4 ms·

Sadly, I think the problem is much simpler: corruption. Given that California is essentially governed by a single party, it is subject to corruption and ineffic

by tlogan 3y ago

Sadly, I think the problem is much simpler: corruption. Given that California is essentially governed by a single party, it is subject to corruption and inefficiency. Lets take just example from this week: an announcement was made stating that the construction of a tiny house costs $1,600 per square foot [1]. All I can say is this: somebody is pocketing this money. I don't know who, how, or why. Regardless, it's clear that this money is going to someone, and that someone is not homeless. [1] https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/a-builder-converted-a-san-francisco-garage-into-3-mini-homes-for-nearly-2m-progress-or-preposterous/ https://sfstandard.com/housing-development/a-builder-convert...

luma 3y ago
This parses as "I don't know what's wrong but I know it's the Democrats" which isn't exactly insightful nor helpful.
- tlogan 3y ago
  I do not think it is Democrat. It think it is because it is one party state.
  - ARandomerDude 3y ago
    Exactly. As much as Republicans and Democrats may not want to admit it, we need each other for accountability.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      We need viable political choices with incentives to compete on something other than alienating voters who would be expected to vote for the other side for accountability (which mostly means we need proportional representation.) That is not the same as needing the opposing party in America’s duopolistic system.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  Well, responsibility is what you get when you're in charge. It's axiomatically correct even if it isn't necessarily helpful (in the sense that there's no guarantee that a counterfactual republican California would have done any better).
Ireallyapart 3y ago
[dead]
kmonsen 3y ago
This is my fear for the country as well as the republicans are (in my opinion you can disagree) at the very least partially going crazy. We desperately need at least two parties working for a good government. California needs more checks and balances, and so does the country.
- tlogan 3y ago
  I 100% agree. If you want to run for office here is San Francisco you need to be democrat. Which means that you need to be very nice to people which you know they are not good. On the other hand one really cannot be republican because of things like this: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/anti-trans-republican-sf-18096478.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/anti-trans-repub...
yellowapple 3y ago
> Given that California is essentially governed by a single party Not really, no - unless you mean in the sense that the Republicans and Democrats are controlled opposition for one another, in which case sure, but that's true nationwide. > All I can say is this: somebody is pocketing this money. I don't know who, how, or why. Who: landowners. How: by artificially capping property taxes and pushing the burden onto the working class via income and sales taxes, and then using rent to capture money that should be going to said working class via wages and welfare. Why: because they have a vested interest in doing so, and have the political influence to make it happen. Solution: abolish sales/income tax, replace with 100% land value tax, disburse surplus as UBI. Would solve the vast majority of California's socioeconomic problems pretty much overnight.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point, and it's regressive. Throw in some 0% base rate progressive income taxes, pigouvian taxes, maybe a small vat and you're on the right track.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    > LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point The government could and should be pared down considerably if that's the case. > and it's regressive It's the literal opposite of regressive, especially when paired with UBI. The tax burden rests entirely on landowners, who already skew toward wealth; ownership of land value correlates strongly with net worth (and is indeed typically a major component of said net worth). Meanwhile: > VAT That's just a fancy sales tax, with all the regression that entails. Bear in mind that the working class is spending a much greater proportion of its wealth on the very goods VAT taxes than the ownership class - which means VAT has in turn a disproportionate impact on the working class v. the ownership class. With LVT, it's the other way around: the vast majority of people who actually work for a living either don't own any land value at all (and therefore ain't subject to LVT) or own sufficiently little land value for their tax burden to be less under LVT-as-single-tax than it would be under a system funded by income and sales taxes.
ajmurmann 3y ago
How much of the cost was just the process of getting all the permits? Looking at this crazy toilet in SF that cost $1.25m after the toilet itself was donated: https://abc7news.com/sf-bathrooms-noe-valley-public-toilet-17-million-restroom-donation/12739362/ https://abc7news.com/sf-bathrooms-noe-valley-public-toilet-1...

by tlogan 3y ago

luma 3y ago

This parses as "I don't know what's wrong but I know it's the Democrats" which isn't exactly insightful nor helpful.

tlogan 3y ago
I do not think it is Democrat. It think it is because it is one party state.
- ARandomerDude 3y ago
  Exactly. As much as Republicans and Democrats may not want to admit it, we need each other for accountability.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    We need viable political choices with incentives to compete on something other than alienating voters who would be expected to vote for the other side for accountability (which mostly means we need proportional representation.) That is not the same as needing the opposing party in America’s duopolistic system.
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Well, responsibility is what you get when you're in charge. It's axiomatically correct even if it isn't necessarily helpful (in the sense that there's no guarantee that a counterfactual republican California would have done any better).

Ireallyapart 3y ago

[dead]

kmonsen 3y ago

This is my fear for the country as well as the republicans are (in my opinion you can disagree) at the very least partially going crazy. We desperately need at least two parties working for a good government. California needs more checks and balances, and so does the country.

tlogan 3y ago
I 100% agree. If you want to run for office here is San Francisco you need to be democrat. Which means that you need to be very nice to people which you know they are not good. On the other hand one really cannot be republican because of things like this: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/anti-trans-republican-sf-18096478.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/anti-trans-repub...

yellowapple 3y ago

> Given that California is essentially governed by a single party Not really, no - unless you mean in the sense that the Republicans and Democrats are controlled opposition for one another, in which case sure, but that's true nationwide. > All I can say is this: somebody is pocketing this money. I don't know who, how, or why. Who: landowners. How: by artificially capping property taxes and pushing the burden onto the working class via income and sales taxes, and then using rent to capture money that should be going to said working class via wages and welfare. Why: because they have a vested interest in doing so, and have the political influence to make it happen. Solution: abolish sales/income tax, replace with 100% land value tax, disburse surplus as UBI. Would solve the vast majority of California's socioeconomic problems pretty much overnight.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point, and it's regressive. Throw in some 0% base rate progressive income taxes, pigouvian taxes, maybe a small vat and you're on the right track.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  > LVT probably wouldn't be enough to fund the government at this point The government could and should be pared down considerably if that's the case. > and it's regressive It's the literal opposite of regressive, especially when paired with UBI. The tax burden rests entirely on landowners, who already skew toward wealth; ownership of land value correlates strongly with net worth (and is indeed typically a major component of said net worth). Meanwhile: > VAT That's just a fancy sales tax, with all the regression that entails. Bear in mind that the working class is spending a much greater proportion of its wealth on the very goods VAT taxes than the ownership class - which means VAT has in turn a disproportionate impact on the working class v. the ownership class. With LVT, it's the other way around: the vast majority of people who actually work for a living either don't own any land value at all (and therefore ain't subject to LVT) or own sufficiently little land value for their tax burden to be less under LVT-as-single-tax than it would be under a system funded by income and sales taxes.

ajmurmann 3y ago

How much of the cost was just the process of getting all the permits? Looking at this crazy toilet in SF that cost $1.25m after the toilet itself was donated: https://abc7news.com/sf-bathrooms-noe-valley-public-toilet-17-million-restroom-donation/12739362/ https://abc7news.com/sf-bathrooms-noe-valley-public-toilet-1...