myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Nutty California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there is more pork in Calif than NC:

Quote:
Stimulus Plan a Bailout Bonanza for California
March 13, 2021 By Tim Anaya Leave a Comment

With Congress on Wednesday giving final approval to President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, who is the biggest winner from Washington’s biggest ever spending spree? State and local governments in California.

In music to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ears, a virtual Brink’s truck is about deliver a mountain of cash from Congress to California, to the tune of $42.6 billion according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. State government will reportedly get $26.1 billion in aid, while local governments will get about $16 billion.

In prior blogs, I’ve written about Newsom having pushed Speaker Pelosi’s bill to give state and local governments a $1 trillion bailout since she first proposed it in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite the fact that California is experiencing a roughly $15.5 billion budget surplus this year – and likely more given that tax revenue is outpacing projections – Newsom will get to channel his inner-Oprah handing out budget cash.

Republicans in Congress characterized the state and local aid as a bailout for poorly-managed, liberal-run cities running high deficits. Reactions from mayors across California show that the GOP criticisms may be well founded.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was “ecstatic” about the City of Angels standing to receive about $1.35 billion – part of which will be used to “pay off key debts” according to the Los Angeles Times. Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg says “we will put this money back to work” of the estimated $121 million the city stands to receive.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Biden bailout “will erase the majority of San Francisco’s projected $650 million budget deficit over the next two years.”

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy noted in a speech Wednesday on the House floor that the bill will spending only “9 percent on the virus, but San Francisco – the home to our speaker – gets to wipe out 92 percent of their budget deficit,” while also charging that every American will have to pay $5,000 to fund the San Francisco bailout and the bill’s other giveaways.

Now as they say on late night informercials, “But wait, there’s more!” According to a fact sheet from Sen. Alex Padilla’s office, California will get billions more in addition to the state and local bailout, including:

$15 billion “to help California’s K-12 schools reopen safely” and $5 billion to California higher education, “half of which must go to emergency financial aid to students” (though just $6 billion of the total $130 billion for school reopening nationwide would be spent this fiscal year)

$4.6 billion “to ensure access to safe, reliable transit services”, but not the $100 million Pelosi wanted to direct to the BART extension to San Jose, which was stripped from the final bill (and which Congressional Republicans dubbed Pelosi’s “Silicon Valley Subway”)

$2.2 billion in “emergency rental assistance,” $1.2 billion in “homeowner assistance” and $590 million in “homelessness assistance funding”

It will be interesting to see how Washington’s bailout of California affects the budget-writing plans of Gov. Newsom and lawmakers at the State Capitol later this year. When Gov. Newsom said in his State of the State address this week that “when this pandemic ends . . . we’re not going back to normal,” consider that an announcement that proposals for higher spending are just around the corner.

What might those be? Legislative liberals, for example, might press to use some of this new money to enact a state single-payer health care scheme. A new single-payer proposal, AB 1400, was just introduced. The last attempt, SB 562 (2017) was estimated to cost $400 billion annually.

Even though we’re flush with cash, legislators might also call to raise taxes even higher. Already this year, lawmakers have proposed a $2.4 billion tax hike to fight homelessness. Last year, a wealth tax was proposed, in addition to several measures to raise income taxes on the wealthy.

Tim Anaya is the Pacific Research Institute’s senior director of communications and the Sacramento office.

This article was originally published by the Pacific Research Institute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16256
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congratulations Techno, you’ve managed to bathe your brain in a right wing disinformation site funded by the Koch’s and Exxon. Credibility be damned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3065

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess some people do not like it both ways.


Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nutty progressive taxation in Calif.

Quote:
Are Property Rights Dead In California?

APRIL 01, 2021 KERRY JACKSON
According to one San Francisco supervisor, there are tens of thousands of vacant housing units in the city. “How do we activate them?” he asks.

It’s a good question, with an answer that’s likely to unsettle the dwindling number in California who still respect property rights.

Dean Preston, the first Democratic Socialist to be elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in more than 40 years, has asked his colleagues to hold committee hearings on vacancies in May, “and for the budget analyst to issue a report on the issue,” the San Francisco Examiner reports.

It’s not hard to correctly guess what Preston is thinking. The Examiner said that in announcing his request for hearings, he mentioned Vancouver had “passed an ‘empty-homes tax’ on units not occupied for a majority of the year.” That ordinance says “properties deemed empty will be subject to a tax of 1.25% of the property’s 2020 assessed taxable value.” It will increase to 3% this year. The objective is to restrict owners’ choices. Under a vacancy tax – a concept that is not unfamiliar to San Francisco’s supervisors – property owners can either rent out their homes, or pay what is ostensibly a fine.

In other words, if owners utilize their property in ways that displease the government, they will be punished.

Don’t mistake Preston’s flirtation with an empty-homes tax for a desperate effort to solve San Francisco’s housing crisis. It’s simply part of an extremist agenda. On the same day he called for hearings, Preston said “we will continue to press forward with creative, anti-capitalist solutions to make housing a human right. Social housing is a key part of that strategy.”

Should supervisors eventually hold hearings, San Francisco homeowners should hope the sessions aren’t merely a cover for ramming through a tax they already plan to enact. Not only would the ordinance violate property rights, as policy, it simply won’t work. Vancouver’s experience is instructive.

First, Vancouver found only about a 10th of the number of empty homes it expected to tax could be classified as taxable properties. Second, rent did not become more affordable. In 2018, the year after the empty-homes tax was first levied, advertised single-bed rental prices increased 6.5%.

Across the Bay, Oakland has set the progressive bar for San Francisco. A vacancy tax that includes residences, ground-floor commercial units, and open lots, approved by voters (Measure W), and on the books since 2019, was first imposed in Oakland for the 2020-2021 tax year. Though it’s too soon to judge its impact, it wouldn’t at all be premature to point out there’s no reason to think the tax will work better in Oakland than it has in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, the “new Democrat-dominated” (8-1) San Diego City Council is “proposing several bold ideas to tackle the city’s affordable housing crisis,” one of them a vacancy tax, the Union-Tribune reports. Council members “say solving the housing crisis has become more important with the city’s greater focus on social equity.”

The Los Angeles City Council is also following the script. It initially wanted to place a vacancy tax based on Oakland’s model on the November 2020 ballot, but last year decided to wait until 2022 before taking it to the voters. It’s not unthinkable that the Los Angeles measure will pass, and the San Diego City Council will approve a vacancy tax with only a single dissenting vote. “Social equity” is the currency of the day in North America’s biggest cities while property rights are increasingly being regarded as an anachronism.

For instance in Vancouver, “despite the fact that the (empty-homes tax) represents a severe encroachment on property rights, the push back from homeowners in ‘the world’s sixth most livable city’ seems to be slim to none,” say the barristers of the Pazder Law Corporation, a firm based in British Columbia.

In a question that should also be asked south of the border, Pazder wants to know:“Why should any Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada who lawfully owns a property be told by the government that they can’t leave it vacant?”

Apparently, there’s little resistance because “Canadians have been conditioned to automatic, knee jerk acceptance of all new taxes – it’s in their DNA.”

Yeah, that sounds like many of today’s Californians.

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.


https://www.pacificresearch.org/are-property-rights-dead-in-california/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10038

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900,

Actually, the idea of taxing vacant and underdeveloped property in an area where available housing is in critical short supply seems to be a great idea. As an end goal, I think that stimulating development and focusing on reducing what could be considered blighted poorly managed properties appears to makes good sense.

Regarding the possibility that this type of action will ultimately increase rent is no big surprise, and it's surely not a good reason to kill a proactive development effort to improve the community on many different levels. I think most thoughtful folks know that property owners will always try to leverage the maximum rent that the market will bear. There is nothing new there, and it's within their rights to profit overall from their investments. Another thing to keep in mind is that notable amount of commercial and residential community property is not held by the poor small guy. The real players are larger business entities that own substantial property. One of my old windsurfing friends is one of the big guys in Santa Barbara, and in many other cities and states around the country.

The whole property rights argument is a pantload. To assume that property owners have the communities interest in mind is a pipedream of sorts. Some property owners will do the right stuff and will still benefit handsomely, or as we all know quite well that others don't.

For those of us that have an interest in coastal access can readily point to many situations where very wealthy folks buy up coastal properties and then fence it off and deny access. Do you readily support this kind selfish nonsense in the name of property rights? Where do you draw the line?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 16256
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Techno bit. One thing this is consistent about what Trump and the GOP did with their tax bill is retain subsidies for real estate. What is missing from Techno's highly biased source is any realistic analysis. An inquiring mind might want to ask:

1. How many vacant properties are there?

2. Why don't property owners lower the rent until they can rent such properties?

That might form the basis of an intelligent discussion about the subsidies that allow large property owners to hold property vacant, what they cost the US taxpayers in direct subsidy, and the net impact on rent.

In case you don't already know that Techno subscribes to the most extreme viewpoints to bolster his biases, here's what is said about his source:

Quote:
Disinformation about Single-Payer Healthcare
The Pacific Research Institute has long campaigned against single-payer healthcare systems. President and CEO Sally Pipes has largely been at the forefront of this initiative. In 2004, Pipes published Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer, a book disparaging the Canadian healthcare system. Wendell Potter, the former Vice President of Cigna and whistleblower against the healthcare industry, states the book's falsified claims were used to sell "Americans a lie about Canadian medicine."[2] Pipes has since published various other articles and books condemning single-payer healthcare. In 2011, Pipes published "Doctors Say Obamacare Is No Remedy For U.S. Health Woes," in Forbes and in 2014, Pipes published "The Many Failures of Single Payer" in the National Review. Both pieces were disputed. Dr. James Burdick, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, accused Pipe's latter article of being "untruthful."[3][4]

Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic, Pipes used the coronavirus to continue to campaign against single-payer healthcare. In an article on PRI's website, Pipes claimed that "countries with single-payer health care may have a more difficult time."[5] As of August, the U.S. has seen the most deaths due to COVID-19.

In a hearing for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging in 2014, Pipes said she did not believe that access to healthcare was a right in the United States.[6]

PRI Called Out for Blocking Action on Climate Change
In July of 2016, nineteen U.S. Senators delivered a series of speeches denouncing climate change denial from 32 organizations with links to fossil-fuel interests, including the Pacific Research Institute.[7] Sen. Whitehouse (RI-D), who led the effort to expose "the web of denial" said in his remarks on the floor that the purpose was to,

"shine a little light on the web of climate denial and spotlight the bad actors in the web, who are polluting our American discourse with phony climate denial. This web of denial, formed over decades, has been built and provisioned by the deep-pocketed Koch brothers, by ExxonMobil, by Peabody coal, and by other fossil fuel interests. It is a grim shadow over our democracy in that it includes an electioneering effort that spends hundreds of millions of dollars in a single election cycle and threatens any Republican who steps up to address the global threat of climate change. . . . [I]t is long past time we shed some light on the perpetrators of this web of denial and expose their filthy grip on our political process. It is a disgrace, and our grandchildren will look back at this as a dirty time in America’s political history because of their work.”[7]
According to DeSmog, a figure suggesting that electric vehicles tax-credits are regressive, that “disproportionately subsidizes wealthy buyers,""has been repeated ad nauseum is typically attributed to a report by Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute." The figure has been used in numerous articles which are in opposition to actions combatting climate change. The coverage brought DeSmog to the conclusion that "clearly, the Koch network’s investments in the Pacific Research Institute are paying off."[8]

The Golden Fleece Awards
The Business and Economic Studies program of the Pacific Research Institute used to give out the California Golden Fleece award. The award, given out every 3 months by PRI, denounced a state or local program that it deemed to have wasted money. PRI oftentimes uses the award to promote anti-union sentiments. In 2003, PRI gave the award to Institute for Labor and Employment for popularizing unions.[9] In 2004, PRI gave the award to the California State Legislature for its treatment of the California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE).[10]

Placed Anti-Environmentalism Ad on Environmental Website
In 2004, PRI publicized an advertisement on the website of E/The Environmental Magazine. The ad, however, did not stay posted for long. PRI also intended to publish a now-canceled ad in the print magazine. The magazine's publisher explain the ad's cancelation, saying "P.R.I.'s materials do not fit with our ad policy, because they suggest that green activities on behalf of the planet are unnecessary, counterproductive and a waste of time (and -- this is crucial -- supporting this conclusion with dubious science). If E were a magazine for horse lovers, we would not run ads for horse slaughterhouses, and P.R.I.'s ad and materials are similar in relation to E's environmental mission."[11]

Ties to the State Policy Network
The Pacific Research Institute is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network, a network of right-wing "think tanks." SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of January 2021, SPN's membership totals 163. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party. SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that the revenue of the combined groups was some $80 million, but a 2019 analysis of SPN's main members IRS filings by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that the combined revenue is over $120 million.[12] Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[13]

In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"[14]

A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes.[15]

President and CEO Sally Pipes serves on SPN president's advisory council.[16] In 2004, Pipes was awarded SPN's Roe Award. The Roe Award, named after SPN's founder Thomas Roe, "pays tribute to those in the state public policy movement whose achievements have greatly advanced free-market philosophy and policy solutions."[17]

The Madison Group
Founded in 1979, the Pacific Research Center was one of the earliest conservative think-tanks to appear at the state level. The PRI had already existed for 7 years by the time that The Madison Group first gathered in the Madison Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Madison Group was an early iteration of the State Policy Network. By 1991, the Group had 73 associated member organizations including the Pacific Research Institute. A year later in 1992, the Madison Group formally became The State Policy Network; PRI was among the founding members.[18][19][20]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
techno900,

Actually, the idea of taxing vacant and underdeveloped property in an area where available housing is in critical short supply seems to be a great idea. As an end goal, I think that stimulating development and focusing on reducing what could be considered blighted poorly managed properties appears to makes good sense.

Regarding the possibility that this type of action will ultimately increase rent is no big surprise, and it's surely not a good reason to kill a proactive development effort to improve the community on many different levels. I think most thoughtful folks know that property owners will always try to leverage the maximum rent that the market will bear. There is nothing new there, and it's within their rights to profit overall from their investments. Another thing to keep in mind is that notable amount of commercial and residential community property is not held by the poor small guy. The real players are larger business entities that own substantial property. One of my old windsurfing friends is one of the big guys in Santa Barbara, and in many other cities and states around the country.

The whole property rights argument is a pantload. To assume that property owners have the communities interest in mind is a pipedream of sorts. Some property owners will do the right stuff and will still benefit handsomely, or as we all know quite well that others don't.

For those of us that have an interest in coastal access can readily point to many situations where very wealthy folks buy up coastal properties and then fence it off and deny access. Do you readily support this kind selfish nonsense in the name of property rights? Where do you draw the line?


Let's assume that the first sentence in the story is true: "According to one San Francisco supervisor, there are tens of thousands of vacant housing units in the city." - The question is why? Assuming that they are expensive and there isn't a market for them because of ???, why should the owners be taxed twice for them (property tax and vacancy tax)? Do you think that the "tens of thousands of vacant housing units" are "underdeveloped properties" in San Francisco?

I found:
Quote:
The average rent in San Francisco for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is approximately $3,500 per month, and utilities cost around $150 a month.


https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/091615/how-much-money-do-you-need-live-san-francisco.asp#:~:text=The%20average%20rent%20in%20San%20Francisco%20for%20a,roommates.%20Rents%20in%20San%20Francisco%20have%20climbed%20rapidly.

The plan reeks of squeezing every last dollar from owners of rental property because if their units are empty, the property owner's income drops and the city loses tax dollars. Also, fewer renters, smaller population in the city to pay taxes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8587
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's one supervisor. Zero percent chance of this happening. Move on to your next Nutty CA subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3912

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
It's one supervisor. Zero percent chance of this happening. Move on to your next Nutty CA subject.


"It's one supervisor"?

It's already in place, the only question is how many cities in Calif will go for the extra tax money:
Quote:
About Oakland's Vacant Property Tax
Property owners in the City of Oakland will be notified by mail beginning the week of February 18, 2021 about the possible application of the Oakland Vacant Property Tax to their property. If you are mailed a notice of vacancy and you believe your property was not vacant in calendar year 2020 or is exempt from the Vacant Property Tax, you should review this website and your letter carefully for instructions on how to submit verification information.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3065

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
The plan reeks of squeezing every last dollar from owners of rental property because if their units are empty, the property owner's income drops and the city loses tax dollars. Also, fewer renters, smaller population in the city to pay taxes.

Really? So in your opinion the purpose of this law is for cities to squeeze taxes out of property rental owners? Your argument is if a property's owners income drops the city loses tax dollars and smaller population means less tax revenue?

First off, income tax made on rental property goes to the state, not the city. As for your belief that the purpose of this law is because cities are losing sales tax revenue because of fewer renter Rolling Eyes

You may be correct in your reasons that this law was written but your arguments carry much less logic than Swchandler's. Far more likely this law was written to stop the blight that can occur when property owners leave their properties abandoned & not maintained. I'll quote your own quote "about the possible application".

But don't let logic stop you; keep trolling Laughing

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147  Next
Page 143 of 147

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group