Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CactusBoyScout t1_j2cm4q0 wrote

Reply to comment by ctindel in New York Lawmakers File Psychedelics Legalization Bill For 2023 by FredricTheConqueror

Yeah but then you also end up with stupid shit like Prop 65’s meaningless cancer warnings on every product.

13

ctindel t1_j2co326 wrote

I don’t care about that the referendum have done far more good than harm. Keeping people from getting priced out of their home when property values rise, legalizing weed and mushrooms, giving tax payers a bill of rights so they can vote on whether they want to pay more taxes or not and get a refund of the tax estimates were too high.

Let us recall some corrupt motherfuckers while we’re at it. I’m all for a much more direct democracy especially on the most important questions of the day. Let the bureaucrats manage the bullshit that nobody wants to talk or think about.

7

CactusBoyScout t1_j2coa9o wrote

Prop 13 was incredibly bad for California’s housing market. And it just caused cities/counties to raise taxes in other ways so it became a regressive subsidy for homeowners who are wealthier than those who do not own.

19

ctindel t1_j2dozjp wrote

Just because someone has wealth in a house doesn’t mean they can afford increased property taxes. Taxing income and cap gains is the only thing you know people can actually afford. Though I’d have no problem with property taxing stock portfolios of millionaires because at least we know you can sell some stock to pay the tax without going homeless.

−5

CactusBoyScout t1_j2dp5xb wrote

Prop 13 doesn’t have any means testing though. And it isn’t even limited to a single primary residence. So landlords with a dozen rental properties and even golf courses in Malibu are paying next to no property tax.

9

igon86 t1_j2e2j8e wrote

I thought it was limited to the primary residence. That is wild.

2

CactusBoyScout t1_j2e3md9 wrote

Until fairly recently, you could even pass it on to your kids.

It was basically rent control for landlords and created a landed elite who paid very little into state coffers.

But it was sold with progressive framing like “save grandma’s house” and some people still believe that to this day.

5

ctindel t1_j2dpb6k wrote

Yeah I agree it could use some reform and I’d have no problem limiting it to primary residence and also any rentals that are used as someone else’s primary residence.

−1

I_Cut_Shoes t1_j2dt6zr wrote

Damn you really came out here and argued that the thing responsible for California's housing crisis is good. Maybe it's a good thing we don't do referendums.

10

ctindel t1_j2dtgq1 wrote

Prop 13 is not responsible for a housing crisis, californias stupid anti growth zoning regulations are responsible. The state even failed to force cities to allow more dense development near transit.

−1

CactusBoyScout t1_j2dyixf wrote

They’re both pretty big factors. Prop 13 strongly disincentivizes seniors from selling their family homes after their kids leave the house, for one thing.

It’s pretty normal in other housing markets for retirees to move to smaller housing when their kids are grown. The family home then becomes a home for a young family. So instead CA has a ton of older folks in massive houses because they’d actually pay more to move somewhere smaller.

Also if we loosened zoning you’d still have a ton of older people refusing to sell for redevelopment because their property taxes are capped at a few hundred dollars per year. So again it interferes with a lot of housing cycles.

6

ctindel t1_j2e5ork wrote

Society doesn’t need to be built assuming old people will downsize plenty of people want to live in their house forever (and that’s fine) or pass the house on to their children (and that’s also fine) and it sure as shit shouldn’t tax them to the point where they have to sell their family house.

I’d have no problem with a law that allowed people over 55 to keep their old property tax payment if they sell a primary residence and move to a smaller residence that would have a higher tax burden. But I don’t think it would make as big of a difference as you think it will, but who knows until we try.

Anyway if there’s anything society should be subsidizing it’s helping middle class families and old people become and stay home owners. In a world where housing prices are going up because giant corporations and REITs are just starting to move into SFH as investments this should be on the top 5 of government priorities.

1

Danimal_House t1_j2ewwkr wrote

It’s okay to admit you weren’t fully aware of what you were talking about man. You don’t need to backtrack and move the goalposts. Just go “Ah shit. Okay well yes that sucks, California seems to be a bit insane when it comes to these prop laws, but it would be nice if we could do it even better then they are.”

5

ctindel t1_j2ey0ji wrote

It’s not moving the goalposts I said up front I’d be fine with amending it. Every law has unintentional side effects and very rarely is the solution to throw the law out, you just change it to minimize the side effects while keeping the main benefits. Every once in a while you run into something so dumb like the 18th amendment or making abortion illegal where the solution is a 180 degree reversal but usually you just fix the problem with small changes.

1