15 ms·

If taxing the rich and wealth transfers worked California would have some of the lowest poverty, illiteracy, and the most affordable housing! Socialism and Comm

• pydry 4y ago
  Top 1% of earners != Top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of earners (doctors, lawyers, dentists) usually get shafted with income taxes while the top 1% rentiers get taxed very little - especially in California (which has very low property taxes). The rentiers usually try to rhetorically conflate the two - primarily because the 1% of earners are taxed a lot and there is an obvious societal downside to taxing (e.g. dentists) more (we need their skills) but especially because the only societal downside to taxing a rentier more is by incorrectly identifying/taxing rentier behavior.
  • kriskrunch 4y ago
    The article specifically discussed the income EARNED by the evil landlord. Which is taxable income. The income generated by property value is taxed when sold. In most states there are annual property taxes based on it's value. Those go to schools, roads, and whatnot. Here in California we have statewide rent control, in LA there is a seemingly never ending eviction moratorium... Hell, I sold my house a couple of years ago to RENT in a better area because it's cheaper and easier! Let the evil landlord deal with all of the headaches. It's a pain in the neck I don't need. Rentiers are taking on great risk and responsibility, especially in socialist states like California. They deserve the reward. Often, rentiers that own large complexes like those discussed in the article are groups. Not single individuals. It's a stressful business. Have you personally dealt with code enforcement actions? What good is wealth if it's just on paper?
• darkwizard42 4y ago
  I think you have the right facts, wrong (or at least unsubstantiated) conclusion. Much of California's problems lie in regulatory capture. Housing can't be built because homeowners have experienced great wealth gain and don't want it to be touched (at the detriment of livability for all generations after -- or folks attempting to climb to socioeconomic ladder). Then you could make a similar argument for social spending on homelessness, which at least from the Bay Area seems wasteful in that it doesn't attack root problems (drug rehab and housing).
  • kriskrunch 4y ago
    Where is the evidence that the government is effective at managing money, as you imply? I would agree with that last comment. Currently, social spending on homelessness IS wasteful. LA's Prop HHH is a joke, it's only led to the rise of the homelessness industrial complex. It's not the equity built but the red tape... Many people here support a strong central government. However, I do not.
    • jackson1442 4y ago
      What would your alternative to government money management be? Corporations have frequently shown themselves to be bad at managing money - just look at our history of bailouts. Not to say governments are particularly good at it either, but there's at least the opportunity for better alignment of incentives and transparency there, unlike with corporations.
      • ashwagary 4y ago
        Less layers = less room for corruption. If government money must be spent on poverty alleviation, the money should go directly to poor people's bank accounts with as few hops as possible.
        • jackson1442 4y ago
          Agreed, we should be doing much more of that. There are still some things that the government would still need to pay for like infrastructure improvements though.
• pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  To think that California is Socialist and Communist (that's an oxymoron btw) one most be so deluded by propaganda.