- This topic has 180 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM #341847February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM #341304
Anonymous
Guest[quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]
Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.
[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]
If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.
February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM #341629Guest[quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]
Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.
[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]
If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.
February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM #341731Guest[quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]
Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.
[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]
If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.
February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM #341758Guest[quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]
Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.
[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]
If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.
February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM #341852Guest[quote=rnen]My guess is that if thier high tech companies were suddenly hireing illegal immigrants at half the pay and see thier pay scale cut in half they would be whistling a different tune.[/quote]
Yes, this happens quite frequently, actually. It’s called outsourcing. Except the “illegal immigrants” stay in their own countries, and the workers here see their pay cut 100% rather than in half.
[quote=rnen]Oh yeah, the senate removed language in the the Obama spending bill that would have required a SS# to be eligable for some of the programs. Way too look out for the legal poor and working class Obama! Ahh yes, some bold change is on the horizon![/quote]
If this is sarcasm, which is likely given the tone of the rest of your post, this comment makes no sense whatsoever. Is Obama responsible for the removal of the SSN eligibility requirement, or is the Senate? Think carefully.
February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM #341314Guest[quote=meadandale]Why is it always the new buyers that want to axe prop 13?[/quote]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.
Having said that, I don’t think the aforementioned granny should be kicked out of her house if she couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes should Prop 13 ever be repealed. Why not a solution somewhere in the middle? I can understand how reassessing the taxes to current market valuation could result in a significant increase year-to-year during boom periods, but why not allow for adjustments due to inflation? Exceptions can be granted to the retired elderly, unemployed, pauper-class, etc. on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, love your username.
February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM #341639Guest[quote=meadandale]Why is it always the new buyers that want to axe prop 13?[/quote]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.
Having said that, I don’t think the aforementioned granny should be kicked out of her house if she couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes should Prop 13 ever be repealed. Why not a solution somewhere in the middle? I can understand how reassessing the taxes to current market valuation could result in a significant increase year-to-year during boom periods, but why not allow for adjustments due to inflation? Exceptions can be granted to the retired elderly, unemployed, pauper-class, etc. on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, love your username.
February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM #341741Guest[quote=meadandale]Why is it always the new buyers that want to axe prop 13?[/quote]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.
Having said that, I don’t think the aforementioned granny should be kicked out of her house if she couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes should Prop 13 ever be repealed. Why not a solution somewhere in the middle? I can understand how reassessing the taxes to current market valuation could result in a significant increase year-to-year during boom periods, but why not allow for adjustments due to inflation? Exceptions can be granted to the retired elderly, unemployed, pauper-class, etc. on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, love your username.
February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM #341769Guest[quote=meadandale]Why is it always the new buyers that want to axe prop 13?[/quote]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.
Having said that, I don’t think the aforementioned granny should be kicked out of her house if she couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes should Prop 13 ever be repealed. Why not a solution somewhere in the middle? I can understand how reassessing the taxes to current market valuation could result in a significant increase year-to-year during boom periods, but why not allow for adjustments due to inflation? Exceptions can be granted to the retired elderly, unemployed, pauper-class, etc. on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, love your username.
February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM #341862Guest[quote=meadandale]Why is it always the new buyers that want to axe prop 13?[/quote]
I’m speculating that it’s because new buyers feel as though they are subsidizing the tax load of existing homeowners. It may also be a primal instinct — I remember reading not too long ago about how certain animals, including dogs, are able to comprehend the concept of fairness. When you purchase a house and see that you’re paying 5x as much as the little old lady you bought it from despite there being no tangible change to the property, it stimulates this instinct.
Having said that, I don’t think the aforementioned granny should be kicked out of her house if she couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes should Prop 13 ever be repealed. Why not a solution somewhere in the middle? I can understand how reassessing the taxes to current market valuation could result in a significant increase year-to-year during boom periods, but why not allow for adjustments due to inflation? Exceptions can be granted to the retired elderly, unemployed, pauper-class, etc. on a case-by-case basis.
By the way, love your username.
February 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM #341319kewp
Participant[quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
February 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM #341644Participant[quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
February 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM #341746Participant[quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
February 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM #341774Participant[quote=meadandale]
If the money hadn’t been confiscated from us in taxes, we’d have it to spend OURSELVES on goods and services. Duh!
[/quote]Except I don’t want to your crappy goods and services.
I do, however, want to short-sell the financial institution that was dumb enough to give you the business loans you are going to default on when there is nobody left to purchase your crappy goods and services.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.