4 ms·

> Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling

by jjav 3y ago

> Regional acts like California's absolutely insane Proposition 13 (enacted by the people themselves) massively distort markets and act as giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations. This is too simplistic, in order to criticize Prop 13 it is important to understand why it came to be. Not everyone can live in the same house, so there's always going to be winners (who get to live there) and losers (who want to but can't). Who should laws favor? Who should the law kick to the curb (methaphorically, or sometimes literally)? One argument is that the richest person should always win and whoever can't keep up on the wealth race, is out. But that argument doesn't sit well with a lot of society, turns out. If there's a big IPO in town and we suddenly have a few hundred new gazillionaires around, should they be able to kick out all the middle class people that called that neighborhood home for decades? If you call Prop 13 a "giant ladder pulling mechanisms against future generations" (and you're not entirely wrong), it is important to realize that the lack of something like Prop 13 is equally a giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Should the richest newcomer always win? Maybe? But it's not clear cut, so it's a complex issue.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
> giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Also even with readjusted taxes they’d still be in a significantly better position because instead being “kicked to the curb” (which is nonsense) they be able to buy a house somewhere else with the significant payout they’d get after selling to those gazzilionaries. At the end of the day in situations you’re describing you’d want more/higher density housing which prop 13 (amongst other things) directly discourages. If real estate values in a given area increase significantly while it wouldn’t be fair from the perspective of the individual for the society as the whole it would be optimal for the inhabitants to sell their low-density homes and later rebuy apartments/etc. built on top of the same land.
- jjav 3y ago
  > they be able to buy a house somewhere else Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there. That's the debate right there. Should we as a society favor the rich newcomer and push out the long-term resident who now has to move somewhere else? Maybe they didn't want to move. Or should we favor the long-term resident to stay even that means the rich newcomer maybe can't find a place? Who is more important? It is disingenuous to simply rant against Prop 13 without acknowledging that there will be winners and losers both with and without Prop 13. It's just different people who get favored.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there I’d focus on the high vs low density part of the argument which you entirely ignored. > rant I’m not
scoofy 3y ago
>This is too simplistic, in order to criticize Prop 13 it is important to understand why it came to be. It's that a bunch of middle class people in the post-war auto-boom bought up extremely valuable property adjacent to the ocean, and then when everyone could afford a car, they didn't want to redevelop their own land. There's no reason that justifies Prop 13 beyond NIMBYism. America decided it wanted suburbia instead of incremental development, so it banned multifamily housing. Then California realized that doing that would (obviously) force people out of their homes when property taxes started skyrocketing... so they just voted in a fucking seniority system. It was selfish, bad policy then, and it's selfish, bad policy today.
- jjav 3y ago
  > It's that a bunch of middle class people in the post-war auto-boom bought up extremely valuable property No, not at all. This is what I mean about misunderstanding where it came from. It was middle class and lower middle class people who bought up cheap property in undesirable (at the time) places. Only later the area becomes desirable and rich people move in driving the prices sky high and consequently the property taxes sky high. Those low/middle class people who have been living there for a long time are mostly still low/middle class and can't afford those taxes. People tend to be protective of their homes so this makes a lot of people very angry and those people vote. > There's no reason that justifies Prop 13 beyond NIMBYism. Of course there is a reason, I just explained it above. You may not agree it is a reason you like, perhaps you feel the free market should simply allow prices and taxes to fluctuate wherever they go. That's a valid take as well, one that produces different outcomes: worse for some, better for some.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    > Those low/middle class people who have been living there for a long time are mostly still low/middle class and can't afford those taxes. Property taxes are the one tax that anyone by definition can pay. My point, the point that you seem to be ignoring or just ignorant of, is what a low-to-middle class person who owns a $1.5M property isn’t lower or middle class. They have a net worth in the top percentiles of wealth in the US. > In 2023, $192,084 was the median household net worth in the United States. Don’t tell me lower class folks are being forced from their homes when the are wealthier than I am.

by jjav 3y ago

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> giant ladder pulling mechanisms against current residents. Wouldn’t metaphorically they’d be already on top of wherever they were climbing using ladder? Also even with readjusted taxes they’d still be in a significantly better position because instead being “kicked to the curb” (which is nonsense) they be able to buy a house somewhere else with the significant payout they’d get after selling to those gazzilionaries. At the end of the day in situations you’re describing you’d want more/higher density housing which prop 13 (amongst other things) directly discourages. If real estate values in a given area increase significantly while it wouldn’t be fair from the perspective of the individual for the society as the whole it would be optimal for the inhabitants to sell their low-density homes and later rebuy apartments/etc. built on top of the same land.

jjav 3y ago
> they be able to buy a house somewhere else Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there. That's the debate right there. Should we as a society favor the rich newcomer and push out the long-term resident who now has to move somewhere else? Maybe they didn't want to move. Or should we favor the long-term resident to stay even that means the rich newcomer maybe can't find a place? Who is more important? It is disingenuous to simply rant against Prop 13 without acknowledging that there will be winners and losers both with and without Prop 13. It's just different people who get favored.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Yes, after being forced out by the increased taxes they can move somewhere else and buy there I’d focus on the high vs low density part of the argument which you entirely ignored. > rant I’m not

scoofy 3y ago

>This is too simplistic, in order to criticize Prop 13 it is important to understand why it came to be. It's that a bunch of middle class people in the post-war auto-boom bought up extremely valuable property adjacent to the ocean, and then when everyone could afford a car, they didn't want to redevelop their own land. There's no reason that justifies Prop 13 beyond NIMBYism. America decided it wanted suburbia instead of incremental development, so it banned multifamily housing. Then California realized that doing that would (obviously) force people out of their homes when property taxes started skyrocketing... so they just voted in a fucking seniority system. It was selfish, bad policy then, and it's selfish, bad policy today.

jjav 3y ago
> It's that a bunch of middle class people in the post-war auto-boom bought up extremely valuable property No, not at all. This is what I mean about misunderstanding where it came from. It was middle class and lower middle class people who bought up cheap property in undesirable (at the time) places. Only later the area becomes desirable and rich people move in driving the prices sky high and consequently the property taxes sky high. Those low/middle class people who have been living there for a long time are mostly still low/middle class and can't afford those taxes. People tend to be protective of their homes so this makes a lot of people very angry and those people vote. > There's no reason that justifies Prop 13 beyond NIMBYism. Of course there is a reason, I just explained it above. You may not agree it is a reason you like, perhaps you feel the free market should simply allow prices and taxes to fluctuate wherever they go. That's a valid take as well, one that produces different outcomes: worse for some, better for some.
- scoofy 3y ago
  > Those low/middle class people who have been living there for a long time are mostly still low/middle class and can't afford those taxes. Property taxes are the one tax that anyone by definition can pay. My point, the point that you seem to be ignoring or just ignorant of, is what a low-to-middle class person who owns a $1.5M property isn’t lower or middle class. They have a net worth in the top percentiles of wealth in the US. > In 2023, $192,084 was the median household net worth in the United States. Don’t tell me lower class folks are being forced from their homes when the are wealthier than I am.