3 ms·

First of all, are we talking about “systematic” or “systemic” or “structural” racism. These terms are not interchangeable. Put that aside for a second… I assum

by zaroth 4y ago

First of all, are we talking about “systematic” or “systemic” or “structural” racism. These terms are not interchangeable. Put that aside for a second… I assume your example is talking about Prop 58. [1] Is Prop 58 racist? Of course not, the CA Constitution prohibits racist and sexist laws and the courts are very good at enforcing that prohibition. Prop 58 means a lower property tax bill can be inherited by the children with the property. By your reasoning, isn’t allowing property inheritance at all racist? To me this is a meaningless injection of “equity” into a discussion on equality. Racism is not a word that means “inequity” - as in - everyone not consuming, producing, contributing, and owning the exact same quanta. That of course is a bizarre fiction. We are talking about a tax policy which generationally preserves a tax break. It had a meaningful basis in law and policy which does not discriminate based on race, but it certainly provides a significant tax benefit to generational land owners. Now again, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the Federal estate tax lifetime exclusion amount, which provides orders of magnitudes greater tax benefits to preserving generational wealth, so Prop 58 is just a bit player in this scheme. If the argument is that a tax policy which is advantageous to anyone with generational wealth is “systemically racist” then I think the argument has gone off the rails. There are important justifiable public policy goals to ensuring a certainly level of generational wealth. There is no and never will be an important justifiable public policy goal of being “racist”. If someone wants to argue for wealth confiscation, redistribution, and equity (e.g. some form of communism) then by all means give it a shot. But I don’t abide calling people racists if they disagree with that as a policy goal. If the argument is “merely” that there should be no tax benefit which preserves generational wealth, you actually immediately end up in exactly the same place. The answer is of course more likely along the lines of “we do both”. We have policies that provide for protecting and maintaining a certainly level of generational wealth. And we also have policies which provide a massive welfare system for people without any generational wealth. [1] - https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706

ummonk 4y ago
The original commenter obviously meant "systemic" racism, and you're not discussing in good faith if you're trying to misinterpret this. Ditto when you digress about calling people racists when no one in this thread has done that. As to estate tax exemptions, they aren't nearly as egregious. There can certainly be an argument for reparations of ill-gotten gains to level the playing field, but it's at least possible for me to accumulate wealth myself and pass it on to my children. In contrast, it's simply impossible for me to acquire and pass on the same property tax rate that my white neighbors have.
- zaroth 4y ago
  I guess to me the words matter, and calling it “systemic racism” means that somewhere in there, there should be identifiable racism and not merely structural inequity, aka property ownership and capitalism. I think saying you can’t go back in time and capitalize on an investment 60 years ago that also comes with an accrued property tax advantage is true, but has nothing to do with race. Anyone can start accruing their own tax advantaged status under the exact same Proposition, and no one can ever try to take it away from them on the basis of a protected trait, right? I guess what I’m asking is, is there anything specific about this tax policy that accrues benefits to a historical capital investment which makes it “racist” over any other tax policy that accrues benefits based on historical capital investment? There are so many race neutral policies that provide accrued benefits like this. Even social security benefits accrue based on historical wages. But also things like Roth IRAs which provide compounded tax free growth. You can’t contribute the same dollars today to a Roth IRA and get the same tax advantages as someone who contributed the same amount but over the last 60 years, the benefit can only accrue over time, just like the CA property tax benefit can only accrue over time. Not everyone pays the same tax rate on their income or their property, nor are they provided the same level of government benefits. In many cases that tax rate or benefit level will be based on historical personal or family wealth. Often times it works out to be a progressive tax, sometimes it’s regressive depending on so many policy goals that are often in conflict with each other. Simply put, any of your neighbors who have owned their (family) property for several decades have accumulated a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit for being a long-time owner. You too can accrue a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit the longer that you hold your property. You don’t get to buy in and get that benefit on Day 1, and neither did they.

by zaroth 4y ago

ummonk 4y ago

The original commenter obviously meant "systemic" racism, and you're not discussing in good faith if you're trying to misinterpret this. Ditto when you digress about calling people racists when no one in this thread has done that. As to estate tax exemptions, they aren't nearly as egregious. There can certainly be an argument for reparations of ill-gotten gains to level the playing field, but it's at least possible for me to accumulate wealth myself and pass it on to my children. In contrast, it's simply impossible for me to acquire and pass on the same property tax rate that my white neighbors have.

zaroth 4y ago
I guess to me the words matter, and calling it “systemic racism” means that somewhere in there, there should be identifiable racism and not merely structural inequity, aka property ownership and capitalism. I think saying you can’t go back in time and capitalize on an investment 60 years ago that also comes with an accrued property tax advantage is true, but has nothing to do with race. Anyone can start accruing their own tax advantaged status under the exact same Proposition, and no one can ever try to take it away from them on the basis of a protected trait, right? I guess what I’m asking is, is there anything specific about this tax policy that accrues benefits to a historical capital investment which makes it “racist” over any other tax policy that accrues benefits based on historical capital investment? There are so many race neutral policies that provide accrued benefits like this. Even social security benefits accrue based on historical wages. But also things like Roth IRAs which provide compounded tax free growth. You can’t contribute the same dollars today to a Roth IRA and get the same tax advantages as someone who contributed the same amount but over the last 60 years, the benefit can only accrue over time, just like the CA property tax benefit can only accrue over time. Not everyone pays the same tax rate on their income or their property, nor are they provided the same level of government benefits. In many cases that tax rate or benefit level will be based on historical personal or family wealth. Often times it works out to be a progressive tax, sometimes it’s regressive depending on so many policy goals that are often in conflict with each other. Simply put, any of your neighbors who have owned their (family) property for several decades have accumulated a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit for being a long-time owner. You too can accrue a several thousand dollar a year tax benefit the longer that you hold your property. You don’t get to buy in and get that benefit on Day 1, and neither did they.