Attitudes of the uber-rich

Quote:

---

“We want to actually be doing something that makes this place better … We respect people, and we respect places,”

---

I've heard this so many times. I really have no idea is they truly believe their own bullshit or its just to standard part of the dog and pony show. I tell 'em the same think every time.

Quote:

---

Its offence to tell everyone in the room that you are fixing or improving something the we don't think is broke and doesn't need fixing. You put your pants on one leg and time. It's your job and you are trying to make money. You are neither smarter or better than those in the room

---

I just read those articles, And yeah, it's part of the dog and pony show. They will smile and deliver the bullshit, and they know its bullshit. They believe in green. [emoji385][emoji385][emoji385]

Contrast crosspost:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C8sJrqjIfF9/

Vans and Tie-dye, dang.

And it struck me as odd that they say it's important to pay enough so that employees have enough to make ends meet, then the rest goes to charities, etc.

How about splitting the rest among the employees so they're doing better than just making ends meet? How about helping them get ahead?

My sister used Doc Bronner's back in 1975. I'd use a little of the peppermint to wash my hair which was super squeaky clean then not so much in short order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained

Vans and Tie-dye, dang.

And it struck me as odd that they say it's important to pay enough so that employees have enough to make ends meet, then the rest goes to charities, etc.

How about splitting the rest among the employees so they're doing better than just making ends meet? How about helping them get ahead?

My sister used Doc Bronner's back in 1975. I'd use a little of the peppermint to wash my hair which was super squeaky clean then not so much in short order.

---

DB's position is appalling. Their internal guidelines don't apply until "fully vested at 5 years." WTF?

In a town like Jackson, if you bought a house in the 80s that is now worth millions, but you only have a modest or fixed income, how do you afford property taxes? I see Wyoming has a 50% refund for those meeting financial means criteria but that would still exclude so many.

I remember interviewing Virginia Huidekooper and I think she put her ranch into a tax easement or green belt/conservation designation in exchange for lower tax burden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

In a town like Jackson, if you bought a house in the 80s that is now worth millions, but you only have a modest or fixed income, how do you afford property taxes? I see Wyoming has a 50% refund for those meeting financial means criteria but that would still exclude so many.

I remember interviewing Virginia Huidekooper and I think she put her ranch into a tax easement or green belt/conservation designation in exchange for lower tax burden.

---

Reverse mortgage or HELOC? If the property has gone up so much there should be significant equity, so it should be an option?

One of the few good things the anti-tax movement in California brought us is Prop 13--your property taxes can only go up 2% per year until the property is sold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Reverse mortgage or HELOC? If the property has gone up so much there should be significant equity, so it should be an option?

---

That's how my wife's parents have afforded to live in their house in Montclair, New Jersey, for 40 years. When values started skyrocketing because all the investment bankers wanted to live there within easy reach of NYC, they just kept refinancing and/or borrowing against the value to pay the outrageous property taxes. I think their taxes are like $30,000 a year or some crazy amount that they could not afford on the fixed incomes of a retired community college math professor and mail-delivery person. They have lived on their block far longer than anybody else. But bottom line is when they die, there is little or no value for the kids to inherit as far as the house goes. My understanding is they have sucked all the equity out of it in order to stay there. Which could be considered a fair trade, when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

One of the few good things the anti-tax movement in California brought us is Prop 13--your property taxes can only go up 2% per year until the property is sold.

---

Counterpoint: Prop 13 sucks balls.

Annual tax bill where I live for past few years:

2024 - 22,000
2023 - 20k
2022 - 16k
2021 - 10k
2020 - 6900
2019 - 7200
2018 - 3300
2017 - 4100
2016 - 4000
2015 - 3700
2014 - 3300
2013 - 2750

How ya like them apples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained

Annual tax bill where I live for past few years:

2024 - 22,000
2023 - 20k
2022 - 16k
2021 - 10k
2020 - 6900
2019 - 7200
2018 - 3300
2017 - 4100
2016 - 4000
2015 - 3700
2014 - 3300
2013 - 2750

How ya like them apples?

---

1800/mos taxes…almost a second mortgage price for the average home before interest rates skyrocketed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Counterpoint: Prop 13 sucks balls.

---

I know there are economic levels to it all, but someone who moved to Texas 10-15 years ago and bought a house for 300,000 but now the property taxes are on a 1 million plus basis might disagree. Plenty are getting priced out of their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I know there are economic levels to it all, but someone who moved to Texas 10-15 years ago and bought a house for 300,000 but now the property taxes are on a 1 million plus basis might disagree. Plenty are getting priced out of their homes.

---

There are many different policy options that can address that without all the major downsides that came with Prop 13.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Counterpoint: Prop 13 sucks balls.

---

The only bad thing about it is that it applied to businesses and not just personal homes/property. That should have never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

The only bad thing about it is that it applied to businesses and not just personal homes/property. That should have never happened.

---

That’s one bad thing, but not the only one.

Like you could have two basically identical older couples, but one had the fortune to stay in one house their whole adult lives whereas the other had to move due to jobs/family/health etc. They could end up living next door to one another in similar houses but pay vastly different property tax bills.

It’s a bad, and very unfair system.

Property taxes........

When we bought our house we paid $5000/year. We renovated the house and it bumped us to $7500/year. Then it kept climbing each and every year. When we sold our house we were paying $15000/year.

The new owner is now paying $68,000/year.

Getting priced out of your home sucks. And worse yet are the people that can afford it are the exact people you moved there to get away from in the first place.

Report on Prop 13 and what alternatives could be, for anyone wanting to get into the weeds:

https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...its-full_0.pdf

The report was prepared by Terri Sexton, an economics professor at California State University, Sacramento, and associate director of the University of California, Davis, Center for State and Local Taxation, and by Mark Haveman, executive director of the Minnesota Taxpayers Association. They recommend four alternatives to Proposition 13:

• "Circuit breaker programs" that cut taxes when they rise above a certain percentage of income.

• "Truth in taxation" measures that require public notice or even elections before tax revenues may exceed the prior year's total.

• "Deferral options" that permit qualifying owners to delay tax payments until their home is sold or estate is settled.

• "Partial exemptions" for owner-occupied housing units, and "classified tax rates" that permit rates to rise for commercial and industrial properties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Like you could have two basically identical older couples, but one had the fortune to stay in one house their whole adult lives whereas the other had to move due to jobs/family/health etc. They could end up living next door to one another in similar but pay vastly different property tax bills.

---

Sure, but the second old couple who pays a much higher price to move into that neighborhood knows what their property tax will be there and buys the place knowing they can afford it.

Without prop 13 the long time home owners on the other hand probably get forced out of a home they paid off years ago, or if they follow yeahman's example they deplete any nest egg they've saved up. This would affect millions of people, not just one theoretical "old couple"

The middle and lower classes already get shit on enough already. Ending a protection like prop 13 would systematically force millions of people out of their homes. But yet you think it is unfair that someone buys a home next door knowing they can afford the taxes? Get real

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

• "Circuit breaker programs" that cut taxes when they rise above a certain percentage of income.

---

You'd probably find as much to complain about in a system like this given how many high net worth people are able to manipulate their income taxes to owe pretty much nothing.

The entire tax system needs restructuring.

why? it's a fairly simple, straightforward document...


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...complexity.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

That’s one bad thing, but not the only one.

Like you could have two basically identical older couples, but one had the fortune to stay in one house their whole adult lives whereas the other had to move due to jobs/family/health etc. They could end up living next door to one another in similar houses but pay vastly different property tax bills.

It’s a bad, and very unfair system.

---

There’s nothing unfair about that. They know what they are purchasing and not subject to later appraisals like other states. My street has tax rates ranging from one a couple thousand to 30k + per year. The newbies can afford it. The olds would have to move if they were reappraised at those rates. All the properties are fairly similar

Edit. Evdog beat me to it and better. Anyone that dealt w Ca taxes appraisals in the 70s would kick Jong in the nuts. That bs is just rich people trying to squeeze even more out of the system they abuse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evdog

Sure, but the second old couple who pays a much higher price to move into that neighborhood knows what their property tax will be there and buys the place knowing they can afford it.

Without prop 13 the long time home owners on the other hand probably get forced out of a home they paid off years ago, or if they follow yeahman's example they deplete any nest egg they've saved up. This would affect millions of people, not just one theoretical "old couple"

The middle and lower classes already get shit on enough already. Ending a protection like prop 13 would systematically force millions of people out of their homes. But yet you think it is unfair that someone buys a home next door knowing they can afford the taxes? Get real

---

Yeah, so realistically if that second old couple is identical to the first, they’re priced out and can’t move to the nice house in the nice neighborhood. Fair!

And Prop 13 has highly regressive effects in taxation. It’s not the middle and lower classes that are helped by it.

https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/reform

I don’t know where you live but it’s def not CA. Get the Fuk out w that bs. In no reality is prop 13 regressive. Appreciation is not income. Fukin stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcski

I don’t know where you live but it’s def not CA. Get the Fuk out w that bs. In no reality is prop 13 regressive. Appreciation is not income. Fukin stupid

---

I live in Truckee.

Appreciation is not income, which the proposals address.