3 ms·

I take it you didn't read the second link, where I said: No, this wouldn't happen, because the lien is only on 1% of the excess gain (the amount the value incr

I take it you didn't read the second link, where I said: No, this wouldn't happen, because the lien is only on 1% of the excess gain (the amount the value increased over 2%). If, for one example, the value jumped in the first year and then went flat, the payment would continue to grow at 2% annually until it caught up to the value. The only scenario that generates a lien larger than the owner's gain is if the market has been up but then drops sharply just before the owner wants to sell -- in short, if there was a bubble. Well, bubbles produce lots of dislocation; I don't think they make for a good argument against this proposal.

abritinthebay 10y ago
You are describing it well, but not countering the point I raised with anything other than "yes, but I don't understand how people work so here are some numbers that if people were robots might justify this idea." But they aren't. So it doesn't. Peoples reaction would be exactly what I described and your explanation doesn't change that. It just shows you're incapable of understanding why they'd react that way.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  You're certainly not the first to raise this objection. I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would have them paying more taxes. So even though the objection you're raising is not, in fact, true, it's a lie people would want to believe. I know it would take a sea change in sentiment to enact this proposal post-Prop. 13. (I don't know that such a sea change is impossible in the long run, which is why I'm talking about this now, but I understand that it won't happen soon.) But if we imagine ourselves back in 1978, and if the structure I'm suggesting had been the proposal on the table instead of Prop. 13 as it was, it would have passed easily, being a clear improvement on the status quo ante. There would have been no case in which someone would have paid more tax, or done so at a less convenient time, than under the previous system -- quite the contrary. So it would have been totally possible then. But again, given that Prop. 13 exists in its present form, the modification I'm proposing is a tough sell. Maybe we'd have to stipulate that the amount of the lien will be limited to 1/2 of the gain on the sale, after commissions, and would be zero in the case of a loss. BTW, I'm attempting to respond constructively to your post on principle, but I don't feel yours was offered in the same spirit.
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    People's gut reactions can be overcome with time: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/recycled-drinking-water-getting-past-the-yuck-factor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/recycled-drinking-...

abritinthebay 10y ago

You are describing it well, but not countering the point I raised with anything other than "yes, but I don't understand how people work so here are some numbers that if people were robots might justify this idea." But they aren't. So it doesn't. Peoples reaction would be exactly what I described and your explanation doesn't change that. It just shows you're incapable of understanding why they'd react that way.

ScottBurson 10y ago
You're certainly not the first to raise this objection. I get why people react this way: they'll look for any way they can to shoot down a proposal that would have them paying more taxes. So even though the objection you're raising is not, in fact, true, it's a lie people would want to believe. I know it would take a sea change in sentiment to enact this proposal post-Prop. 13. (I don't know that such a sea change is impossible in the long run, which is why I'm talking about this now, but I understand that it won't happen soon.) But if we imagine ourselves back in 1978, and if the structure I'm suggesting had been the proposal on the table instead of Prop. 13 as it was, it would have passed easily, being a clear improvement on the status quo ante. There would have been no case in which someone would have paid more tax, or done so at a less convenient time, than under the previous system -- quite the contrary. So it would have been totally possible then. But again, given that Prop. 13 exists in its present form, the modification I'm proposing is a tough sell. Maybe we'd have to stipulate that the amount of the lien will be limited to 1/2 of the gain on the sale, after commissions, and would be zero in the case of a loss. BTW, I'm attempting to respond constructively to your post on principle, but I don't feel yours was offered in the same spirit.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  People's gut reactions can be overcome with time: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/recycled-drinking-water-getting-past-the-yuck-factor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/recycled-drinking-...