You are saying that society would be better off if people were educated, but they dont have the incentive and thus they are not. If people are not educated, then they are likely making bad voting choices. You see this as being a collective action issue.
The solution to that would be to stop uneducated voters from voting as they are more likely to make bad choices. Further, you would be better off just having the most educated people make choices as they are the most likely to make better decisions. Is that not right?
No. The increased crime is costing us several times more I'm sure you'll find.
The Prop is just insane. Stealing a gun is now just a misdemeanor, but if you manage to squeeze an 11th round in your magazine for your legally owned, registered gun, then you're a felon.
Other effects:
- Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar.
- Make possession of "date rape" drugs a misdemeanor.
- Prevent many commercial burglars from being charged with a felony as long as they strike during work hours -- when it's most dangerous for employees.
- Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanor in almost all cases.
- Reduce sentences for muggers, burglars, cocaine and heroin dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession.
- Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor (up to $950).
- Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanor in many cases.
You know who supported Prop 47?
CA Democratic Party
ACLU
NAACP
NY Times
LA Times
Jay Z
You know who opposed Prop 47?
Shelley Zimmerman, San Diego chief of police
Nancy O'Malley, Alameda County district attorney
Bill Brown, Santa Barbara county sheriff
Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County district attorney
John Robertson, Napa County sheriff
Stephen Wagstaffe, San Mateo County district attorney
Mark Peterson, Contra Costa County district attorney
Jill Ravitch, Sonoma County district attorney
Thomas Allman, Mendocino County sheriff
Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney
Michael Webb, Redondo Beach city attorney
David Eyster, Mendocino County district attorney
John McMahon, San Bernardino County sheriff-coroner
Steve Freitas, Sonoma County sheriff
Jan Scully, Sacramento County district attorney
Thomas Cavallero, Merced County sheriff-coroner
Lisa Green, Kern County district attorney
Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff
Dean Growdon, Lassen County sheriff
Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus County district attorney
Scott Jones, Sacramento County sheriff
Thomas Cooke, Mariposa County district attorney
Greg Hagwood, Plumas County sheriff
David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney
Greg Strickland, Kings County district attorney
Bruce Haney, Trinity County sheriff
Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou County district attorney
Todd Riebe, Amador County district attorney
John Anderson, Madera County sheriff
California State Sheriffs Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Correctional Supervisors Association
Guess which side is more knowledgable about crime?
It costs an average of about $47,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate in prison in California. Over two-thirds of these costs are for security and inmate health care. Since 2000-01, the average annual cost has increased by about $19,500.
So to be clear you think it's better for people to pay the most in taxes when they have little or no money instead of paying the most taxes when they have lots of money.
How does that make sense?
Or maybe that new doctor happened to be lucky enough to buy a house in a neighborhood where property values shot way up. Then he gets to live in an expensive house for a fraction of what his neighbors pay, all while making way more money than they do.
I never said uneducated voters were worse than people not voting at all, which may be the source of your confusion. The purpose of voting is to express preferences and it's not our system's place to say that a certain person's preferences are invalid so they shouldn't vote.
Attempts to limit voting to 'educated' people in the past have been a disaster anyway as 'educated voters' usually means 'voters who agree with me' to most people.
No place to live other than tons of other places. $1.4 million invested with average returns at 4% gives an annual income basically equivalent to California's median household income.
You're right, those poor homeowners. I can imagine how frustrated they must be with those incredible returns on what is likely their primary investment. Prop 13 is the ultimate in selfishness. They want to keep all of the enormous profits from the sale of their newly valuable home and pay none of the taxes that come with that valuation.
One of the proposed solutions is to use the proceeds of the sale to pay the 'back taxes' that were deferred by the lower taxable value given by prop 13. I would be open to that as a solution as that way they would be able to stay in their homes but still pay what they owe.
I'm not sure, who do you think has more money, someone who owns an asset worth $1.5 million dollars and no debt or someone who owns an asset worth $1.5 million dollars with $1.2 million in debt? I'm no math wizard, but as best as I can tell $1,500,000 is greater than $300,000. Maybe you can do a quick check on that for me.
If your argument is that it's smart tax policy where the person with a net worth of $300,000 should pay more in taxes than the person with a net worth of $1,500,000 let's hear that argument!
So, if there was a way to limit voting to a set education level, would you be for that, or would you still rather the system we have?
The 'logic' of this simply astounds me.
So your 'solution' to this oh so unfair equasion of precious govt not being able to soak more dollars out of this evil rich guy... is to make sure he's the ONLY one in his neighborhood who can afford to stay living there while all his neighbors with less money are forced out of their homes to make way for other rich people! (oh, excuse me... I forgot, it's really poor people who buy million dollar homes because now magically low sales taxes allow this).
Your whole premise couldn't be more rich screwing over the poor if you tried, but to you since all good comes from govt. EVEN pricing people out of their homes in favor of the rich is dandy... so long as you're getting even somehow with that doctor.
My premise is the exact opposite of the rich screwing the poor. How is this at all confusing to you? Prop 13 is one of the most highly regressive tax policies the country has ever seen. People with lots of wealth pay lower taxes on their assets than people with generally less wealth do on an identical asset. That's regressive taxation 101.
It is the definition of screwing over the poor to help the rich. I'm unaware of any single policy that has been more beneficial to rich people in the history of the United States, at least on a state level. It's sad that you're so overwhelmed with ideology that up is literally down to you. Getting rid of prop 13 would be a huge gift to poor people.
A gift to the poor people? One could argue about how poor they actually are since on one hand you say they "have little or no money to pay taxes" yet you are arguing for repeal of Prop 13 on the argument those same poor folks would be helped to buy $1.5MM houses from the old rich folks that you say don't deserve the tax break Prop 13 provides. Too poor to afford taxes seems to imply too poor to buy the $1.5MM house to begin with.
You could use literally any house valuation you wanted, the premise is the same. Tax breaks for people with more wealth over people with less wealth. Regressive taxation 101. Dumb tax policy 101.
My premise is the exact opposite of the rich screwing the poor. How is this at all confusing to you? Prop 13 is one of the most highly regressive tax policies the country has ever seen. People with lots of wealth pay lower taxes on their assets than people with generally less wealth do on an identical asset. That's regressive taxation 101.
It is the definition of screwing over the poor to help the rich. I'm unaware of any single policy that has been more beneficial to rich people in the history of the United States, at least on a state level. It's sad that you're so overwhelmed with ideology that up is literally down to you. Getting rid of prop 13 would be a huge gift to poor people.
Not to poorer people who bought long age in appreciating markets. 13 is what keeps many in their homes.
Not to poorer people who bought long age in appreciating markets. 13 is what keeps many in their homes.
That's not a universally true statement. Residences are only one line item on people's personal balance sheets; I could have own a home and still have negative net worth due to debts. Like I said also it completely neglects liquidity which is a far bigger factor when talking about something like recurring tax obligations.
And LOL at you getting all worked up about recessive taxation. You seem to lose that concern real quick when it comes to things like carbon taxes to fight "global warming" or other policy goals you have. Not to mention 'home affordability' considering you directly supported stimulus, restrictions on the ability to foreclose on delinquent mortgages, and other tools expressly designed to keep the housing bubble inflated.
Essentially it seems like eskimospy is in favor gentrification as long as the state budget benefits. Somewhat of an odd stance for him considering where he usually falls on issues.
We've had this conversation before. He's fine telling 80 year olds Dean and Mildred, who bought their house in the middle of no where in 1960 for $15,000, who are long retired on fixed income, that they must pay $10,000 a year in property tax now because suburban sprawl and "luck" have had their area be developed into high end country estates. His solution to this is they can take a negative mortgage out on their house to pay the taxes, and then, rather than be able to will the house they paid for decades on to their kids/grandkids/whoever, it disappears.
Or said another way, as long as Gov can get their fingers into someones pie so the Gov can blow more money, jelly. You all need to realize when you're being Nick'd LOL
We've had this conversation before. He's fine telling 80 year olds Dean and Mildred, who bought their house in the middle of no where in 1960 for $15,000, who are long retired on fixed income, that they must pay $10,000 a year in property tax now because suburban sprawl and "luck" have had their area be developed into high end country estates. His solution to this is they can take a negative mortgage out on their house to pay the taxes, and then, rather than be able to will the house they paid for decades on to their kids/grandkids/whoever, it disappears.
Or said another way, as long as Gov can get their fingers into someones pie so the Gov can blow more money, jelly. You all need to realize when you're being Nick'd LOL
You could use literally any house valuation you wanted, the premise is the same. Tax breaks for people with more wealth over people with less wealth. Regressive taxation 101. Dumb tax policy 101.
So it's okay for government to force people from their homes as long as they are reasonably affluent?Yes, truly pity those of the $1.4 million net worth on top of whatever other income they have. Even though 4% returns on that nest egg would by itself put them at the median income for the state they will probably have to go live in a hovel in the ghetto. You seem like a real expert on California living, haha.
Economic and tax instability, incentive for people to turtle in their houses, artificially raising housing prices further, irrationally favoring established and inherited wealth over people who work for their money, blowing huge loopholes for corporations to walk through, and incentivizing the passage of further foolish propositions in order to mitigate its bad effects is a small price to pay for emotional feel-goods and ideological purity.
It's funny that ignorant posts like yours pretty much exactly showcase why the proposition system is a bad idea.
So? California voted for the Republican candidate in 9 out of 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, including 6 straight from 1968 through 1988. It was a fairly conservative place in 1978.
Not having Prop 13 empowers government, by giving it more spending cash. There's a definite limit to how much taxation people can and will take, and a limit in one area tends to not be fully made up in others. Conversely, not having Prop 13 allows government to take in more money without raising rates.Why do you think prop 13 "empowers government?" You mean by reducing tax revenues?
It was a conservative initiative, sponsored by two republicans. Homeowners voted for it because it lowered their taxes. The fact is that people can be bought with tax cuts, even liberals. Doesn't change the fact that this was a conservative initiative.
Well said, but once you understand Eskimospy's view that other people are insects to be crushed when they become inconvenient, it makes perfect sense. Whether or not they are attached to their homes matters not, they are impeding government.Old people are attached to place. They have social support networks and families etc. They belong. You don't seem to care, thinking only about the money they would get if they sell. You do so because you ate footloose and fancy free and have no roots anywhere. You are not normal. Most of the people on earth are rooted in places. I think your attitude is rather cavalier. Attachment to place is a form of the sacred.
Huh? Why would the state budget benefit? I've explicitly said that repealing prop 13 would allow reductions in other taxes.
I agree fully. One should be free to put recreational substances in one's body at will. If that causes impaired driving, then that's what should be criminalized. Sure, there will be more death, theft, damage and mayhem if drugs are legalized, but that's the cost of freedom. Literally everything we are free to do bears more risk and causes more societal damage than were we managed like cattle. Theft and shoplifting I fully agree are different animals, as there is automatically a victim rather than a potential for harm.Shrug, I agree with them on the drugs part (actually doesn't go far enough but its a start) but not for theft or shoplifting. First of all there are actual victims with theft and shoplifting and if you only get caught a third of the time the fine is just a cost of doing business.