patrick.net

Rew says

Fucking White Male says

Why do poor people keep voting for Dems?

Same reason rich people keep voting for Repubs: it typically aligns with their interests and cultural outlook.

Rich people vote for Democrats. Its a point thats been hammered home here at Pat.net repeatedly.

Fucking White Male says

Rich people vote for Democrats. Its a point thats been hammered home here at Pat.net repeatedly.

LOL, so your initial question was a false assumption?

Got news for you if you think Pnet is a good source of authority ... you are wrong and wrong again.

2009
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/

2014
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/

2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/

It was far less of a defining factor this go around, and had more to do with race and education, but GOP still has a MEGA wealthy business lean.

FortWayne says

Prop 13 is the only thing keeping government from taking houses away from folks and kicking us all to the curb.

Or at least kick them to a place they can afford.

Folks who happened to own a place in these areas long back are offered a fortune they never deserved by depriving younger generations of what of they got for cheap price.

Fucking White Male says

Why do poor people keep voting for Dems?

Low IQ.

Heraclitusstudent says

FortWayne says

Prop 13 is the only thing keeping government from taking houses away from folks and kicking us all to the curb.

Or at least kick them to a place they can afford.

Folks who happened to own a place in these areas long back are offered a fortune they never deserved by depriving younger generations of what of they got for cheap price.

Typical liberal mentality. Someone worked hard all their life for something, new guy comes over and thinks he is entitled to own everything everyone worked hard for. You people would fit right in with North Korea.

Fucking White Male says

Do you think it's fair that I can maintain a 2nd generation home worth $2 million and pay a fraction of what a blue collar worker would have to pay on his starter home?

Answer this simple question please.

No it's not. The solution is to lower property taxes for everyone. That would make it fair.

LOL.

Rew says

Same reason rich people keep voting for Repubs: it typically aligns with their interests and cultural outlook.

Except Democrat policies hurt poor people the most (gas taxes, minimum wage, rent control).

lostand confused says

In IL you would be paying anywhere from 25-60k a year in property taxes and you still won't have a cap on property taxes. Though I believe they are saying there will be a cap-with lot of exceptions from this year

It's nuts. Was just looking at a house with $26k in taxes here in lovely IL. House has some acreage (14), but the house has only about 2,400 above grade square footage. So this isn't some huge mansion by any means. This is probably a $750-$800k house. It could probably be appealed and shave a little off, but we're talking $2k/mo in taxes at a minimum, forever. Well at least until the state collapses, which it ultimately will on current trajectory.

errc says

Do you believe that the government should treat everyone equally, or that we should continue with this system where the government gives certain people and groups preferential treatment? Are you for or against political privilege?

Yes I think because of "general welfare" we as society long ago committed ourselves to help those who need help within our society. Hence we do have to give help to those who need it. By same token I don't believe government should collect property taxes on primary residencies at all for anyone.

Our government has proven to be the costliest and most inefficient distributor of help to society, they constantly raise taxes, and help isn't coming. Education is expensive, healthcare is expensive, none of it is getting cheaper. Property taxes are capped at 1% in CA, and many other states too because making it higher kicks old people who live on fixed income onto the street. Government should not force people into poor house through taxation. This country needs lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

FortWayne says

errc says

Do you believe that the government should treat everyone equally, or that we should continue with this system where the government gives certain people and groups preferential treatment? Are you for or against political privilege?

Yes I think because of "general welfare" we as society long ago committed ourselves to help those who need help within our society. Hence we do have to give help to those who need it. By same token I don't believe government should collect property taxes on primary residencies at all for anyone.

Our government has proven to be the costliest and most inefficient distributor of help to society, they constantly raise taxes, and help isn't coming. Education is expensive, healthcare is expensive, none of it is getting cheaper. Property taxes are capped at 1% in CA, and many other states too because making it higher kicks old people who live o...

I thought America was A Christian nation? Why do Christians fail to act here? If Christians followed the word of God, we wouldn't need the government to interfere, no?

By same token I don't believe government should collect property taxes on primary residencies at all for anyone.

-----------

How should government be funded then?

The Founding Fathers believe that government should be funded by land taxes, federal income taxes came much later.

Why do you think it is that you speak out against property taxes, but nary a peep about income taxes?

That seems inconsistent with what you were saying about government treating everyone equally. If the government in your world should be funded entirely through income taxes and no property taxes, how is that equitable? Everyone needs to use land, yet not even half of the citizenry works.

Why the yuge disconnect?

Patrick please lets discuss this one. Because you know I'm on the opposite side of this debate. And I do want to explain, because I feel that there are real dire consequences that happen when taxes go up.

rando says

* appeal to greed (Your property taxes will never go up! Just fuck the newcomers with your property tax instead!)

Lets say we increase property taxes, government will take more money, private sector will shrink since it'll have less money, housing will become more expensive for regular people because there is additional property tax cost. None of that is good. Middle class neighborhoods will likely undergo more gentrification where people with more money can afford it, and everyone will get pushed out, again that's not a positive.

rando says

* rationalize it with flimsy SJW justification (We need to protect elderly owners from being forced out by property taxes!)

This is very real. This was a problem that used to exist, and old people were getting kicked to the curb while "investors" would swoop in and buy their houses at government auctions to either flip or rent them out. Unions demanded higher pensions, because they were used to always getting what they want, and taxes kept on going up, causing housing to be unaffordable. Human dignity was under assault, and that is why Prop 13 in CA, and many similar in other states have passed. All for this very reason.

rando says

fail to note that the true reason Prop 13 was created and funded was the fine print: corporations and the very wealthy are essentially exempt from property tax forever, pushing the burden onto working people via very high income tax and onto the poor via very high sales tax

There is nothing that says "wealthy are exempt" from property tax forever. It just limits property taxes to 1% of the purchase price plus local assessments, allowing government to only increase it by 3% per year with inflation. That's same for everyone.

Power to tax is power to kill, the older you get the more you feel pain from those taxes when income starts dwindling down. Most of us don't have government pensions, social security is $1,100 to 1,400 a month for an average person to live on. After that you subtract about $300 for medical, and that's what most people live on. Higher property taxes means going hungry. And there is no reason why government should need all those taxes in the first place.

Lets say we increase property taxes, government will take more money, private sector will shrink since it'll have less money, housing will become more expensive for regular people because there is additional property tax cost

----------

You took your eye off the ball. If you're saying higher property taxes harm the private sector, then what do higher housing prices do?

I never knew you considered ours a zero sum game. Very interesting, after reading your other postings

FortWayne says

Government takes 40% of her income in taxes alone

All taken into account. That bitch still can live very decently much closer to work. Heck, the main reason she's paid $180K is because of SF's expensive housing. She won't get anywhere close to this kind of dough in Manteeca. That's why NYT reporting is a fucking joke.

FortWayne says

Typical liberal mentality. Someone worked hard all their life for something, new guy comes over and thinks he is entitled to own everything everyone worked hard for. You people would fit right in with North Korea.

No in this case, YOU are the liberal expecting free money from other people. Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it. Where is the hard work? You just stood there doing nothing. But you think this is due to you. You think you deserved it.
Nope you didn't deserve it. It's just an historical anomaly built on depriving the next generation of what you got for cheap.

Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it.

------------

It's not the house that appreciates, it's the land it rests atop. Houses decay over time. Land ripens when everyone around you is working to make the world a better place.

Apparently, Fort Wayne wants the government to take from others and give to him. Surprise, Surprise, look who the real Socialist is!

tovarichpeter says

The New York Times NYTimes.com no longer supports Internet Explorer 9 or earlier. Please upgrade your browser. LEARN MORE Sections Home Search Skip to content Skip to navigation View mobile version The New York Times U.S. U.S.

You really took the critical points out of the article there.

Heraclitusstudent says

No in this case, YOU are the liberal expecting free money from other people. Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it.

Isn't that how investment supposed to work? Hello, anybody sane there? Would you put money into stock market if it didn't grow? Would you start a business if it didn't grow? Would you put money into social security if it didn't grow?

And by the way mine is only worth 40% more than what I paid for it years ago (less than stocks would have returned), and that's not counting taxes and maintenance paid into it which make it even worse.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's just an historical anomaly built on depriving the next generation of what you got for cheap.

It wasn't cheap to me, when I bought our wages were a lot less than what people earn today. There is a thing called inflation, minimum wage is more than twice what it was when we were looking for a property. You can't buy today at prices 20 years ago, unless you want to have your salary that was available 20 years ago.

Heraclitusstudent says

No in this case, YOU are the liberal expecting free money from other people. Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it. Where is the hard work? You just stood there doing nothing. But you think this is due to you. You think you deserved it.

The home is an investment just like stocks. What hard work do people put in when buying stocks?

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

No in this case, YOU are the liberal expecting free money from other people. Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it. Where is the hard work? You just stood there doing nothing. But you think this is due to you. You think you deserved it.

The home is an investment just like stocks. What hard work do people put in when buying stocks?

How do you think people acquire money to buy stocks with? How do they determine which equities to invest?

There's lots of risk in investing. You know, Capitalism.

What risk is there in holding land? It's pretty much as risk free as things get.

errc says

What risk is there in holding land? It's pretty much as risk free as things get.

That's why the payoff is very low too.

Earthquake in CA last time wiped out 90%. Detroit collapsed. Also stock market grows at 8% average over years, real estate does not come close.

Stocks don't need roof replaced, property taxes, grass cut, windows repaired, water heater replaced, plumbing, etc....

In terms of investment CA housing is very bad. It does not follow 5cap or 1% rule.

errc says

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

No in this case, YOU are the liberal expecting free money from other people. Your house is worth 20 times what you put in it. Where is the hard work? You just stood there doing nothing. But you think this is due to you. You think you deserved it.

The home is an investment just like stocks. What hard work do people put in when buying stocks?

How do you think people acquire money to buy stocks with? How do they determine which equities to invest?

There's lots of risk in investing. You know, Capitalism.

What risk is there in holding land? It's pretty much as risk free as things get.

Stocks don't need roof replaced, property taxes, grass cut, windows repaired, water heater replaced, plumbing, etc...

-----------

You're confusing an investment vehicle (equities) with a consumption item (house). Hopefully that clears things up for you. You did sound very confused.

Straw Man says

errc says

What risk is there in holding land? It's pretty much as risk free as things get.

That's why the payoff is very low too.

Is it? My childhood house has been rotting away in the sun and rain for twenty years since we moved, yet it tripled in price. Meanwhile, the neighborhood has gotten much less white.

errc says

Straw Man says

errc says

What risk is there in holding land? It's pretty much as risk free as things get.

That's why the payoff is very low too.

Is it? My childhood house has been rotting away in the sun and rain for twenty years since we moved, yet it tripled in price. Meanwhile, the neighborhood has gotten much less white.

200% in how many years? Compared to my NFLX's holdings returning 1,390.76% since 2012 it's fucking low, isn't it?

On a serious note, wasn't Shiller's number for average yearly appreciation for houses less than 1%? Fucking low indeed.

That Real Estate appreciates at all is amazing. Over time, houses decay away like any consumable item.

The math is fucky somewhere in your calculations.

Stocks can appreciate forever, and pay (ever increasing) dividends.

Houses always eventually decay to the point that they must be demolished, and then all that is left is the land. So what is actually appreciating, and by how much? (Obviously land value appreciation negates house degradation over time. So much so that there is net appreciation) that's crazy!

errc says

Houses always eventually decay to the point that they must be demolished, and then all that is left is the land. So what is actually appreciating, and by how much? (Obviously land value appreciation negates house degradation over time. So much so that there is net appreciation) that's crazy!

Per Shiller, over long term agricultural land appreciates faster than houses: 1.1% per year vs 0.6%. So his model seems accounts for the house decay.

Not sure why we're arguing in the abstract.

Vancouver
Toronto

Nuff said.

Strategist says

It is fair and it is well deserved.
The first house I purchased (and still own) 31 years ago had very high taxes compared to the homeowners who purchased well before me. I paid my dues at the time, and now I benefit. The new generation will go through the same pain, and benefit later on in life.
I see nothing wrong.

FortWayne says

Isn't that how investment supposed to work?

BS a house is not an investment like a company. Nothing is produced. No risk is taken. The only return a house should have is not to pay the rent.
The price inflation is only due to not building enough, and therefore making housing a luxury afforded only by rich people.
New generations will never do the same because there just isn't houses for them to do it. They live in trailers.
That's why there is a crisis. That's why there are articles in the nyt talking about this. Helloooo....

....and then these privileged people who were allowed to profit indecently, think they deserved it (because it's them, you know) and in addition think it's fair to not pay their share of taxes.
You guys are just welfare queens, that's what you are.

Strategist says

The home is an investment just like stocks.

The home you live in is not an asset. It's a liability.
Investment property is an asset.

junkmail says

Not sure why we're arguing in the abstract.

Vancouver

Toronto

Nuff said.

NFLX kicks Vanronto's ass with both ihands tied behind the back.

junkmail says

Strategist says

The home is an investment just like stocks.

The home you live in is not an asset. It's a liability.

Investment property is an asset.

Which is why among other things, landlords ought not be able to deduct market value of vacancies on their federal tax returns.

What's right is right, right!

Fucking White Male says

Which is why among other things, landlords ought not be able to deduct market value of vacancies on their federal tax returns.

You're kidding me. We can deduct that? I'll have to check that.