$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[Torie]

It is perfectly fair. Now we are going to subsidize those in desirable living locations? CoL is demand based. You guys are a trip.

I was thinking this too. The 'tax cut' is akin to a subsidy and would create a positive feedback loop increasing demand and increasing COL.... which would result in decreasing tax rates....

Until the rates hit zero, and it would stop.   Well assuming high neighborhoods don't then qualify for the income tax credit.

[phk]

The way to fix the cost of living issues in certain areas, if that is a problem in the first place, would be to impose almost punitive taxes on people living there.

Imposing a local city tax (this as a higher FICA could do), higher property taxes, higher sales taxes, higher sin taxes, etc.

[Sbane]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

[phk]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

Less than your amazing idea!

2 fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, you tax it.
2.) If you want more of something, you subsidize it.

2 more fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, it becomes cheaper.
2.) If you want more of something, it becomes more expensive.

Btw, I'm not assuming that cost of living is a problem in the first place. If you live in an area that is in-demand than you should be paying higher, it's called the law of demand.

[Sbane]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

Less than your amazing idea!

2 fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, you tax it.
2.) If you want more of something, you subsidize it.

I already mentioned that it wasn't practical, and one of the reasons for the high cost of housing in California is due to the brilliant Prop 13 pushed by you Republicans. It saved grandma and enriched a whole bunch of other people at the same time while screwing over younger generations.

Your idea would squeeze people who don't make so much money in these areas even more. Do you think service jobs would just disappear in these areas overnight? You think if you raise taxes, they would just leave immediately? You do understand people need jobs in other areas before they just up and move their entire life? Or do practical things not matter to you? And this is even more true the lower down on the ladder you are. An engineer, or a manager will usually get flown out to their interview, and they can meet face to face and they will know they have a job when they move to a lower cost city. You think the local Mcdonalds will do the same?

And would these taxes be rescinded if the cost of living does go down? Your idea makes no sense whatsoever. At least I can own up to it that mine wasn't practical, if only sounding good and "fair" in my head.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The way to fix the cost of living issues in certain areas, if that is a problem in the first place, would be to impose almost punitive taxes on people living there.

Imposing a local city tax (this as a higher FICA could do), higher property taxes, higher sales taxes, higher sin taxes, etc.

What? The issue isn't the cost of housing as such, but the cost of living in the area, which your proposal doesn't solve.

Why not just relax the zoning laws in such areas? The high cost isn't purely a demand issue; typically in coastal cities, and even more especially in their suburbs, housing supply is heavily restricted by local zoning policy (minimum footprints, etc.).

[Sbane]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

2 more fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, it becomes cheaper.
2.) If you want more of something, it becomes more expensive.

Damn dude, you just blew my mind. Do you have your PhD yet?

[Sbane]

The way to fix the cost of living issues in certain areas, if that is a problem in the first place, would be to impose almost punitive taxes on people living there.

Imposing a local city tax (this as a higher FICA could do), higher property taxes, higher sales taxes, higher sin taxes, etc.

What? The issue isn't the cost of housing as such, but the cost of living in the area, which your proposal doesn't solve.

Why not just relax the zoning laws in such areas? The high cost isn't purely a demand issue; typically in coastal cities, and even more especially in their suburbs, housing supply is heavily restricted by local zoning policy (minimum footprints, etc.).

Now that's a practical solution! Especially in the Bay Area, housing is highly restricted to "save the hills" and what not. While my inner environmentalist cringes at rescinding those laws, they undoubtedly contribute to the cost of housing in these areas. And building more in these areas close to job centers will lower the cost of housing, especially if apartments, condos and smaller houses are built in addition to the mansions.

[phk]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

Less than your amazing idea!

2 fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, you tax it.
2.) If you want more of something, you subsidize it.

I already mentioned that it wasn't practical, and one of the reasons for the high cost of housing in California is due to the brilliant Prop 13 pushed by you Republicans. It saved grandma and enriched a whole bunch of other people at the same time while screwing over younger generations.

Your idea would squeeze people who don't make so much money in these areas even more. Do you think service jobs would just disappear in these areas overnight? You think if you raise taxes, they would just leave immediately?

And would these taxes be rescinded if the cost of living does go down? Your idea makes no sense whatsoever. At least I can own up to it that mine wasn't practical, if only sounding good and "fair" in theory.

I never presented any new idea/proposal here.

Btw I mentioned increasing property taxes, so isn't that de facto ending prop 13?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That too... bgwah was telling me how Seattle recently allowed for higher story apartments to be constructed. Rich NIMBY's.

[Sbane]

You said you should raise taxes as if that would solve everything...although raising property taxes probably would help a lot. A lot more than raising sales or instituting city taxes. Ending Prop 13 would be interesting to see. I actually think it might end up hurting California in the short term, but it would be better off in the long term. It ain't happening though. It's just as much political suicide as mine/Nadler's idea is.

[Torie]

Prop 13 is a truly evil idea that has enriched me immensely.

My property tax rate that I pay on a triplex that I bought in 1979?  It's about 0.25% of market value ($2,362/$950,000).  The rate for the next guy to buy it is about 1.15%.  So I get about an 80% discount - year after year - forever.  Heck the discount up to the first million dollars of value can be passed on to your heirs! So "forever" does not contain too much hyperbole in it; no it doesn't. 

That's but one property, albeit the most extreme.  When I made this comment at a GOP meeting last year, everybody thought I was a Marxist by the way. The anger was palpable.  The moral of the story?  Greed all too often trumps conscience, and most don't even want the issue broached. It's just so rude! Who knew?  

Does anyone want to defend this?  

I won't list a host of other problems beyond the one of equity. I don't want to risk the tl/dr thing. 

[Link]

Prop 13 is a truly evil idea that has enriched me immensely.

My property tax rate that I pay on a triplex that I bought in 1979?  It's about 0.25% of market value ($2,362/$950,000).  The rate for the next guy to buy it is about 1.15%.  So I get about an 80% discount - year after year - forever.  Heck the discount up to the first million dollars of value can be passed on to your heirs! So "forever" does not contain too much hyperbole in it; no it doesn't. 

That's but one property, albeit the most extreme.  When I made this comment at a GOP meeting last year, everybody thought I was a Marxist by the way. The anger was palpable.  The moral of the story?  Greed all too often trumps conscience, and most don't even want the issue broached. It's just so rude! Who knew?  

Does anyone want to defend this?  

I won't list a host of other problems beyond the one of equity. I don't want to risk the tl/dr thing. 

Good post.  And good for you bringing this up in a GOP meeting!

I think the bottom line is we ALL have to sacrifice.  Some social welfare cuts will need to be implemented in the long run and taxes on people making $250,000K+ will have to go up pretty soon.  And frankly taxes on everybody will have to go up once the economy is stabilized.

I actually don't have a problem with the 1%ers as long as the national debt is paid off and good decent hard working Americans can live a decent life.  And by decent I don't mean SUVs and Mcmansions with flat panels in every room.  As long as there is a healthy vibrant middle class and the country's books are balanced I don't care if people make $200 million/yr.  Good for them.  And once our debt is paid off and our government is right sized I would even demand they get a tax cut.  Why not?

[opebo]

It would be nice if income taxes factored in cost of living.  The guy making 50k in Alabama paying the same rate as the guy in NYC is just not fair.

That is such an Atlas post that it makes me sick.

But it has helped you to get-to-know Americans better, no?

[anvi]

Schumer!  Thanks for proving once again how fungible policy principles get when it comes to raising campaign cash.  Cause we don't get enough of that these days.  Twerp!

I'm going to indulge in a moment of personal privilege, since campaign season leaves me too perpetually pissed to say much intelligent about policy anyway.  $250,000 is about five times what I make, if it's gross income we're talking about, that is, so it sounds pretty wealthy to me.  And it would sound wealthy to me no matter where I lived.  But, truth be told, it doesn't bother me because I happen just not to care about money all that much.  As long as I have a roof over my head, a fridge full of good beers and crowded bookshelves, I'm happy.  Hell, I even took a $15,000 a year pay cut to leave my last job for this one, because my current job suited me better and allows me to do more meaningful work than my last one.  So, speaking for myself, while I do think the wealthy should pay higher taxes, I think I should pay higher taxes too.  I'd rather live in a better society, where more people had greater security and a more robust sense of belonging, than be personally wealthy myself.  That's just me.  I don't begrudge anyone who is ambitious and smart and lucky enough to make lots of money; good for them.  But, to live in a better society, I think whomever can afford to ought to chip in more.

[Torie]

Wouldn't it be nice anvi if we could discipline ourselves to spend the more money more wisely concomitantly with a more robust revenue stream? You know, like actually getting to be able to actually read those hordes of inner city kids (and a lot of somewhat more upscale kids who really can't manage to put together a coherent sentence except when they get lucky) on whom we spend about 10K a head on now?  That won't in all probability be happening - either.

[opebo]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

[Torie]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

The rich have some plot to saddle the kids with union protected un-cannable incompetent teachers who got a C average in third rate former teaching colleges and worse?

[opebo]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

The rich have some plot to saddle the kids with union protected un-cannable incompetent teachers who got a C average in third rate former teaching colleges and worse?

Do you imagine that a) such supposedly poor teachers could make privileged children 'learn less', or b) that genius teachers could somehow wrest the children of the poor from their class-ignorance?

The fact is, Tory, that blaming the teacher for children being thus-and-so is like blaming the plumber for a case of diarrhee.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Prop 13 is a truly evil idea that has enriched me immensely.

My property tax rate that I pay on a triplex that I bought in 1979?  It's about 0.25% of market value ($2,362/$950,000).  The rate for the next guy to buy it is about 1.15%.  So I get about an 80% discount - year after year - forever.  Heck the discount up to the first million dollars of value can be passed on to your heirs! So "forever" does not contain too much hyperbole in it; no it doesn't. 

That's but one property, albeit the most extreme.  When I made this comment at a GOP meeting last year, everybody thought I was a Marxist by the way. The anger was palpable.  The moral of the story?  Greed all too often trumps conscience, and most don't even want the issue broached. It's just so rude! Who knew?  

Does anyone want to defend this?  

I won't list a host of other problems beyond the one of equity. I don't want to risk the tl/dr thing. 

Yes, Prop. 13 is pretty horrible. It benefits long term homeowners and corporations at the expense of new homeowners and companies. Why should a new homeowner paying much more for their house also have to pay higher property taxes? It's blatantly unfair. If you inherit why should you pay lower taxes than someone who actually earned the money for their house? Prop. 13 has certainly contributed immensely to unaffordable housing in California. With low taxes, existing homeowners are less likely to sell. With property taxes being a much less significant source of revenue than sales tax, cities much prefer retail businesses over housing.

[Torie]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

The rich have some plot to saddle the kids with union protected un-cannable incompetent teachers who got a C average in third rate former teaching colleges and worse?

Do you imagine that a) such supposedly poor teachers could make privileged children 'learn less', or b) that genius teachers could somehow wrest the children of the poor from their class-ignorance?

The fact is, Tory, that blaming the teacher for children being thus-and-so is like blaming the plumber for a case of diarrhee.

It's "Torie." You need to study up more opebo, a lot more, on the education industry. JMO.

[Torie]

Prop 13 is a truly evil idea that has enriched me immensely.

My property tax rate that I pay on a triplex that I bought in 1979?  It's about 0.25% of market value ($2,362/$950,000).  The rate for the next guy to buy it is about 1.15%.  So I get about an 80% discount - year after year - forever.  Heck the discount up to the first million dollars of value can be passed on to your heirs! So "forever" does not contain too much hyperbole in it; no it doesn't. 

That's but one property, albeit the most extreme.  When I made this comment at a GOP meeting last year, everybody thought I was a Marxist by the way. The anger was palpable.  The moral of the story?  Greed all too often trumps conscience, and most don't even want the issue broached. It's just so rude! Who knew?  

Does anyone want to defend this?  

I won't list a host of other problems beyond the one of equity. I don't want to risk the tl/dr thing. 

Yes, Prop. 13 is pretty horrible. It benefits long term homeowners and corporations at the expense of new homeowners and companies. Why should a new homeowner paying much more for their house also have to pay higher property taxes? It's blatantly unfair. If you inherit why should you pay lower taxes than someone who actually earned the money for their house? Prop. 13 has certainly contributed immensely to unaffordable housing in California. With low taxes, existing homeowners are less likely to sell. With property taxes being a much less significant source of revenue than sales tax, cities much prefer retail businesses over housing.

Yes, I am not selling anything - ever. That is one of the problems. Fraud is another. Folks dump stuff in trusts, and don't bother to tell anyone when the trustee croaks, and some new set of beneficiaries are getting the money. It just goes on and on and on.  The suck list is just immense!

[anvi]

Wouldn't it be nice anvi if we could discipline ourselves to spend the more money more wisely concomitantly with a more robust revenue stream? You know, like actually getting to be able to actually read those hordes of inner city kids (and a lot of somewhat more upscale kids who really can't manage to put together a coherent sentence except when they get lucky) on whom we spend about 10K a head on now?  That won't in all probability be happening - either.

There are lots of things we could be spending our revenue on that would be more wise investments than the ones we're making now.  Better education in city schools is certainly one of them.  High school graduation rates used to be about four times greater in cities than they were in rural areas, and now that ratio has dramatically reversed.  Education and health care are the bases upon which a citizenry can be best equipped to realize their individual potentials, and by lagging in both areas, we are leaving a lot of human potential untapped and leaving a very uncertain future in store for our country. 

[opebo]

It's "Torie." You need to study up more opebo, a lot more, on the education industry. JMO.

Sorry, Torie, my apologies about the misspelling.  But about the 'education industry', your critiques are beside the point - poors will labour under disadvantage and rich shall enjoy privilege, in this as in all things.  The poor teachers have nothing to do with this.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Someone on $250,000 a year is certainly rich. Median household income in the U.S is about $50,000. Just for context, you know.

But....I thought we were supposed to all feel bad for those poor six-figure income earners!

@Torie: The only areas I can conceive of where $250k a year is not considered "rich" are a handful of ultra-exclusive areas.

In other words, not normal areas. If you make more money than 98% of the population, you're rich. Get over it.   

[All Along The Watchtower]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

The rich have some plot to saddle the kids with union protected un-cannable incompetent teachers who got a C average in third rate former teaching colleges and worse?

I was actually thinking that educational level was closely tied to socioeconomic status of the community, that kids who are poor and have poorly educated parents are far more likely to be low-performing in public schools than kids from stable, middle-or-upper class families in more affluent neighborhoods , and that solving this problem would result in a more equitable distribution of wealth, which the rich don't want, obviously....

But your theory sounds much more plausible.