From: marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon)
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Organization: Carlyle Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:55:32 GMT

% Way back, when this thread spun off, we were talking about how 
% even though 60%+ of Californians supported the rights in AB101
% last year when Wilson vetoed it, it was not yet law, and how that
% conflicted with the theology of democracy in the US.  I for one
% have not seen this claim successfully refuted in this thread.
% But, as an argument pig, I cannot resist...

In article <44020@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.172050.4841@carlyle.com> marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon) writes:

>>In short, prop 13 was an act of apartheid against the increasing number of
>>non-whites moving to CA as well as an act of intergenerational intellectual 
>>genocide against the future generations...

>That really eats you up, doesn't it? These people bought these houses
>for an amount more like a low five figures. And just like you, they had
>to scrape every penny. The land speculation that pumped up the housing
>prices was not through the doing of these people. Otherwise, they would
>not be benefitting from Prop 13. So why do you feel that their taxes
>should go up by an order of magnitude--far outstripping inflation?

Because they just became wealthier and their kids will come into that 
wealth some day.

The WWII generation adults had a state-sponsored system that made it
easier than any time since the land was stolen from the natives to own
a house.  That system started to fall apart as the post-war economy did
around 1968-72.  This was not Nixon's "fault," rather a structural 
weakness in the post-war economy (not to mention the oil shock) caused 
the economy to grow much slower, a problem which has not been solved 
rationally (N.B. the debt orgy of the 1980's as an insane attempt) to date.

When the music stopped, those who made it to a chair didn't want to share,
for whatever reasons, so they tightened their hold what was theirs.  This
is where prop-13 came in.  The problem with prop-13, like most of Reaganomics,
was that it may have been an intellectually defensible position to call
for decimating government benefit programs for the poor due to their
dehumanizing, disempowering tendancies, as is now vogue in conservative 
circles (or other, less noble reasons) it was criminal to eliminate the 
safety net without proposing and implementing alternative means of 
economic support that the economy in and of itself was incapable to 
providing. (i.e. jobs)

>>Not only has this generation made a complete mess of the economy,
>>but their attitude is, in one sentence: "I got mine, now fuck you."

>Obviously, you were not around during the period, since your comments
>indicate an abysmal lack of insight concerning the politics of the
>era. It was during the Carter administration that property values in
>California (and elsewhere) went crazy. Elderly retirees who thought they
>were secure in their paid-for homes found themselves out on the street
>when, through no fault of their own, taxes skyrocketed.

How many were actually kicked out onto the street?

Too many Americans believe that the omnipotent president controls every
aspect of the socio-economic situation and should get kudos or blamed
for what happened on his watch.  Carter didn't raise property values.
They rose because the economy couldn't generate profits fast enough,
and real-estate was a fast way to generate some cash.

Insights such as the ones you present are inherently limited, as you fail
to acknowledge the redistribution of wealth that rising property values
meant.  Never have you mentioned any of the kids who are starving for
education as the teeth of prop-13 start to actually sink in.

>Property taxes went up for two reasons. The first one, the one that
>everyone talks about, was the sharp increase in home sale prices.
>some inflated price, the value of my home automatically increased,
>causing a proportionate tax increase. Was I getting increased services
>for those sharply increased taxes? Was I putting more stress on my
>local governmental agencies? Why should my taxes go up just because my
>neighbor was able to screw some sucker who badly wanted to buy the
>house? The increased value of MY house does me no good until and unless
>I SELL it. But that is when Prop 13 requires the refiguring of taxes,
>is it not? So what is so unfair about that?
 
First of all, you are getting rich.  If we are to allow the so-called
free market to work for the poor, why not for the rich?  Whats so unfair
about that?

Secondly, It is choking the children of this state of their right to a decent
education.  It is closing libraries.  It is raising every conceivable
fee that state govt collects ($120 to register my truck this year).  

>The second, and one that deserves to be mentioned, is that governments used
>the property tax to bridge any and all budget gaps. Not enough money to
>pay for all the pork? No problem; just raise property taxes. Prop 13
>was conceived to stem this rape of the people as much for this as to
>prevent speculative housing cost tax increases. Also remember that
>counties assess property tax, not the state.

And just what percent of the budget, Fed, State and local is pork? On the Fed
level, the untouchables constitute towards 90% of the budget.  If there is
pork left in the last $150B, then its not enough to make a tax cut worth
a hill of beans.  On the state level, the story is similar, with huge 
sums of money locked into schools and prisons.  Pork is a "hot-button" 
used to rile people up against government spending, except where they
benefit.  Notice how medical care and social security (the single largest
Federal disbursements) are never mentioned at the budget ax block in any 
serious manner.  This is one of the symptoms of an economic system in need
of serious transplants being treated with splints.

>What recent home buyers who whine about Prop 13 fail to realize is that
>once they are "in the system", they, too, are benefitting. And to all
>of those who have just bought property and feel cheated that the
>neighbor next door pays less, I have a question: Do you honestly
>believe that if Prop 13 was repealed you would pay LESS tax than you do
>now? The truth is that you would pay more and ultimately there would be

Most of us don't own homes and are not planning on buying them.  We just
have to live with a paralyzed government that can barely meet its essential
social responsibilities.

>the same situation that spawned Prop 13 in the first place: unchecked,
>confiscatory property tax rates that put people out of their homes. I
>am sorry you have such contempt for older people, but remember that if
>you are lucky, you will be in the same situation someday. Are you going
>to volunteer to live on the street when your time comes? Or will you do
>us all a favor and just die, as you seem to want the "WWII generation"
>to do. We all will eventually, you know.

I have contempt for the selfish who hoard in a world full of scarcity.
Age has little to do with it.  These folks were bound by common experience
into a "generation."  They have a track record.  Most every president since
Roosevelt served in the war, either as a commander in chief, soldier, or 
actor.  They have had access to the highest levels of power for decades now,
and left a substantial mark on the society that we stand to inherit.  
I don't want them to "just die."   I want them to share so that we can
recover from their greedy policies.  I know of no other legislation in
the history of the US that shifted wealth sans responsibility from
younger generation to older generation.

>>Any person who takes advantage of prop 13 shall have any and all benefits 
>>administered and distributed by the State of California adjusted to the real
>>dollar amount or percentage rate of the year that their taxes freeze, which
>>ever is lower.
>>>>This should help resolve the problem of tax payers vs. tax takers.<<<<

This last line is almost verbatim from Wilson's argument in support
of prop-165 from last November's election.

>Fine with me. But do this please: buy some property, retire while you
                                   ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
I think I'll buy a home in Hillsborough this afternoon!

>are living in it and then watch its FMV increase by about a factor of
>ten through no actions of your own. Then I want to to be sure you go
>out and campaign to repeal Prop 13 so that you can pay taxes that are
>many times what you had counted on in your retirement. It is only fair.

If we treated the real problems with real-estate speculation instead of
these price-bubbles, then this issue could be resolved without attacking
those yet to be born, educated or housed.

>Oh, I suppose you could sell the house, pay the taxes and find a small
>flat somewhere that you could live in until your money ran out. Is that

That this society cares little for its poor elderly is another issue, and with
the economic structures left to us by the WWII generation, fewer of us have
any hope of owning a home by the time we reach that age.  But the govt
bites the bullet and helps you out if you are lucky enough to own a home,
and if you don't, then its cat food for 15 years?

>what people who have worked hard all of their lives deserve at the
>end? Is that what you will deserve?
                   ^^^
                  me,me,me

_We_ deserve a society that tries to figure out a solution that preserves the 
dignity of all parties involved instead of hoarding wealth to one side.  
We deserve intellectual discussions of political matters without these
racist scare tactics.  

Is the dignity of the retiree with a home somehow more substantial than that 
of the homeless person that he steps over each day or the child who gets 
a pseudo-education because the school can't afford books or the 25% of the
African American population in jail for lack of opportunity?  

According to prop-13, it is.

--
marc@carlyle.com              Marc Salomon
Any person who takes advantage of prop 13 shall have any and all benefits 
administered and distributed by the State of California adjusted to the real
dollar amount or percentage rate of the year that their taxes freeze, which
ever is lower.
This should help resolve the problem of tax payers vs. tax takers.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: nigel@stonewall.demon.co.uk (Nigel Whitfield)