5 ms·

what exactly is 'economically illiterate'. i cant take anything you wrote seriously until you explain this made up word wrt this talking point. if you are talk

what exactly is 'economically illiterate'. i cant take anything you wrote seriously until you explain this made up word wrt this talking point. if you are talking about the exemption given to the children who inherit property and the prop 13 benefits along with it, i am in agreement. i am also in cautious agreement with prop 13 being amended when it comes to commercial properties. any prop 13 amendment that adversely affects tax paying citizens or senior citizens who own property is the untouchable third rail. any increase in taxes will result in higher cost of living. just like the myth that high density living is sustainable (because a cluster of high density homes within feet of each other is not high density but just over crowded. high density is only sustainable if it spares sprawl and lives within allocated available resources), the notion that high taxes will somehow benefit the state is a very ill thought out plan. there are a million ways to raise taxes. but following that dollar isnt as easy. every single tax dollar misappropriated by our politicians is a travesty. we are already a highly taxed state. before demanding to tax others on our behalf, perhaps we should first ask WHERE the tax dollars are going right NOW. it's not like we are a tax free state. anyone paying taxes and making a paycheck in california is just an ambulatory ATM for sacramento. tits to balls, we are taxed to death.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
> what exactly is 'economically illiterate'. i cant take anything you wrote seriously until you explain this made up word Have you heard of financial literacy or scientific literacy? Economic literacy is similar. I am using the English language in a very straightforward manner. > the notion that high taxes will somehow benefit the state is a very ill thought out plan. Who said anything about increasing total state revenue? After Prop 13 passed, a big chunk of the state revenue was tied up in propping up local governments. By undoing the damage of this highly regressive policy, the state will have the ability to reduce regressive taxes and even income taxes. It will also encourage development (new property developers will no longer be disadvantaged vs. existing landowners), bringing in more money (and reducing blight) and reducing the need to tax individual earners even more.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  >I am using the English language in a very straightforward manner. english is not my first language. economic literacy wrt this topic seems irrelevant. >After Prop 13 passed, a big chunk of the state revenue was tied up in propping up local governments. wrong. property taxes are diverted to the state's public education program through a complicated set of formulas called LCFF.[1] it collects all the property taxes. dumps them in a big pot and redistributes them. for example: an affluent bay area neighbourhood's property taxes will go fund a farm labourer community in central california. 44% of state income goes to public schools. you wont see a dime of it to pursue any of the above stated goals. what is the point in unhousing and imposing punitive taxes on the senior population who have worked hard to buy their homes. if they are paying low taxes, it automatically means that they bought it years ago. the solution is to regulate housing prices and engage other controls and processes so housing costs dont spiral out of control due to speculative housing markets. >It will also encourage development (new property developers will no longer be disadvantaged vs. existing landowners), bringing in more money (and reducing blight) and reducing the need to tax individual earners even more. how? how will increasing taxes on older properties that are still housing original buyers and havent been resold.. 'encourage development' without UNHOUSING existing people with fixed incomes who are already living there. i think the word you are looking for or didnt mention is 'gentrification'. people with income and those who consume should be taxed. if someone earns 200k as a FAANG employee, they shouldnt be given more tax breaks than a 70 year old senior houseowner on a fixed income. you are asking that prop 13 punish older houseowners so they will be forced to give up their residences to fund the younger citizenry. those who consume from smart phones to game consoles to electric cars should be taxed for their higher consumption. those who have children should be taxed because the children consume resources and need to be educated. the peers of parents should share the burden. not the generation that has already done it's part and is getting ready to retire. people should be taxed on income. if at all. people shouldnt be taxed because they are old and have fixed immovable assets. your comment suggests that we should 'reduce the need to tax individual earners' more and by messing with prop 13, you want to increase the burden of taxation on NON EARNERS with non income producing fixed assets. homes are not for income generation or speculative purposes or tax cows. your proposal wants to add tax paying seniors to the throngs of drug addicted, mentally ill, financially insolvent people, unfortunate people who are already housing insecure. and we will spend more money on social programs to house them. unless you are hoping that the high taxes will drive them away by making them sell their homes and they will move elsewhere. because the younger generation cannot live within their means and are financially illiterate? no. [1]https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/

lern_too_spel 6y ago

> what exactly is 'economically illiterate'. i cant take anything you wrote seriously until you explain this made up word Have you heard of financial literacy or scientific literacy? Economic literacy is similar. I am using the English language in a very straightforward manner. > the notion that high taxes will somehow benefit the state is a very ill thought out plan. Who said anything about increasing total state revenue? After Prop 13 passed, a big chunk of the state revenue was tied up in propping up local governments. By undoing the damage of this highly regressive policy, the state will have the ability to reduce regressive taxes and even income taxes. It will also encourage development (new property developers will no longer be disadvantaged vs. existing landowners), bringing in more money (and reducing blight) and reducing the need to tax individual earners even more.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
>I am using the English language in a very straightforward manner. english is not my first language. economic literacy wrt this topic seems irrelevant. >After Prop 13 passed, a big chunk of the state revenue was tied up in propping up local governments. wrong. property taxes are diverted to the state's public education program through a complicated set of formulas called LCFF.[1] it collects all the property taxes. dumps them in a big pot and redistributes them. for example: an affluent bay area neighbourhood's property taxes will go fund a farm labourer community in central california. 44% of state income goes to public schools. you wont see a dime of it to pursue any of the above stated goals. what is the point in unhousing and imposing punitive taxes on the senior population who have worked hard to buy their homes. if they are paying low taxes, it automatically means that they bought it years ago. the solution is to regulate housing prices and engage other controls and processes so housing costs dont spiral out of control due to speculative housing markets. >It will also encourage development (new property developers will no longer be disadvantaged vs. existing landowners), bringing in more money (and reducing blight) and reducing the need to tax individual earners even more. how? how will increasing taxes on older properties that are still housing original buyers and havent been resold.. 'encourage development' without UNHOUSING existing people with fixed incomes who are already living there. i think the word you are looking for or didnt mention is 'gentrification'. people with income and those who consume should be taxed. if someone earns 200k as a FAANG employee, they shouldnt be given more tax breaks than a 70 year old senior houseowner on a fixed income. you are asking that prop 13 punish older houseowners so they will be forced to give up their residences to fund the younger citizenry. those who consume from smart phones to game consoles to electric cars should be taxed for their higher consumption. those who have children should be taxed because the children consume resources and need to be educated. the peers of parents should share the burden. not the generation that has already done it's part and is getting ready to retire. people should be taxed on income. if at all. people shouldnt be taxed because they are old and have fixed immovable assets. your comment suggests that we should 'reduce the need to tax individual earners' more and by messing with prop 13, you want to increase the burden of taxation on NON EARNERS with non income producing fixed assets. homes are not for income generation or speculative purposes or tax cows. your proposal wants to add tax paying seniors to the throngs of drug addicted, mentally ill, financially insolvent people, unfortunate people who are already housing insecure. and we will spend more money on social programs to house them. unless you are hoping that the high taxes will drive them away by making them sell their homes and they will move elsewhere. because the younger generation cannot live within their means and are financially illiterate? no. [1]https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/