« prev   random   next »
1   BayArea   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 4, 7:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What do you think about the article peter?
2   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 9:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I support the tenants.
3   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 4, 10:03am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So you are telling me that government should force businesses to charge certain prices via coercion?
Sounds like exactly the kind of government America does not want.

There is no monopoly in housing, so government action isn't necessary.
Where we do have a monopoly is in government, because no matter how shitty their results are, they are still in business. We can all go out of business, but not government, they just raise taxes on all of us.

I absolutely do not support any government bills on rent control or anything. They want to regulate something, regulate themselves from fucking us all up.

If this passes, there won't be more housing, so no problem solved, just shit that pisses off a whole lot of landlords. And guess what every landlord will do if the bill is coming up? They'll hike up the rent through the sky, because business has to be profitable. Cost of it will be passed on to the customers. Why not pass another law forcing restaurants charge less, or grocery stores charge less (fuck whole foods while at it). But if we were honest, why don't we have government charge less, reduce all fucking taxes so we can pass the savings back to customers. But that won't happen, because government doesn't want to cut their income, just other peoples incomes.
5   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2019 Sep 4, 10:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes? Then build up smaller communities that has room to grow. Incentivise the over crowded population to move to where the new housing/renting stock is being built?

The perfect example of Conservative Logic vs Liberal Logic, can be seen in the Seat Belt notification. That is a perfect analogy in the way Liberals work. Nag, Harass and Shame the drivers and passengers with annoying beeps to get them to fasten their seat belt. Had highway safety been controlled by Conservatives. Then the car wouldn't even start until you fastened the Seat belt. If it's that important, then be pragmatic about it.
6   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 4, 11:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes?

I've been pushing this idea by saying the Prop 13 should only apply to an owner's primary residence.
7   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 4, 11:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

From the article — which I'm sure didn't give all the details — capping rent increases at 5% annually doesn't seem so restrictive. I can imagine that some landlords might increase rent significantly after a first year of rental because they know a tenant can't or won't move out due to other pressing needs, being super busy, or just plain laziness. That seems like gouging.

On the other hand, not being able to increase by more than 5% also means not being able to renovate or otherwise improve a rental unit. Units will continuously tread water in quality.
8   tovarichpeter   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 4, 11:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

“Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes?

I've been pushing this idea by saying the Prop 13 should only apply to an owner's primary residence.”



Very good idea.
9   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 4, 11:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tovarichpeter says
“Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes?

I've been pushing this idea by saying the Prop 13 should only apply to an owner's primary residence.”



Very good idea.


I do understand that. However, counter argument, why?
If you have 2 business locations, would prop 13 not apply to the second location?
Most 2nd homes aren't vacation homes, they are rentals. Increasing taxes = increased rent.... isn't that the opposite of what government supposedly wants?
11   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 4, 1:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayneIndiana says
tovarichpeter says
“Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes?

I've been pushing this idea by saying the Prop 13 should only apply to an owner's primary residence.”



Very good idea.


I do understand that. However, counter argument, why?
If you have 2 business locations, would prop 13 not apply to the second location?
Most 2nd homes aren't vacation homes, they are rentals. Increasing taxes = increased rent.... isn't that the opposite of what government supposedly wants?


The idea is to limit Prop 13 as much as possible (and possibly just replace it with a tax-limiting law that is more uniform in its effect and hopefully less coercive). So, applying only to primary residence achieves the original stated goal: keep grandma in her house until she dies.

My idea is Prop 13 only applies to primary residence, so:
• doesn't apply to a rental (it's not your primary residence)
• doesn't apply to your only California home if you don't claim to be a California resident and therefore don't pay California income taxes
• doesn't apply to any business property
12   OccasionalCortex   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 4, 3:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
Why don't they just tax 2nd single family homes? Then build up smaller communities that has room to grow. Incentivise the over crowded population to move to where the new housing/renting stock is being built?


Because all those suggestions make TOO MUCH FUCKING SENSE!...that's why.

SunnyvaleCA says
My idea is Prop 13 only applies to primary residence, so:
• doesn't apply to a rental (it's not your primary residence)
• doesn't apply to your only California home if you don't claim to be a California resident and therefore don't pay California income taxes
• doesn't apply to any business property


Good luck with getting those changes, as they would required AMENDING the State Constitution and doing so via the same initiative process Prop 13 originally used (State legislature can only propose any changes/repeal to voter initiative-passed laws and amendments -- the voters would have to vote on them via another initiative -- and amendments require a higher hurdle to pass).

Proposition 13 (officially named the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process...
13   Ceffer   ignore (3)   2019 Sep 4, 3:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tovarichpeter says
Landlords versus tenants battle in Sacramento


May the best medieval asset seizer win.

Caviling adverse possessors with straw man knee jerk sympathy talismans vs. Snarling, fanged, cruel greedy owners! Where's the popcorn and the pay-per-view live feed!
14   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Sep 4, 9:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I wouldn't call it Landlords vs. Tenants.

This is more of a "government" vs landlords. Simple attempted money grab for unions. Because if it passes, rents will go up significantly. So tenants are 100% not represented here.

You can tell liberal attempts, because they always scream they are fucking big guy for the little guy.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions