4 ms·

Prop 13 is essentially the old stealing from the young. It’s disgusting.

by lostapathy 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
WillPostForFood 8y ago
like social security and medicare?
- lostapathy 8y ago
  prop 13 is worse. Social security and Medicare have gotten to where we have obvious structural problems we need to resolve long term, but they at least were founded in hopes of fairness. Prop 13 was theft generational theft from day 1.
jimmaswell 8y ago
Fascinating how the attitude shifts to/away from it being good to force out old residents depending on the emotions around the topic
- epistasis 8y ago
  That's completely disingenuous, and deceptive. What does Prop 13 have to do with keeping at-risk people in their homes? That's not what Prop 13 is about, it treats golf courses and property speculation the same as people on disability or pensions. It treats vacation homes and investment property the same way. If it was about keeping at-risk people in their homes, there would be some mention of that. If it were about that, Prop 13's effect would be mostly to keep at-risk people in their homes. But the majority of what Prop 13 does is reward the super wealthy and jack up the incentives for speculation on real estate. Compare the tax incentives handed out to the wealthy compared to those tax incentives given to those in need, is there any chance that Prop 13 is meant for those at need? Be honest here, does a Howard Jarvis tax bill sound like something aiming at helping those in need, or is the "help" just a cover for a scheme to hugely increase wealth inequality, and force larger tax burdens away from the wealthy to the less wealthy? So don't give us those false accusations that wanting to fix the horribleness of Prop 13 means wanting to kick people out of their homes, those two concepts are not connected.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It's not very bad to force old residents out and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.
  - viscanti 8y ago
    Right. It's hard to argue that new home buyers should subsidize people who bought properties decades ago and have made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the appreciation. Why should taxes be disproportionally higher for new buyers and housing options more limited for everyone else? Not everyone in the world can live in California, and I'm not convinced that living there decades ago entitles you to live there forever if you can't afford the current prices. As a society we've decided to allocate scarce resources by price. If someone bought property in California decades ago and can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes on that property now, they can sell it at a huge increase in price and can afford to buy a luxury property in most other areas of the country.

Prop 13 is essentially the old stealing from the young. It’s disgusting.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

WillPostForFood 8y ago

like social security and medicare?

lostapathy 8y ago
prop 13 is worse. Social security and Medicare have gotten to where we have obvious structural problems we need to resolve long term, but they at least were founded in hopes of fairness. Prop 13 was theft generational theft from day 1.

jimmaswell 8y ago

Fascinating how the attitude shifts to/away from it being good to force out old residents depending on the emotions around the topic

epistasis 8y ago
That's completely disingenuous, and deceptive. What does Prop 13 have to do with keeping at-risk people in their homes? That's not what Prop 13 is about, it treats golf courses and property speculation the same as people on disability or pensions. It treats vacation homes and investment property the same way. If it was about keeping at-risk people in their homes, there would be some mention of that. If it were about that, Prop 13's effect would be mostly to keep at-risk people in their homes. But the majority of what Prop 13 does is reward the super wealthy and jack up the incentives for speculation on real estate. Compare the tax incentives handed out to the wealthy compared to those tax incentives given to those in need, is there any chance that Prop 13 is meant for those at need? Be honest here, does a Howard Jarvis tax bill sound like something aiming at helping those in need, or is the "help" just a cover for a scheme to hugely increase wealth inequality, and force larger tax burdens away from the wealthy to the less wealthy? So don't give us those false accusations that wanting to fix the horribleness of Prop 13 means wanting to kick people out of their homes, those two concepts are not connected.
Dylan16807 8y ago
It's not very bad to force old residents out and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars for it.
- viscanti 8y ago
  Right. It's hard to argue that new home buyers should subsidize people who bought properties decades ago and have made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the appreciation. Why should taxes be disproportionally higher for new buyers and housing options more limited for everyone else? Not everyone in the world can live in California, and I'm not convinced that living there decades ago entitles you to live there forever if you can't afford the current prices. As a society we've decided to allocate scarce resources by price. If someone bought property in California decades ago and can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes on that property now, they can sell it at a huge increase in price and can afford to buy a luxury property in most other areas of the country.