4 ms·

What about billionaire retirees? If you replace retired with “means tested” this makes more sense. But simply preferring people due to age is a mistake. Edit:

by boulos 8y ago

What about billionaire retirees? If you replace retired with “means tested” this makes more sense. But simply preferring people due to age is a mistake. Edit: Billionaire was a bit extreme... how about high-net worth? Say $5M+? San Francisco has plenty, and it’s a sufficient enough population that we should be attempting to garner more tax receipts. The same is true of the mental health income tax thing above $1M/yr.

epistasis 8y ago
That's such an exception that it doesn't make sense to regulate specifically. In California Prop 13 is thought of in the general public as specifically saving retirees (or "grannies" in the vernacular) from having to give up tiger home. This is not at all what Prop 13 is about, of course, but aligning the populace's sentiment with the law would be better than the populace thinking it helps just retirees, billionaire or not, instead of what it actually does, which is concentrate capital in the hands of those who already have capital, without regard to how they effectively use that capital.
lopmotr 8y ago
You can't simply call such a complicated thing a "mistake". You're suggesting encouraging people not save too much for retirement. Why discriminate against people who are careful to prepare for their future and give free money to those who prefer instant gratification? Billionaires may own many houses and be more heavily penalized. They're also very few so it's no great loss to miss out on their small property taxes.
- boulos 8y ago
  Means testing can be either income or wealth. Some countries prefer one over the other (the US prefers income, while the UK prefers wealth), and they have their upsides and downsides. I’ll note that most tax progressives don’t consider “billionaires own many houses” as being “more heavily penalized”. A progressive tax results in a higher rate not just a higher amount. Other proposals here of “only one first home”, are a good example of making property tax progressive. Note: I added an edit to my original comment, since billionaire was distracting. If you move this down to high net worth individuals, it is a significant group of people in California.

by boulos 8y ago

epistasis 8y ago

That's such an exception that it doesn't make sense to regulate specifically. In California Prop 13 is thought of in the general public as specifically saving retirees (or "grannies" in the vernacular) from having to give up tiger home. This is not at all what Prop 13 is about, of course, but aligning the populace's sentiment with the law would be better than the populace thinking it helps just retirees, billionaire or not, instead of what it actually does, which is concentrate capital in the hands of those who already have capital, without regard to how they effectively use that capital.

lopmotr 8y ago

You can't simply call such a complicated thing a "mistake". You're suggesting encouraging people not save too much for retirement. Why discriminate against people who are careful to prepare for their future and give free money to those who prefer instant gratification? Billionaires may own many houses and be more heavily penalized. They're also very few so it's no great loss to miss out on their small property taxes.

boulos 8y ago
Means testing can be either income or wealth. Some countries prefer one over the other (the US prefers income, while the UK prefers wealth), and they have their upsides and downsides. I’ll note that most tax progressives don’t consider “billionaires own many houses” as being “more heavily penalized”. A progressive tax results in a higher rate not just a higher amount. Other proposals here of “only one first home”, are a good example of making property tax progressive. Note: I added an edit to my original comment, since billionaire was distracting. If you move this down to high net worth individuals, it is a significant group of people in California.