4 ms·

It's a good idea. I believe there's actually a prop on the next ballot to roll back prop 13 on corporate offices. For my own part, I've found that people are a

by Kalium 8y ago

It's a good idea. I believe there's actually a prop on the next ballot to roll back prop 13 on corporate offices. For my own part, I've found that people are also emotionally attached to the idea of being able to raise their own children in the family home. Anecdotally, people often have trouble with the idea that the retired teacher next door in their house is a multi-millionaire, leading to some people refusing to regard residences as meaningful property.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Why would non-people people get a benefit, but real flesh people not?
- Kalium 8y ago
  I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you clarify? I'm going to assume it's a reference to my comment about corporate offices and Prop 13. The measure I referred to is one that will end Prop 13 protections on corporate offices. As a result, real flesh people will continue to benefit from Prop 13 and non-people people will not.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    Ah, I misunderstood then. I thought the benefit would go to the companies, while the individual people would still suffer. That's how it normally goes in this country, so you can probably understand why I was confused.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      I can certainly see why you might think that! As for the way it normally goes, both real flesh people and non-people people generally pay taxes on the value of their real property. Which strikes me as, on the whole, reasonably fair and equitable. California has decided that nobody should have to, provided they've had that real property long enough. The change going to voters would leave real flesh people exempt(-ish). On the one hand, having corporations pay actual taxes will help state and local governments uncouple their budgets from the stock market some. On the other hand, there's already a problem where cities are incentivized to permit offices over housing, and this seems likely to make that worse...

by Kalium 8y ago

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

Why would non-people people get a benefit, but real flesh people not?

Kalium 8y ago
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you clarify? I'm going to assume it's a reference to my comment about corporate offices and Prop 13. The measure I referred to is one that will end Prop 13 protections on corporate offices. As a result, real flesh people will continue to benefit from Prop 13 and non-people people will not.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Ah, I misunderstood then. I thought the benefit would go to the companies, while the individual people would still suffer. That's how it normally goes in this country, so you can probably understand why I was confused.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    I can certainly see why you might think that! As for the way it normally goes, both real flesh people and non-people people generally pay taxes on the value of their real property. Which strikes me as, on the whole, reasonably fair and equitable. California has decided that nobody should have to, provided they've had that real property long enough. The change going to voters would leave real flesh people exempt(-ish). On the one hand, having corporations pay actual taxes will help state and local governments uncouple their budgets from the stock market some. On the other hand, there's already a problem where cities are incentivized to permit offices over housing, and this seems likely to make that worse...