city planning, other city hall offices, election infrastructure, etc. Or, at the county level, judges and court officials, district attorneys, public defenders, the county sheriff’s office, county fire department, animal control, emergency rooms, county parks, public health officials, etc.
- gaius 11y ago
  In this case, the losers are local officials FTFY.
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    In the kinds of places we’re talking about in this thread, dense urban areas where land is scarce and expensive, and extensive public infrastructure is required for basic survival, that’s pure horseshit. Go look up the budget for any city or county you like. You clearly aren’t interested in a respectful or intellectually honest discussion. Why are you here?
    - gaius 11y ago
      "Clearly", eh, well we are all talking on a thread I started, no? This "corporations" thing that you have come up with is a completed red herring. A government exists to serve its people, not some abstract notion of "productivity". If it's your home and your property, why should you be forced to give it up so that someone else - be they a property developer, or a local government - can profit? Every transaction requires a seller as well as a buyer and if the seller doesn't want to sell for any reason then the deal is off. But your position is that people can be compelled to sell for what reason exactly?
      - jacobolus 11y ago
        > your position is that people can be compelled to sell for what reason exactly Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never advanced this position.
    - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
      An intellectually honest person could give serious consideration to your argument while also acknowledging the possibility that higher revenue to local government won't necessarily be used in ways the residents expect. Just look at the City of Bell scandal[1]. As it relates to your earlier comment "This scenario of yours is used to justify policies such as California’s Prop 13," you should consider that Prop 13, which amended the California constitution, was adopted overwhelmingly by voters in California in 1978. If Californians don't like it today, they can repeal or change it. That's how our system works. Why haven't Californians done away with or amended Prop 13? Polls consistently show that the majority of Californians continue to support Prop 13's limits and interestingly, even proposals that would eliminate Prop 13's tax treatment for non-residential properties are losing steam[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-support-proposition-13-20150603-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-support-prop...
      - jacobolus 11y ago
        I think Prop 13 will be difficult to partially roll back, and nearly impossible to entirely repeal. Plenty of thought and effort has gone into such efforts, with very little to show for it. It’s a big mess: because they can’t reliably raise money through property taxes, local governments have turned instead to sales tax, fees for various public services, long-term debt, sale of public assets, money handed out by the state government, and various budget shenanigans. School bonds in particular require only a 55% majority to pass, and then can be paid back via property taxes, so those have been popular in most CA cities, even when they probably aren’t the most sustainable way to raise money to fund school facilities. The politics are complex, because Prop 13 bundles together several loosely related provisions. “Low taxes” and especially “make sure the legislature can’t raise taxes whenever they want” is a generally popular message, but there are demographic/political reasons that it has stronger support than just that. For instance: (1) Freezing tax rates at purchase time is a net transfer away from renters, new people moving to the state, young people, new home buyers, etc. and to older, richer homeowners (as well as corporations and very large land owners). For obvious reasons, the latter more often have the right to vote, more often vote in practice in elections at all levels, have more money to spend on lobbying and campaigning, etc. (2) The current demographics of statewide popular elections are different than the demographics of the whole population of citizens or residents, as represented by the state legislature. Seats in the legislature are apportioned by population, which means that urban areas which make up most of the population of the state and tend to vote for Democrats are favored. By contrast, conservative voters tend to vote more often in statewide elections. By forcing supermajority legislative support for tax increases, Prop 13 gives folks in the conservative minority a sort of veto power, which they are loath to give up.
- HiYaBarbie 11y ago
  All of which could be much more efficiently provided by private enterprises competing in a free market. Strangely enough, bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money.
  - dctoedt 11y ago
    > All of which could be much more efficiently provided by private enterprises competing in a free market. (Emphasis in original.) That's one, ideological view. Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods [1]. Moreover, the "free" market seldom actually is, because more than a few of the players work at least as hard on amassing market power and excluding competition as they do on competing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
    - HiYaBarbie 11y ago
      It's not "an ideology", by the way. It's simple truth, and I pointed to one element of why it's obvious: >> bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money > Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods I can't decipher what potential problem you're pointing to. Apparently even "knowledge" is a "public good". But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so.
      - dctoedt 11y ago
        > It's not "an ideology", by the way. It's simple truth, and I pointed to one element of why it's obvious: That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is. > bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better. > But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so. I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
It's not pretending, it's truth. You never own your land; you're just renting it from the local government with ownership entailing a bit more control over what you can do while it's "yours".
- codingdave 11y ago
  But so what? If you start to reject the concept of ownership, you may as well go one more step deeper, and realize that it is only held by the government via threat of force. Unless you are advocating for staging a revolution, you may as well just be a willing participant in society. You could even run for you local city council and become part of the decision making process for the government, being an active participant in it.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > You could even run for you local city council and become part of the decision making process for the government, being an active participant in it. This is the only way to ensure your goals or objectives are realized; constant vigilance.
  - elektromekatron 11y ago
    Even basic ownership of small objects comes through force. Otherwise you'd drop them.
- HiYaBarbie 11y ago
  Cute, but where would you draw the line? "You see, the government owns your car too, because you're driving on roads built by the government" "Oh but you see, clearly, based on the government deciding under what conditions you're allowed to leave the country, the government owns your body too, and is therefore within its rights to torture and kill you on a whim." Do you really see no problem at all with the idea that governments own everything and are just graciously "renting" things to us? Do you sincerely see nothing as your own legitimate property? When you buy a new phone, is that actually the government's property instead of yours?

by shaftoe 11y ago

I love when people pretend that money not taken in in taxes is lost money, as if the government has default claim to it and is missing out by not confiscating it.

jacobolus 11y ago

In this case, the losers are local roads, public transit, public utilities, schools, police and fire departments, social services, emergency management, parks, libraries, museums, street sweeping, garbage collection, food inspectors, building inspectors, city planning, other city hall offices, election infrastructure, etc. Or, at the county level, judges and court officials, district attorneys, public defenders, the county sheriff’s office, county fire department, animal control, emergency rooms, county parks, public health officials, etc.

gaius 11y ago
In this case, the losers are local officials FTFY.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  In the kinds of places we’re talking about in this thread, dense urban areas where land is scarce and expensive, and extensive public infrastructure is required for basic survival, that’s pure horseshit. Go look up the budget for any city or county you like. You clearly aren’t interested in a respectful or intellectually honest discussion. Why are you here?
  - gaius 11y ago
    "Clearly", eh, well we are all talking on a thread I started, no? This "corporations" thing that you have come up with is a completed red herring. A government exists to serve its people, not some abstract notion of "productivity". If it's your home and your property, why should you be forced to give it up so that someone else - be they a property developer, or a local government - can profit? Every transaction requires a seller as well as a buyer and if the seller doesn't want to sell for any reason then the deal is off. But your position is that people can be compelled to sell for what reason exactly?
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      > your position is that people can be compelled to sell for what reason exactly Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never advanced this position.
  - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
    An intellectually honest person could give serious consideration to your argument while also acknowledging the possibility that higher revenue to local government won't necessarily be used in ways the residents expect. Just look at the City of Bell scandal[1]. As it relates to your earlier comment "This scenario of yours is used to justify policies such as California’s Prop 13," you should consider that Prop 13, which amended the California constitution, was adopted overwhelmingly by voters in California in 1978. If Californians don't like it today, they can repeal or change it. That's how our system works. Why haven't Californians done away with or amended Prop 13? Polls consistently show that the majority of Californians continue to support Prop 13's limits and interestingly, even proposals that would eliminate Prop 13's tax treatment for non-residential properties are losing steam[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-support-proposition-13-20150603-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-support-prop...
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      I think Prop 13 will be difficult to partially roll back, and nearly impossible to entirely repeal. Plenty of thought and effort has gone into such efforts, with very little to show for it. It’s a big mess: because they can’t reliably raise money through property taxes, local governments have turned instead to sales tax, fees for various public services, long-term debt, sale of public assets, money handed out by the state government, and various budget shenanigans. School bonds in particular require only a 55% majority to pass, and then can be paid back via property taxes, so those have been popular in most CA cities, even when they probably aren’t the most sustainable way to raise money to fund school facilities. The politics are complex, because Prop 13 bundles together several loosely related provisions. “Low taxes” and especially “make sure the legislature can’t raise taxes whenever they want” is a generally popular message, but there are demographic/political reasons that it has stronger support than just that. For instance: (1) Freezing tax rates at purchase time is a net transfer away from renters, new people moving to the state, young people, new home buyers, etc. and to older, richer homeowners (as well as corporations and very large land owners). For obvious reasons, the latter more often have the right to vote, more often vote in practice in elections at all levels, have more money to spend on lobbying and campaigning, etc. (2) The current demographics of statewide popular elections are different than the demographics of the whole population of citizens or residents, as represented by the state legislature. Seats in the legislature are apportioned by population, which means that urban areas which make up most of the population of the state and tend to vote for Democrats are favored. By contrast, conservative voters tend to vote more often in statewide elections. By forcing supermajority legislative support for tax increases, Prop 13 gives folks in the conservative minority a sort of veto power, which they are loath to give up.
HiYaBarbie 11y ago
All of which could be much more efficiently provided by private enterprises competing in a free market. Strangely enough, bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money.
- dctoedt 11y ago
  > All of which could be much more efficiently provided by private enterprises competing in a free market. (Emphasis in original.) That's one, ideological view. Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods [1]. Moreover, the "free" market seldom actually is, because more than a few of the players work at least as hard on amassing market power and excluding competition as they do on competing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
  - HiYaBarbie 11y ago
    It's not "an ideology", by the way. It's simple truth, and I pointed to one element of why it's obvious: >> bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money > Another view is that the so-called free market is very focused on the short term, which isn't conducive to providing public goods I can't decipher what potential problem you're pointing to. Apparently even "knowledge" is a "public good". But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so.
    - dctoedt 11y ago
      > It's not "an ideology", by the way. It's simple truth, and I pointed to one element of why it's obvious: That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is. > bureaucrats just aren't particularly prudent when they are using our money And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better. > But whatever your complaint there is, it's based on the flawed premise that there is some One True Way <X> should be, and that central planning intervention is necessary to make it so. I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

It's not pretending, it's truth. You never own your land; you're just renting it from the local government with ownership entailing a bit more control over what you can do while it's "yours".

codingdave 11y ago
But so what? If you start to reject the concept of ownership, you may as well go one more step deeper, and realize that it is only held by the government via threat of force. Unless you are advocating for staging a revolution, you may as well just be a willing participant in society. You could even run for you local city council and become part of the decision making process for the government, being an active participant in it.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > You could even run for you local city council and become part of the decision making process for the government, being an active participant in it. This is the only way to ensure your goals or objectives are realized; constant vigilance.
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Even basic ownership of small objects comes through force. Otherwise you'd drop them.
HiYaBarbie 11y ago
Cute, but where would you draw the line? "You see, the government owns your car too, because you're driving on roads built by the government" "Oh but you see, clearly, based on the government deciding under what conditions you're allowed to leave the country, the government owns your body too, and is therefore within its rights to torture and kill you on a whim." Do you really see no problem at all with the idea that governments own everything and are just graciously "renting" things to us? Do you sincerely see nothing as your own legitimate property? When you buy a new phone, is that actually the government's property instead of yours?