[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]

No need to go through the trouble of any of those three options. Just sell. If taxes make it unprofitable, chances are prices are higher than they should be.

We should not allow speculation or “ownership for profit” of finite natural resources, especially if those resources are in excess of what that person/family needs for their own use.

(a) most landlords are small businesses and work damn hard at maintaining their properties, dealing with tenants, etc
(b) not everyone wants to own. A good supply of inexpensive rental properties is important for mobility — if I have to move to a given city for six months for work, I’d want to rent, not buy
(c) the current situation has proven that a lot of Americans are simply too rock-dumb, not to mention financially retarded to be allowed to buy property[/quote]

Yes, many landlords work hard, and many don’t. Still doesn’t mean that taxpayers have to subsidize their profits.

Agree that many people do not want to own property, and many are too stupid or incapable of dealing with the responsibility. But most would agree that owning vs renting tends to be in society’s best interests because people will be able to (hopefully) have a paid-off home in retirement, and because people tend to be more engaged in their communities when they own.

For those who need/want to rent, I have no problem with tax subsidies as long as the renters receive a major portion of the benefits. Otherwise, we’re right back to subsidizing the profits of landlords who neither need nor deserve the subsidies.

[CA renter]

No need to go through the trouble of any of those three options. Just sell. If taxes make it unprofitable, chances are prices are higher than they should be. That would mean the LLs could sell when prices are highest, all the while increasing desperately needed inventory in times when it’s in short supply.

We should not allow speculation or “ownership for profit” of finite natural resources, especially if those resources are in excess of what that person/family needs for their own use. Rentier capitalism is NOT productive; it is zero-sum and subjects the economy to dangerous booms and busts, and it has the potential to create dangerous wealth/income inequalities while exploiting those least fortunate.

As for the subsidy:

“Definition of ‘Subsidy’

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

…..

tax subsidy
noun [C or U] TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
› a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

[Which Prop 13 largely fails to do, BTW, since most LLs charge market rent, irrespective of the subsidies they receive.]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy
—–

Prop 13 is absolutely the very essence of a tax subsidy to those who least need it (people who own more property than they can use for themselves). It is unconscionable that we are providing these subsidies when the state and local governments are so strapped.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

Asperger’s certainly didn’t help his cause, either.

[/quote]

All of these mass murderers were socially inept: Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, the Colorado movie theater, and UCSB. Many others, as well.

Some kids are weak at math. Some kids are weak at social skills. If a kid has weak math skills, he gets a tutor or, at worst, bad grades. If he has weak social skills, he gets bullied, ostracized, mocked, and maybe beaten up if he’s a boy or talked about ruinously behind her back if she’s a girl.

Obviously weak social skills are not the only factor here. But they are common to the above mass murders. That is not a coincidence. I honestly think that if society treated the socially inept less poorly, none of those crimes would’ve happened.

As long as we continue to act like this as a society, these crimes will continue.[/quote]

We are in total agreement about this.

[CA renter]

But some people really do believe that someone’s living a different lifestyle is somehow “harming” them. Sorry, but that’s just not fair or rational.

[CA renter]

You forgot about the down payment, taxes, insurance, etc.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]War of have versus have not’s continues…..[/quote]

Actually, it’s an argument for doing the right thing, even when it goes against one’s own self-interest.

[CA renter]

IMO, the ideal situation is a steeply progressive income tax, along with a reasonable property tax that has a limit to annual increases for primary residences. If one wanted to make the argument that there should be a cap on other types of property, it might be reasonable to have a cap that is higher than for primary residences.

Property taxes cannot be passed on to tenants unless the landlords are willing to accept much higher densities in their rental house. Renters have to pay out of pocket, so there is an upper limit on what can be charged. Of course, one might suggest that if higher property taxes should be passed on to renters, then the subsidy should be passed on to renters as well. With a few exceptions, most LLs will charge the highest that the market will bear, though a few smart ones will charge somewhat less in an effort to attract premium tenants.

A variable property tax will also help correct market inefficiencies since the higher taxes will hit higher-end homes that likely are in high demand and short supply. This will have the effect of putting more homes on the market at precisely the time (and place) when they are needed to keep property prices in line.

Just so you know, Prop 13 is absolutely a subsidy in every way, shape, and form. It is the very essence of a subsidy.

[CA renter]

Very happy if they eliminate the corporate loophole, but not as concerned about inherited Prop 13 protection as long as the heirs are using the property as their sole, primary residence. That being said, I do think that if they get the inherited Prop 13 protection, then they should not be able to step up the cost basis to market value when the original owner passes away. One or the other, but they shouldn’t have both. I value community roots and private property; families should not be priced out of their own homes, no matter which generation lives there.

OTOH, I’m much more bothered by landlords and other property owners of rental or other non-primary homes getting Prop 13 protection. Taxpayers have absolutely no business subsidizing landlords’ profits and/or the costs of a second home, vacation property, or tracts of raw land (as with the Williamson Act).

[CA renter]

Thanks so much, Rich! I’m a tech idiot, so your suggestion here is much appreciated. 🙂

[CA renter]

I’ve seen kids who were born pure evil, and no amount of parenting or psychiatry would be able to save them. But I think that this type of entitlement mentality — including the belief that one is entitled to sex with beautiful women — is largely learned. But that learning can come from the parents, peers, the media, the larger social network, etc.

Asperger’s certainly didn’t help his cause, either.

One thing I will say is that his videos, the calls from his mother and psychiatrist, etc. should have warranted a bit more than a visit from police. They should have made sure that he didn’t have access to guns at that point (though he killed a number of people without a gun, too…something to keep in mind).

[CA renter]

Yes, that was a handy feature. If it’s not a problem, Rich, would it be possible to bring it back?

[CA renter]

Up just 1.7% because I’ve positioned it in preparation for what I believe will be a crash within the next year or two.

Definitely hurts, though. 🙁

[CA renter]

I rented a 3/2 apartment in LA that was going for ~$710/month in the late 80s. That very same apartment now goes for around $2,200. The job I had at the time pays the exact same today as it did then, nominally.

In the meantime, healthcare costs have quadrupled or more, education costs have done the same, food is probably double, and gas is ~4 times what it was then.

Workers have been getting squeezed to death, and it’s not because there is no money; it’s because of where the money has been going:

“Yet from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percentof total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes, an outcome that left many economists scratching their heads.

Here is a snapshot of income distribution during the past 100 years:
Chart of the Top Ten Percent Income Share, 1917 – 2008.

[See chart, I’m not able to copy the image. -CAR]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html

[CA renter]

Spot on, spdrun. I’ve known a few people who stick their noses into everyone else’s business in the neighborhood, either not realizing or not caring about the fact that they, themselves, are the worst offenders in some respects.

As long as nobody is being harmed in any way, people need to mind their own business.

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]Does anyone else see this minimum wage fight as simply being welfare so the poor masses don’t revolt and start doing bad things to everyone else?

[/quote]

This was the real reason behind the New Deal. It was not enacted so much for the benefit of the poor, but for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. It was done to stave off the communist threat that had been gaining momentum during the Great Depression.

[Author]

Posts