Skip to main content

View Diary: Jeff Masters: the Climate Has Shifted to a New State (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  after prop 13 in 78 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it has taken a 2/3 supermajority in both legislative chambers of the CA govt to raise taxes, as well as 2/3 supermajorities in any local tax.

    for the state to invest public money in any systemic manner at a scale necessary to be effective, it's going to take a repeal of that requirement.

    •  Oh, "the prop 13 two-thirds tax requirements." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Adding the words "prop 13" to the original would have made it clear. (Nouns and verbs are free, and this week adjectives and adverbs are on sale. Pronouns are expensive as always.;-)

      Here's the thing about Prop 13:

      We can probably pass a repeal of it for commercial properties.

      But as for residential properties, what's fair and just is to alter the rate of tax at the time a property is sold, not while it's being used as a primary residence either by the owner or by the owner's tenants. As long as an owner or a tenant stays put in a dwelling, it's a home, not a commodity. As for "valuation," there is something fundamentally and outrageously unjust about raising taxes on a home that is not on the market, just because homes up and down the street were sold for whatever price. And the direct consequences of such tax increases are vicious gentrification of neighborhoods and the eviction of people on fixed incomes.

      The core value here is "usufruct," or "production-for-use," as opposed to "production-for-sale." A "house" has two elements to it: one is "home" and the other is "investment." So long as it's being treated as a home by being lived in by a given person or persons, it's off the market, it's not in play, and its value is what it was last sold for. Once it's placed on the market again, it becomes an "investment" or a commodity to be transacted, at which point the tax can be reassessed based on the actual price at which it is transacted.

      Beyond that, the entire system of funding local government (and state gov by extension) on property taxes, is outrageous because it a) fails to confront the issues of income and capital gains, and b) creates differential outcomes for arbitrary collectivities of persons due to local government boundaries.

      The progressive solution is a progressive income tax, an Eisenhower-level ferociously progressive one with the loopholes closed and with capital gains treated the same way as any other income. And if that "chases away the Job Creators" (capital letters to show their God-like status, heh), a new crop will come to town right on their heels and create all the jobs anyone needs, in an economy based on fairness and social justice.

      Further, funding for education and other civic necessities should be distributed equally per-capita within each state, or ideally across the entire United States. Adjustments can be made for local costs of living, and for local conditions such as the need for more extensive school bus networks and off-road-capable firefighting vehicles in rural areas, and more police officers and sanitation workers in urban areas.

      These types of measures will also tend to reduce racial self-segregation by income levels, and a host of other societal evils.

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Tue Feb 07, 2012 at 02:13:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site