People go stupid when discussing taxes. I've had people who pay less than 15% in income tax rant about how there should be a 15% flat tax. They are too stupid to divide total tax by total income.
People go stupid when discussing taxes. I've had people who pay less than 15% in income tax rant about how there should be a 15% flat tax. They are too stupid to divide total tax by total income.It's amazing how many middle and lower class conservatives think a flat tax is best and most fair.
It just takes very basic math to learn this is false but they refuse to do it.
They vote against their own economic interest for various reasons. None of them good usually
People go stupid when discussing taxes. I've had people who pay less than 15% in income tax rant about how there should be a 15% flat tax. They are too stupid to divide total tax by total income.
Continuity and stability WHILE MAKING PEOPLE WORSE OFF.From your link:
Thanks for making my point!
and most people don't understand how our progressive income tax brackets work, either. no, moving up a tax bracket doesn't mean you'll make less money overall.People go stupid when discussing taxes. I've had people who pay less than 15% in income tax rant about how there should be a 15% flat tax. They are too stupid to divide total tax by total income.
Continuity and stability WHILE MAKING PEOPLE WORSE OFF.
As the authors suggest, whether the Proposition 13- induced increases in continuity and stability have been worth the cost in lost tax revenue and the resulting redistribution from inland to coastal California communities remain subjects for further research.
It says exactly that repealing prop 13 would lead to large welfare gains. I already quoted and bolded the relevant passage in a message you replied to.It said no such thing. In fact, the article ends by saying,
It says exactly that repealing prop 13 would lead to large welfare gains. I already quoted and bolded the relevant passage in a message you replied to.
I think pointing out that repealing prop 13 would make people much better off is a good argument for repealing prop 13. You apparently don’t.
Hmm, looks like I did link the wrong article although nothing in the article I did link says these effects are positive.You must be reading a different article because the one you posted, at worst said younger people delayed their home purchasing, everything else was a positive.
For our benchmark calibration, the introduction of Proposition 13 leads to an 18% increase in house prices and a 17% decrease in the probability of moving. We study the transition dynamics of moving from an economy featuring Proposition 13 to alternative revenue-neutral regimes with proportional real estate taxes. Overall, our findings indicate that elimination of Proposition 13 leads to small changes in house prices and modest increases in mobility depending on how revenue neutrality is achieved. Welfare gains of reform are quite large and stem mostly from the decline in the tax burden when young and borrowing constrained.
Hmm, looks like I did link the wrong article although nothing in the article I did link says these effects are positive.
Here's the paper I originally quoted - the effects of prop 13 are extremely bad.
This is not a unique finding either, the literature about how prop 13 is bad is robust because it incentivizes things that make no economic sense to incentivize. It's just another attempt like rent control to make up for housing policy failures with poorly targeted band-aids. The reason people were 'taxed out of their home' is because bad housing policy sent prices skyrocketing. Instead of fixing the bad housing policy people decided to make it so you were protected from those effects as long as your turtled in your home, even if you didn't want to live there anymore.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
No, I'm saying prop 13 is actively making the problem worse so repealing it is part of the solution.So your idea is to rip off the bandaid and let people bleed to death until a real solution is found and implement? That doesn’t sound smart at all.
No, I'm saying prop 13 is actively making the problem worse so repealing it is part of the solution.
People see prop 13 and say 'hooray, prop 13 is saving my (very wealthy) grandma from having to move' without taking a glance at the nearby CVS parking lot filled with homeless people living in their cars to wonder if incentivizing people to artificially restrict the housing supply is a good idea.
You have yet to demonstrate how prop 13 has worsened that situation (for residential housing).
For our benchmark calibration, the introduction of Proposition 13 leads to an 18% increase in house prices
Neither of those things are true. Removing impediments to moving allows people to more efficiently use the available housing which in effect 'creates' more housing as previously unused rooms/units will not be occupied. That in turn lowers housing prices.Forcing people to move more often doesn’t create more housing nor does it lower housing prices. If that were true, we wouldn’t see housing prices all across the US hitting record highs and the same goes for rent prices.
Yes, I did. To quote again:
That's a huge impact, and a really bad one.
Neither of those things are true. Removing impediments to moving allows people to more efficiently use the available housing which in effect 'creates' more housing as previously unused rooms/units will not be occupied. That in turn lowers housing prices.
So to be clear you think when a family has three kids and a five bedroom house that when the kids move out and the parents buy a new place, they will buy a similarly sized house despite not using most of it? It's definitely true that SOME people do that but plenty of seniors downsize in later years. A lot fewer do it in California though because downsizing can result in an actual increase in monthly payments due to prop 13's stupidity.You have yet to prove the bolded.
The fact that housing prices increased because people are less likely to move is a, “no shit” statement because the housing supply remains the same which is why increasing mobility won’t change anything because the housing supply is also the same.
So to be clear you think when a family has three kids and a five bedroom house that when the kids move out and the parents buy a new place, they will buy a similarly sized house despite not using most of it? It's definitely true that SOME people do that but plenty of seniors downsize in later years. A lot fewer do it in California though because downsizing can result in an actual increase in monthly payments due to prop 13's stupidity.
I don't think you're thinking of housing supply correctly. If you live alone in a five bedroom house and then decide to rent the other four rooms out you have increased the housing supply despite nothing new being built. Similarly, if an elderly couple with a five bedroom house moves into a two bedroom and then someone who actually needs all 5 bedrooms to house people move into their old place the housing supply has increased for all intents and purposes. It's the same number of rooms and structures but now you have five people housed instead of two.
I view it as one of those situations where things are so bad that instead of trying to figure out if the perfect solution is behind door #1, #2, or #3 I would just open all three doors.this is true that people do that and if housing supply were anywhere near demand it would have a noticeable effect, but we are so beyond that point that I think it doesn't nearly enough to positively affect home prices.
Yeah, so about Elon Musk being a right proper see you next tuesday ...
(That's awesome the forum autocorrects THAT word to something else "wise and beautiful woman")
I view it as one of those situations where things are so bad that instead of trying to figure out if the perfect solution is behind door #1, #2, or #3 I would just open all three doors.
Twitter would have to stop their lawsuit so why would they do that?Just pay the fucking breakup fee and take a lesson. You dolt.
He can't though, that's the problem. The breakup fee is for failure to be able to close the deal but it does not cover him for just deciding he doesn't want to buy it anymore. There is no stipulation in the contract for him to be able to back out for this reason, which is why Twitter sued him to begin with.Just pay the fucking breakup fee and take a lesson. You dolt.
He owns much more than the break-up fees.Just pay the fucking breakup fee and take a lesson. You dolt.
I've said all along he's price gouging and overcharging on the ones he "donates".
Is there anything about this guy that doesn't just scream complete bag of dog shit?