patrick.net

Bitter harvest for who? I am entirely satisfied with the status quo.

@MC,
Exactly. And that's why you defend it. So please don't cry to me about all those "poor people" living in $3 million beachfront homes. You have no moral soapbox to stand on.

"Well if we could please dispense with the class envy..."

_smile_

Rather, comrade. Rather.

Cheerio,
prat

soft landing? now you are speaking my language

It is another "role-playing game". ;)

This state already debated the choices you posed, tossing the elderly out vs. inconveniencing some new comers, and voted for the latter.

We have yeat another alternative: abolish property tax, introduce tax credit for renters, introduce consumption tax.

MC: "This state already debated the choices you posed, tossing the elderly out vs. inconveniencing some new comers, and voted for the latter."

Something of a false choice, wouldn't you say?

Cheerio,
prat

Astrid: In Canada they will tax you more heavily than here. The only way to really reduce taxes is to do what the super rich do and form offshore trusts which pay no taxes and then draw an allowance from them. This is how Ted Kennedy is able to have all those great homes and wealthy lifestyle while appearing to have only modest assets and income. The trusts own the stuff he uses and he draws an allowance as a beneficiary. In addition there is no inheritance tax on money that is never passed.

Unfortunately, like rent stabilization, it has unintended consequences. The obvious effect of this is a shift of costs from one group to another.

Exactly!
Q: Which areas have the LEAST amount of new rental stock being built?
A: Areas with rent control.

Every time the government tries to interfere with markets in such a way as to "protect" a group of people, an industry, etc., its policies tend to create unintended/unwanted side-effect, which are often worse than the very problem they were trying to alleviate in the first place.

Every time the government tries to interfere with markets in such a way as to “protect” a group of people, an industry, etc., its policies tend to create unintended/unwanted side-effect, which are often worse than the very problem they were trying to alleviate in the first place.

If they government says that it wants to "protect" you, be very afraid. Isn't the new bankruptcy law billed as some "consumer protection" act (Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act)?

Sometimes, libertarians do have a point.

"its just homeowners who got theirs and damn everyone else."

At some level, I disagree with this (although I am sympathetic to the sentiment about young families, since I am about to start one). A person's home is their castle, and you shouldn't be kicked out of it because abstract notions of land value increase. Rather, you should be charged a predictable amount for services your house requires.

MC has come across as a bit arrogant, but he has something of a point here.

Cheerio,
prat

MC: "But not a truly false choice, no."

It is absolutely a false choice:

Either old people are kicked out of their house or newcomers are inconvenienced.

Certainly both clauses could hold, and, if property taxes were either non-existent or so low as to not matter, the negation of both clauses could hold. The very definition of a false choice, chap.

In any event, I agree with you that pitching the old folk out on the streets is probably not the civilized thing to do. Although them voting in free Viagra on my dime has perhaps eased my general sympathy...

Cheerio,
prat

However, living there means I can stop worrying about healthcare moving with work, especially in old age.

astrid, I would not be so sure. I love Canada but I think their tax is still a bit too low for the promised level of social services going forward in time.

A person’s home is their castle, and you shouldn’t be kicked out of it because abstract notions of land value increase. Rather, you should be charged a predictable amount for services your house requires.

Yes, Prat, but why should one group be charged *a lot* less for those same services than anyone else by sole virtue of fortunate birth (i.e., those "wonderful" baby-boomers Srufer-X loves to blow kisses to)?

What bugs me most about MC's arguments is he starts out making an emotional appeal about poor grandmothers being kicked out of their homes by big property tax. Then it turns out those "poor" grandmas are more like Grandma Rockefellers. Then away goes the moral fluff, and we get to the heart of the matter. MC supports prop 13 & other NIMBY laws out of pure self interest --nothing more. He doesn't give a $hit about anyone else.

astrid, I do think that Canada has a good future though because it is a country rich in natural resources. In particular, Alberta has tar sands which can someday be economically extracted as oil.

I do have some faith in Canada.

Ever since I went to school in Japan, I have had a much greater love of the U.S. Is it perfect? Hell no. But being American I am much more comfortable with the social environment I was brought up with. I also did not appreciate being treated as a second class citizen because of my gender and race. Would Canada have the same issues as Japan? Probably not, but I think it is so easy to lose one's appreciation for the benefits we have living in the U.S. I love the fact that I can debate about issues and seek to change things I don't like. I'm not trying to be rah rah or overly patriotic. But I do appreciate where I live, warts and all.

astrid, how about portable property tax limit?

We can allow people over certain age to "port" their property tax limit when they move. This allows them to free up houses and encourages them to stay in California to support the local economies.

SactoQt, you went to school in Japan? How was the housing environment there (philosophy, buy vs rent, affordability...)?

MerrillClient, will you just calm down please?

I was there at the earlier stages of the decline (about 3-4 years in). No one thought the market was going to do what it did, and everyone was still pretty optimistic. At the time Japan was much stronger economically, and still looked poised to be a much more influential player in the world economy, which is why I went to school there. I hate to say it, but I didn't fall in love with the culture because it was very repressive to women (at that time) so I didn't stick with any earlier intentions to try to work or live there. Truly, the housing market was not a big issue at the time. If I had gone there maybe 2 or 3 years later, I bet I would have seen a very different environment.

How so?

Just sit down, have a nice glass of iced tea, and relax.

I think the debate is overheated. It can use some cooling. :)

QT, you are so brave. Japan can be quite intimidating for foreigners, especially females.

Please tell me the food was good.

Mostly, the food was great. Spoiled me for Americanized sushi.

Methinks you should direct your cooling enthusiasms elsewhere.

Let's all have iced tea.

astrid, calm down. ;)

On the good side (if there is one), property taxes are 100 per cent tax deductable (at least in California) just like mortgage interest.

One important difference: property tax is not deductible under AMT, which is hitting more and more people every year.

(Not tax advice)

Jack, in "Threaded Discussion" or before, I was just "P". I changed my name to avoid confusion. :)