3 ms·

You want more taxpayers to leave?

aml702 3y ago
[dead]
ethanbond 3y ago
No we want people sitting on extremely valuable, underutilized land to leave. They’re already paying very low taxes. It will make room for people to come in and pay income tax and more efficiently utilize the land.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  How do you want to "efficiently utilize the land" if there is no water? The central valley aquifer is dry.
  - scoofy 3y ago
    The people who want to "utilize the land" already live here... in shoe-box apartments... with roommates... in their forties. Most of them are literally just the children of the people living on that under-taxed land. Who may finally get the tax benefit sometime in their 60s that their parents got in their late 20s.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > if there is no water False condition. California has plenty of water, as evidenced by its wasteful farming practices, which consumes 80% of it [1]. As with most of its problems, California’s retail water “shortage” is a policy choice. [1] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...
    - 29athrowaway 3y ago
      Significant part of the agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished. Adding more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished Sure. They’re still wasting the water. > more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem It also won’t meaningfully worsen it. Water is simply not a real barrier to development in California.
  - Retric 3y ago
    California doesn’t have a water issue, it has at worst a water allocation issue. However, even with dumb policy desalination has become cheap enough to be practical for costal communities. Paying ~1$ for 200 gallons just isn’t an issue at the household or retail level just agricultural and industrial uses.
    - 29athrowaway 3y ago
      Right, that is why there are people in the central valley living of water from trucks. And the ones that do have water need to dig deeper and deeper to find it. "Don't look up" is a film that could be perfectly be based on the California groundwater crisis.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > people in the central valley living of water from trucks Would these be the same communities pumping their aquifers dry [1] to export almonds and alfalfa? [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-wat...
        29athrowaway 3y ago
        Right. And if they stopped doing that, the water level would not be replenished. Groundwater aquifers are not a renewable water source, and when you extract the water from underground you can compact the soil causing it to sink and lose its ability to store water, which is also happening over there according to the USGS.
        Retric 3y ago
        The alternative of simply never tapping these aquifers isn’t somehow better. Abstractly using up local resources until forced to import them isn’t a policy issue, it’s simply rational behavior.
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Actually neither. I’m an American who cares about our country prospering long into the future and California is a huge, huge component to that whether you like it or not. One of our most technologically innovative and naturally productive regions putting itself in a tax policy chokehold is Strictly Bad. Certainly so for the majority of Americans, at the very least.
mc32 3y ago
People of retirement age do leave; but probably not fast enough if you’re trying to “raise” taxes that way. That said, it depends on people’s total state tax burden. If it’s too high they will leave to lower tax burden states. This is one of those slow moving things like when corps were leaving NYC in the 80s. It’s hard to stop it. Adding taxes is too attractive. Eventually companies and people will have enough reason to leave. Many are not there yet. You will never have everyone willing or able to leave. But on occasion you get enough leaving so that a state is left with a potential which will not become realized.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
Isn't it the opposite? The parent wants the people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes to leave? Every time a person cashes out their home that they bought for a couple buttons and some twine in 1982, then moves to Arizona to retire, California's tax revenue goes up, because the people that take their place actually pay appropriate property taxes on the 2023 value of the home.
- archagon 3y ago
  A homeowner doesn't control the value of their home. What's unfair is forcing them to move just because their land happened to appreciate in value.

[dead]

No we want people sitting on extremely valuable, underutilized land to leave. They’re already paying very low taxes. It will make room for people to come in and pay income tax and more efficiently utilize the land.

29athrowaway 3y ago
How do you want to "efficiently utilize the land" if there is no water? The central valley aquifer is dry.
- scoofy 3y ago
  The people who want to "utilize the land" already live here... in shoe-box apartments... with roommates... in their forties. Most of them are literally just the children of the people living on that under-taxed land. Who may finally get the tax benefit sometime in their 60s that their parents got in their late 20s.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > if there is no water False condition. California has plenty of water, as evidenced by its wasteful farming practices, which consumes 80% of it [1]. As with most of its problems, California’s retail water “shortage” is a policy choice. [1] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    Significant part of the agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished. Adding more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished Sure. They’re still wasting the water. > more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem It also won’t meaningfully worsen it. Water is simply not a real barrier to development in California.
- Retric 3y ago
  California doesn’t have a water issue, it has at worst a water allocation issue. However, even with dumb policy desalination has become cheap enough to be practical for costal communities. Paying ~1$ for 200 gallons just isn’t an issue at the household or retail level just agricultural and industrial uses.
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago
    Right, that is why there are people in the central valley living of water from trucks. And the ones that do have water need to dig deeper and deeper to find it. "Don't look up" is a film that could be perfectly be based on the California groundwater crisis.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > people in the central valley living of water from trucks Would these be the same communities pumping their aquifers dry [1] to export almonds and alfalfa? [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-wat...
      - 29athrowaway 3y ago
        Right. And if they stopped doing that, the water level would not be replenished. Groundwater aquifers are not a renewable water source, and when you extract the water from underground you can compact the soil causing it to sink and lose its ability to store water, which is also happening over there according to the USGS.
        Retric 3y ago
        The alternative of simply never tapping these aquifers isn’t somehow better. Abstractly using up local resources until forced to import them isn’t a policy issue, it’s simply rational behavior.
throwaway8877 3y ago
[flagged]
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Actually neither. I’m an American who cares about our country prospering long into the future and California is a huge, huge component to that whether you like it or not. One of our most technologically innovative and naturally productive regions putting itself in a tax policy chokehold is Strictly Bad. Certainly so for the majority of Americans, at the very least.

mc32 3y ago

People of retirement age do leave; but probably not fast enough if you’re trying to “raise” taxes that way. That said, it depends on people’s total state tax burden. If it’s too high they will leave to lower tax burden states. This is one of those slow moving things like when corps were leaving NYC in the 80s. It’s hard to stop it. Adding taxes is too attractive. Eventually companies and people will have enough reason to leave. Many are not there yet. You will never have everyone willing or able to leave. But on occasion you get enough leaving so that a state is left with a potential which will not become realized.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago

Isn't it the opposite? The parent wants the people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes to leave? Every time a person cashes out their home that they bought for a couple buttons and some twine in 1982, then moves to Arizona to retire, California's tax revenue goes up, because the people that take their place actually pay appropriate property taxes on the 2023 value of the home.

archagon 3y ago
A homeowner doesn't control the value of their home. What's unfair is forcing them to move just because their land happened to appreciate in value.