Did you vote for Jerry Brown or Neel Kashkari? (rent, how much)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mbell75

The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FactCheck.org, is extremely liberal and is supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. Need I say more?

Here's the difference, mbell. Every item, every statistic in the Fact Check that disproves your "tea party email" revelation, is verifiable through multiple independent sources including government statistics.

Your source was an email rumor mill. Publish it for us here, would you? Pretty please? We'll wait.

[mateo45]

^ Well no wonder mbell is always so depressed and anxious… he obviously spends too much time and energy looking at rightwing websites and conservative "info-tainment", all of which are designed to spread fear, rage and paranoia 24/7/365!!

Brain Study Finds Conservatives Are Basically Adrenaline/Fear Junkies

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It doesn't matter if individuals could buy those properties. The social value of Prop. 13 is protecting the primary home of individuals so they won't be forced out by market conditions in the future. The value to society of taxing business investments is to support state infrastructure.

That government is inefficient is relatively immaterial. That is the nature of all government in large complex societies. We can't function and prosper without government. Protect the essential interests of private, individual citizens. Require the prosperity of businesses to support the community that brings them wealth.

Lets say that you tax people that happen to own investment properties. Who do you think gets to pay for that tax? Rents will increase as well to cover the cost of the tax. Many property owners are running on a margin, meaning that they are not making a lot on the profit of the rentals. I know people that have bought homes so that they could pass those homes on to their kids. These are just regular middle class people that want to do something for their children. Increasing the tax rate will hurt them in such a way that they would need to sell those homes. For those that decide to keep them the consumer will feel the pain.

Not sure why the liberals get on the property tax band wagon anyway. The claim that liberals make is that we in California are doing great under the current liberal leadership. If we are doing so well why go after property owners?

Maybe the liberals are claiming that we are not doing so well under the current regime that we have here in the state. Maybe the thing to do is elect Conservatives to the legislature and toss out all the liberals that we have. It just can't be both ways. So what is it? Is the current liberal system working or not?

[mateo45]

^ How 'bout first defining what you mean when a system is "working", and then give us some examples of conservative parts of the country where it's "working"? Complaining is easy, providing alternatives, not so much.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Lets say that you tax people that happen to own investment properties. Who do you think gets to pay for that tax? Rents will increase as well to cover the cost of the tax. Many property owners are running on a margin, meaning that they are not making a lot on the profit of the rentals. I know people that have bought homes so that they could pass those homes on to their kids. These are just regular middle class people that want to do something for their children. Increasing the tax rate will hurt them in such a way that they would need to sell those homes. For those that decide to keep them the consumer will feel the pain.

Not sure why the liberals get on the property tax band wagon anyway. The claim that liberals make is that we in California are doing great under the current liberal leadership. If we are doing so well why go after property owners?

Maybe the liberals are claiming that we are not doing so well under the current regime that we have here in the state. Maybe the thing to do is elect Conservatives to the legislature and toss out all the liberals that we have. It just can't be both ways. So what is it? Is the current liberal system working or not?

Heh. Speaking of "you can't have it both ways", um, which is it? Investment property owners would be forced to sell? Or they would pass the cost on to renters?

Why would they have to sell if they covered their cost increase with rental increases? False argument.

Moving on: why should we worry about these landlords running on tight margins? They are getting their properties paid for by renters - and over time, with market appreciation they reap excellent, if not downright obscene returns on investment in markets that increase value exponentially as most of urban California has. They make a TON of dough on the back end when they sell. Or in clear rental income when the properties are paid off.

Moving on: many of these landlords are just ordinary middle-class citizens with a side investment in an extra house or two? Yeah. Some are. And some, as you mentioned in your first post, own a hundred. Is that "passing on a house to their kids"? Lots of rentals, the majority I dare say, are owned by professional investors. That's business.

And society at large doesn't exist to support a minority in building wealth dynasties for their family.

Now, if you want to argue for a staged rate for the second home, then a third, and a fourth, each tax rate increasing incrementally up to a few units before becoming a fully taxed property, I can see that as reasonable.

And finally, you ask "who do I think would pay for the increased taxation"? Well sir, let me ask you: who do you think is paying for the way Prop. 13 ties up rental rates now? If the very landlords you are so concerned about protecting - who now suffer the low income of Prop. 13 protected units - were free to raise rents according to what the market would bear, the overall cost of rentals in rent-controlled communities would not be nearly as high as it is. As things stand under 13, landlords are "making it up by passing along the cost to the new consumers".

Also curious why you would assume this is all another "lib-rul" issue. Freeing up the market to seek its own levels competitively, and everyone "paying their fair share" are conservative values and platforms.

[coreyparkwashere]

I voted for Brown, myself. Kashkari looks too much like Sam the Eagle.

[dexter14]

Originally Posted by coreyparkwashere

I voted for Brown, myself. Kashkari looks too much like Sam the Eagle.

So you vote based on how someone looks? Typical of CA I suppose Good job though, vote for a guy wasting $68 BILLION on an unneeded and useless train from LA to SF when there are many flights every day for like $80. Its not like that $68 BILLION could have gone to things like our disaster of a school system, homeless problems, libraries, police and fire fighters, veterans etc...Brown is wasting more money on a stupid train than the Terminator did during his entire run, and Democrats blame Republicans for wasting money. Pot, meet kettle.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Heh. Speaking of "you can't have it both ways", um, which is it? Investment property owners would be forced to sell? Or they would pass the cost on to renters?

Why would they have to sell if they covered their cost increase with rental increases? False argument.

Moving on: why should we worry about these landlords running on tight margins? They are getting their properties paid for by renters - and over time, with market appreciation they reap excellent, if not downright obscene returns on investment in markets that increase value exponentially as most of urban California has. They make a TON of dough on the back end when they sell. Or in clear rental income when the properties are paid off.

Moving on: many of these landlords are just ordinary middle-class citizens with a side investment in an extra house or two? Yeah. Some are. And some, as you mentioned in your first post, own a hundred. Is that "passing on a house to their kids"? Lots of rentals, the majority I dare say, are owned by professional investors. That's business.

And society at large doesn't exist to support a minority in building wealth dynasties for their family.

Now, if you want to argue for a staged rate for the second home, then a third, and a fourth, each tax rate increasing incrementally up to a few units before becoming a fully taxed property, I can see that as reasonable.

And finally, you ask "who do I think would pay for the increased taxation"? Well sir, let me ask you: who do you think is paying for the way Prop. 13 ties up rental rates now? If the very landlords you are so concerned about protecting - who now suffer the low income of Prop. 13 protected units - were free to raise rents according to what the market would bear, the overall cost of rentals in rent-controlled communities would not be nearly as high as it is. As things stand under 13, landlords are "making it up by passing along the cost to the new consumers".

Also curious why you would assume this is all another "lib-rul" issue. Freeing up the market to seek its own levels competitively, and everyone "paying their fair share" are conservative values and platforms.

The options are to either sell or pass on the costs. Costs always get passed on.

With the professional owners yes it is a business and guess what increased costs are going to be passed down to the renters.

On a side note anyone can build wealth and no one is keeping anyone from doing that. The only thing that can keep you from creating wealth is yourself. No elected official can do that. They can make it harder to create and keep wealth but they can not stop someone from doing it.

The rich allready pay their fair share and then some. The top 1% pay way more than their fair share. The top 20% pay just about everything for the bottom 80%. My numbers may not be correct but I bet someone can look at the numbers and correct me. The poor and working class pay nothing into the system and get all the benefits. When are they going to pay their fair share?

[coreyparkwashere]

Originally Posted by mbell75

So you vote based on how someone looks? Typical of CA I suppose Good job though, vote for a guy wasting $68 BILLION on an unneeded and useless train from LA to SF when there are many flights every day for like $80. Its not like that $68 BILLION could have gone to things like our disaster of a school system, homeless problems, libraries, police and fire fighters, veterans etc...Brown is wasting more money on a stupid train than the Terminator did during his entire run, and Democrats blame Republicans for wasting money. Pot, meet kettle.

You're right. I'm sorry.

He looks more like Mr. Bean. If anyone can get this ship working again, it's good old Johnny English! He's got my vote!

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

On a side note anyone can build wealth and no one is keeping anyone from doing that. The only thing that can keep you from creating wealth is yourself. No elected official can do that. They can make it harder to create and keep wealth but they can not stop someone from doing it.

The rich allready pay their fair share and then some. The top 1% pay way more than their fair share. The top 20% pay just about everything for the bottom 80%. My numbers may not be correct but I bet someone can look at the numbers and correct me. The poor and working class pay nothing into the system and get all the benefits. When are they going to pay their fair share?

If you are working your ass off and not getting ahead or even making ends meet, then no, you can't build wealth. You're trying to survive. These people already pay their fair share in all other taxes beyond income tax, especially in sales tax, since basic items take up a much greater percentage of their income
than the rich. They compose the base of the pyramid on which the elites reside.