Ad-free YouTube is the only thing that keeps me sane in 2020.
@Sharpe, just want to say thanks again. Your review of props was super helpful filling out my ballot this year.
DoorDash sent out their pitch to my work e-mail which is based in CA. Not a fan of, but hey they are clearly telling their customers what they want.
OMG, yeah, the volume of political ads by the ride-share companies to all other political ads here is about 10:1. Based on that alone, I threw Prop 22 a big nope.
Interesting thing about stuff like door-dash and gig based delivery, is that it likely helped out a lot of conventional businesses running restaurants.
Just think how much better and more stable this will be when the employees are actually treated like legal employees, with proper legal protections and rights, rather than disposable “contractors” with low wages, no benefits, and limited rights.
Yeah I was gonna vote no on 22 anyway, but now I’m doing it primarily out of spite because STOP TEXTING CALLING EMAILING ME AND FILLING UP MY GOD DAMNED MAILBOX.
That’s how I feel. Texting me is not a good way to try to gain my support, it just pisses me off.
I’ll take a text over a call any day. Really though I would like them to just leave me alone.
Yeah, calling would annoy me even more. My first thought was - how did they get my number - followed by my recognition that of course DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber have my number.
Email, meh, if it isn’t constant, that’s probably the one least likely to annoy me. I did unsubscribe from Biden because I got tired of his campaign emailing me multiple times a day asking for more money. I had just given him, what from my perspective felt like a pretty large amount of money, and immediately they kept on emailing asking for more.
I mean I can understand once a week asking for a contribution, but it was literally multiple times a day. And it wasn’t asking for small sums either. That’s just guaranteed to tick someone off. It’s like they haven’t thought this through, or maybe they think that one person that makes a donation is worth the dozen people they’ve annoyed.
This is the number one thing that makes me hesitant to donate. I still do, but to donate and then, the very next day, get a email asking for more it’s… subhuman.
I got three calls yesterday from the guy challenging Maxine Waters, one at 3 AM. Now I’m not voting against Auntie Maxine ever, but c’MON dude.
Yep. I’m annoyed the whole time that I’m blocking the number. Although I did enjoy replying FUCK OFF to a pro Trump text before I blocked that too.
So that amount of advertising will likely mean a win for Prop 22, I’m guessing. I don’t live in CA, so I will just be interested to see the result. I figure if they can flood the airwaves enough, they can buy themselves a win.
Can you expand on this? Prop. 19 closes one tax loophole (for inherited properties that will be turned into rental properties) while creating several new ones. (All of which benefit realtors, who have thrown lots of money behind it.)
According to Ballotpedia, it will:
allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more expensive home with an upward adjustment;
increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from one to three.
Homeowners transferring their low Prop 13 property tax rate as they buy larger and larger homes, and special privileges for the over-55 generation that paid $500 per semester for their UC education at the expense of the younger generations that is struggling to afford their first home is a tough sell for me.
Eventually, someone has to pay for government, and Boomers seem to have got an exceptionally good deal already compared to younger generations.
My understanding is that the prop 13 transfer/retention already exists and this prop actually limits that, according to what I read. I’m not an expert though.
I’ve already voted so it’s too late but it’s a good example of the devil being in the details. Most years I would have voted no on principle but this year I was feeling a desire to be more overtly progressive and my understanding of this initiative was that it was actually more progressive - basically almost anything that changes/weakens Prop 13 is good IMO. I guess the issue is whether this actually does that. My read is that did, mostly.
Great to read your thoughts on this as they mirror mine. Right now they cannot use race/gender etc as a basis for hiring and they plan on repealing that to make it “more fair”. I…just don’t get how that works in practice. I also don’t like their ad as portraying anyone that’s against this as a white male racist. I remember a memo from corporate office many years ago ‘advising’ managers to hire vets because our company had lower % of vets in it or something. I hated that. It’s not that I hate vets, but i hated being ‘advised’ who i should hire. I came away from that thinking: screw the advice, i’m just going to hire the best qualified person i can find for the role, and I don’t care about their age/gender/race/orientation/military background. An frankly, I think that’s the way it should be (and for the record, i’ve yet to hire a white male).
I’m not a fan. I hate property tax. Hate the concept. Hate the way it mechanics by which it raises. Hate the way the government feels its entitled to it. At least at purchase price + x%, you know what to plan for. Now they want it to be market rate? So google goes in and buys a bunch of properties and now the market rate for everyone that remains is through the roof. Many, if not most of the landlords have sizable portfolios, so this tax will apply to them and they’ll just pass it through to the businesses that rent. And they’re just going to pass it on to the consumer - if they can. And if they can’t, they’ll leave. And what if the sale is a one-time event? Google goes in to buy some cheap land so they can test-drive cars doesn’t mean that anyone else is interested in the nearby land, and yet that might be the only sale to base market conditions off of.
Sorry, i feel this is stupid, a nightmare to manage, and overreach by…oh, schools need more money? But wait, is it?
So all of that, and the schools get, what 25-30%(effective) of the take?
I like your ‘no, in general’ concept, and if they came up with a more manageable solution that gave more money to the institution it was trying to help, i’d be more inclined to yes, but as it is, still a no.
Do you own commercial property valued at $3 Million or more? If not, then this Prop does not apply to you at all.
The reality here is that commercial property owners took advantage of the sloppy way Prop 13 was drafted. Prop 13 re-assesses value when a property is sold but commercial property is rarely sold; instead commercial property is typically leased - commercial property owners won a court case 30 years ago to get Prop 13 to apply to them and since them they have basically paid property taxes on commercial properties worth many many millions at 1980s/1990s values. This has cost CA collectively billions in tax revenue, contributing in very large part to the huge money crunch CA faced for most of the last 30 or so years, until the Dems finally began to straighten our tax revenue system out.
This change is LONG overdue.
And it does NOT apply to residential property or to owners of commercial property worth less than $3 million.
No, I don’t own any commercial property. I like the way you emphasize at all. It makes me feel like I shouldn’t have an opinion, or express it if it’s contrary to yours.
Your second message is better.
I feel this prop applies to me because I live and work in california. California is already ranked as the most expensive state to do business in and is ranked 32nd overall in that survey. True, in terms of property taxes it IS more advantaged than many states places(ranked 30th), but it is still very expensive to do business here and it’s starting to drive companies out. I’ve already said that the landlords will just pass that tax through to the companies renting, and they’ll pass it through to us in the case of retail operations or in service costs. This ends up in an indirect tax to you and me with the side effect of relocating jobs out of the state. There is no free money.
What you say is true though, commercial property tends to change hands slowly. But the solution to that isn’t to invent some scheme that arbitrarily raises a tax because something happened outside your control. If you own your home, would you like a system like that? A guy 5 houses away sells his property for a stupid amount of money and now you owe the government more money next year! I’m sorry, I don’t think that’s right - not right for a person and not right for a company.
Then there’s the mechanics of it. I worked in commercial real estate for 10 years, so yes, I’ve some idea of what I’m talking about. Property values vary from property to property, location to location. So now a property gets sold 3.5 miles away - does that impact my property value? How far away does a sale impact my property? The property beside my property is zoned differently, does a sale there impact my value? Does it matter if the city is changing the zoning? Are sales considered complete on execution or on transfer? Are they made public and open to verification? is it simply cost/sq ft with no respect to use? Which deals (charitable, religious, etc) are exempt? How do you contest it if you feel it’s in error? The questions on the mechanics go on and on.
I do understand your point though. I just don’t think this is the right answer.
You’re free to rebut, and I hope you do, but if you do, i would like you to answer one question with your rebuttal: IF this did apply to you, personally, on your home, would you fee the same about itl?
I think this is important because of a couple of things. Yes, general fairness. But the current corporate rule (i believe) mirrors the personal rule and I also feel that if the rule for corporations changes, then that opens the door for changes in the property tax rules for people. I mean, is it really fair that someone is paying tax based on a 1950s sale price?