California Fires

[uhhello]

48 minutes ago, Smokin said:

And much like the Federal government, I doubt the surplus to deficit transition had nearly as much to do with tax revenue as expenditures.

They lost 25% their personal income tax base in 2023.  Don't understand why people would want to leave.....

California Lost $102 Billion in Income Due to Migration of Taxpayers, Tax Data Shows. More than $102 billion in income left California from 2020 to 2022 as people migrated to other states, according to IRS data cited in a July 31 report from the Legislative Analyst's Office

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's a pretty hot take. The problem in California was that they didn't have enough tax money? 

I think at this point it's pretty obvious that there's nowhere in the country that doesn't have enough tax money. It is purely and entirely a function of choosing to spend it on the immediate gratification of social programs and neglecting the boring and unrewarding work of preventing catastrophes. 

"No one cares about the bomb that didn't go off." -Tenet

I don't disagree, but focusing on what's listed on paper is missing the point. I'm sure if I looked through their books the majority of their expenditures would be misallocated. That doesn't address the collection problem, however, or the actual deficit that is reflected in the way this disaster has unfolded. Much of CA's property tax base winds up in the pockets of private owners due to prop 13. No other state I'm aware of has a property tax policy which directly and systematically under funds their government quite like this one does. That has consequences over the long run - ones we are seeing right now.

The point I was making was more along the lines that if you design a tax policy around not collecting taxes from the people that live in your state, you're going to eventually run into the consequences of said tax policy. In this case I'm just pointing at prop 13 as having the largest / outsize impact on creating a massive accumulated deficit CA has avoided contending with. They may have had a "surplus" on paper for numerous years. Maybe now they have a "deficit." Politicians may have touted said surplus and maybe even some of them felt pretty good about themselves and got some kudos from their voter base. I bet it felt good to them. Maybe they had a $100 Bajillion dollars surplus in their Excel sheets or PowerPoint slides. Cool. It's an illusion. It's a number on a piece of paper. It means absolutely nothing. Reality keeps the actual balance sheet.

The truth is that there is a real, actual, physical, literal deficit buried in the ground, reflected by their crumbling infrastructure, empty reservoirs, ineffectual government, understaffed agencies, man-made drought due to policy choices favoring industries over citizenry, etc, etc. It took many 10s of years to create a problem this big. Running California properly costs a lot more than they spend. Too many people live there who "tax" the system without paying into it. That's what I'm talking about. That's the deficit that builds and builds over decades due to tax policy like prop 13 and which allows the party to continue right up until the balcony collapses.

This is that kind of deficit.

Or, if you like, you can look at it like this: all the insurance money and construction costs that are going to be incurred over the next number of years "rebuilding" CA was the actual deficit they weren't carrying on the books. At a minimum. Now start doing that math on all the other mismanaged forest or grassland in CA that's all still waiting to go up in smoke. You'll start to get an idea about how far behind they truly are.

*Note: nothing in this post should be construed as desire to increase taxes on "us" - we all pay too much as it is.

Edited January 23 by ViperMan

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

That's the deficit that builds and builds over decades due to tax policy like prop 13 and which allows the party to continue right up until the balcony collapses.

*Note: nothing in this post should be construed as desire to increase taxes on "us" - we all pay too much as it is.

While mathematically you're making a fairly obvious argument (if you increase your spending without increasing revenue, you will have a debt), the point is rather oblique. 

Prop 13 is not and has never been the problem. Prop 13 is maybe the only ethical element left in the California tax code. The repeated taxation of owned property is unethical. Full stop. Yeah I know property tax is a deeply enmeshed element of American government, but that doesn't change the core unethical nature of it as a wealth tax, which is why every state has had to grapple with that unethical argument in unique and inadequate ways. In California, the answer is prop 13. In Texas, they freeze your property tax when you turn 65. But both of those are bandages for the inherent unsustainability of taxing people on something they responsibly purchased merely because other irresponsible people irresponsibly purchased other property at irresponsible prices.

 

California has one of the largest tax revenues in the world. It is purely and entirely a function of their desire to spend that revenue on social projects and other non-returning ventures. I know that you also criticize the excesses of liberal government, but to even suggest that prop 13 is responsible is to adopt the very justifications that they have used to put themselves in this situation in the first place.

 

The "collection problem" does not exist if there is no allocation problem. 

12 hours ago, uhhello said:

they went from a $100 buh billion surplus to a $45 buh billion deficit in two years.

The surplus was a one-off artifact of an insane stock market rally.

The deficit is partially, as noted, a function of migration. However migration includes people leaving, which should lower the burden on services costs in a well-managed economy. Obviously we all know California is not well managed.

 

12 hours ago, Smokin said:

And much like the Federal government, I doubt the surplus to deficit transition had nearly as much to do with tax revenue as expenditures.

It's both, as always. One of the cute things about government is anytime they get an increase in tax revenues, they reformulate expenditures to use every penny of it. Then when the one-time increase goes away, they act as though that was the baseline.

[brabus]

Disclaimer: I hate taxes as much, or more, than everyone else on here. 
 

Question: Lets say property taxes went away, along with our current federal and state tax system, and we went to a flat income tax or simply a use/goods tax.

How are infrastructure and gov services (at state level primarily thinking transportation-related infrastructure and support, LE, EMS) funded? Take yourself out of a large city into most of America - do you toll every road in existence for “use tax?” (can’t imagine the undertaking of such a massive project). Is the Sheriff’s Office revenue generated only by a per-response payment (e.g. I called 911 and now get a bill for the SO showing up? I did use them…)  These are just two illustrations for discussion and far from an exhaustive list.

I don’t like our current property tax system, but I haven’t heard a good alternative for the above questions, and admittedly haven’t spent much time brainstorming one. When people yell “taxation is theft,” I get it, but what’s your solution to things like the above? 

Edited January 23 by brabus

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

While mathematically you're making a fairly obvious argument (if you increase your spending without increasing revenue, you will have a debt), the point is rather oblique. 

Prop 13 is not and has never been the problem. Prop 13 is maybe the only ethical element left in the California tax code. The repeated taxation of owned property is unethical. Full stop. Yeah I know property tax is a deeply enmeshed element of American government, but that doesn't change the core unethical nature of it as a wealth tax, which is why every state has had to grapple with that unethical argument in unique and inadequate ways. In California, the answer is prop 13. In Texas, they freeze your property tax when you turn 65. But both of those are bandages for the inherent unsustainability of taxing people on something they responsibly purchased merely because other irresponsible people irresponsibly purchased other property at irresponsible prices.

California has one of the largest tax revenues in the world. It is purely and entirely a function of their desire to spend that revenue on social projects and other non-returning ventures. I know that you also criticize the excesses of liberal government, but to even suggest that prop 13 is responsible is to adopt the very justifications that they have used to put themselves in this situation in the first place.

The "collection problem" does not exist if there is no allocation problem. 

The surplus was a one-off artifact of an insane stock market rally.

The deficit is partially, as noted, a function of migration. However migration includes people leaving, which should lower the burden on services costs in a well-managed economy. Obviously we all know California is not well managed.

It's both, as always. One of the cute things about government is anytime they get an increase in tax revenues, they reformulate expenditures to use every penny of it. Then when the one-time increase goes away, they act as though that was the baseline.

You didn't respond to the point I'm making though. I'm not disputing these things:

• Property tax may be an unethical manner for states to tax inhabitants - I have not challenged this in my previous post.
• California (and most other governments) absolutely misallocate their funds on social projects, climate "justice," saving the fish/squirrels, et al. They do this to the massive detriment of other, more important spending - like infrastructure.

So on those topics we can agree - or at least not disagree directly.

No, my point is that prop 13 has been a boon for certain property owners to the detriment of others, which is why it has become so entrenched. And the unintentional side effect of this has been to create a massive deficit in CA's budget, one which is mostly hidden, because people who don't live there don't understand how CA's unique property tax exclusions work. And others don't understand how much more expensive it would be to live there if tax burdens were equalized.

For instance, take two properties and compare them side-by-side. They're neighbors in San Francisco.

45 Liberty

23 Liberty

Google street view

If you compare them on google maps, you'll see they're effectively the same property.

One of them pays a yearly tithe to the state of $50,400. The other pays a yearly tithe of $1,800. That differential, of $48,600, accumulates over time, but it never shows up on any balance sheet. This is the actual, real, deficit I'm talking about. In the next 10 years it'll amount to a half a million dollars (more with interest) - and that's just between two neighboring properties. The aggregate effect of this massive, marginal under-taxation, is to generate insurmountable, unimaginable debts. I bet if you integrated a function like that, the total, hidden, debt would be in the hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars over the last number of decades. These are the type of debts that insurance companies can't pay. The type of debts that lead to increased insurance premiums for people who don't even live in California. The type of debts that lead to the cost of eggs tripling and people wondering 'why'. The type of debts that lead cities and towns to make system level choices when it comes to allowing their infrastructure to collapse. The type of debts that bankrupt states. In essence, CA has been writing checks its politicians couldn't cash.

Yes, CA budgets their money incorrectly. It is also true that prop 13 has turned the state into a real estate cartel. One in which long-term owners are the ones pocketing property taxes that would otherwise go to fund the state's infrastructure, or would otherwise operate to prevent people who live in CA currently from living there because they can't afford its actually cost thereby preventing the debt from accumulating in the first place.

// Break //

I am not arguing that taxes need to increase in CA. I am not arguing that property taxes are fundamentally 'fair' or 'unfair'. Those are separate discussions. I'm pointing out that the property tax system in CA is fundamentally and uniquely different than in every other state I'm aware of wherein people who own similar properties pay massively different (10X or sometimes 100X) tax bills. See the above for proof.

So no, prop 13 is not ethical - it's one of the most insidious, discriminatory, and unethical laws in operation in our society, and we're witnessing it bear fruit right now. But because it has complex, hidden effects, grants certain people massive (and legal) $ arbitrage, it's simultaneously a very easy law whose effects are easy to obfuscate and also one that gets a lot of people to stand in defense of because they benefit from it directly.

It's also a reason I scoff when people say that CA contributes more to the federal tax base than any other state. Yeah, right, so long as you ignore the enormous hole they dig themselves deeper and deeper into year after year by passing and keeping laws like prop 13.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

You didn't respond to the point I'm making though. I'm not disputing these things

Sure I did:

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The "collection problem" does not exist if there is no allocation problem.

 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

And the unintentional side effect of this has been to create a massive deficit in CA's budget, one which is mostly hidden, because people who don't live there don't understand how CA's unique property tax exclusions work.

Your entire post is premised off this statement, and the statement is entirely false. A deficit is never a result of too little income. It is a result of too much spending. That's the short version of why your entire post is wrong. You frame it in the most progressive way imaginable, which is surprising coming from you. Prop 13 was a revolt against high taxes. It accomplished it's goal. 

 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

my point is that prop 13 has been a boon for certain property owners to the detriment of others

Correct. Those who properly budgeted for purchasing a house to account for being able to afford property taxes that can not be increased beyond their capacity to pay due entirely to the purchasing habits of others. No one in CA is being discriminated against. If you think your neighbor should have higher taxes because *you* paid more to buy a home, you are the problem. 

 

Please, tell me what things you own, completely and without debt, that you should be priced out of because other people decide they want it more at a later date. Your car? Your clothes? 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

The aggregate effect of this massive, marginal under-taxation, is to generate insurmountable, unimaginable debts.

Again, it's *never* under taxation. There is only taxation. The "over" and "under" can only be applied to spending. You are framing this like a liberal. Debt never happens without spending, regardless of the revenue. Ever. 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

In essence, CA has been writing checks its politicians couldn't cash.

No shit. "Writing checks," even your analogy supports my point. writing checks is *spending*

Besides, you can run the experiment in other liberal states with no Prop 13 analog. Both New York and New Jersey have deficits. No Prop 13 to lean on. Just look at the spending per captia of CA, which has nothing to do with revenue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets

CA: $7,634

NY: $6,746

TX: $3,573

FL: $3,476

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

It is also true that prop 13 has turned the state into a real estate cartel

Lol, a cartel? You need to elaborate on this one, and explain how the exploding real estate markets in Texas, Arizona, and Florida, all areas with devastating price increases and massive institutional buying, are somehow different. Be sure to account for California's decades-long attack on development and growth.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

One in which long-term owners are the ones pocketing property taxes that would otherwise go to fund the state's infrastructure, or would otherwise operate to prevent people who live in CA currently from living there because they can't afford its actually cost thereby preventing the debt from accumulating in the first place.

Again, unbelievable framing. Long-term property owners are "pocketing" property taxes? Who's? Yours? Did your taxes go up because of them? Nope. This is some Bernie Sanders level philosophy. It was their money to start with. They bought a house they could afford with a tax burden they could afford. Now because other people are *voluntarily* buying homes at higher prices, the long-term owners are "pocketing" taxes? Incredible. 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

So no, prop 13 is not ethical - it's one of the most insidious, discriminatory, and unethical laws in operation in our society, and we're witnessing it bear fruit right now.

Honestly it's stunning to see an alleged conservative misdiagnose the problem in California so thoroughly as to become progressive in the course of doing so. 

Even more alarming is what your entire premise leads to. There is only one logical solution to the deficit if the true problem, as you suggest, is under taxation. If you are making the argument that a limit on taxation leads to deficit spending, and deficit spending is ignored by the tax payers, leading to huge debts that explode in the future, and that increasing taxes would somehow limit deficits through public outrage... just look around. Higher revenues don't result in lower deficits unless the higher revenues are acute and unexpected, such as the 2021/2022 tax years. And the government is a goldfish, it will grow to fill whatever size tank you put it in.

Look at the federal budget... Even with record revenues and exploding GDP growth during the pandemic, our spending/GDP is at record levels.

Prop 13 is one of the purest expressions of limited taxation enacted by a population, and it is especially relevant because it limits an already-immoral form of taxation: wealth taxes. You are suggesting that not only is the wealth tax ethical, it should be unconstrained. 

Also, using the word "discriminatory" in this context is wildly dishonest. Who is being discriminated against? What is the characteristic targeted in this discrimination? An old couple on fixed income that has lived in the same home for 60 years, bought it when it was affordable and budgeted for the associated taxes, and have decided they would rather stay in their home then make the huge amount of money they would get from selling it, are discriminating against you and I because... what? We were born later? They should have to move to a cheaper state because *you* want more money for the state to spend?

Edited January 23 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Disclaimer: I hate taxes as much, or more, than everyone else on here. 
 

Question: Lets say property taxes went away, along with our current federal and state tax system, and we went to a flat income tax or simply a use/goods tax.

How are infrastructure and gov services (at state level primarily thinking transportation-related infrastructure and support, LE, EMS) funded? Take yourself out of a large city into most of America - do you toll every road in existence for “use tax?” (can’t imagine the undertaking of such a massive project). Is the Sheriff’s Office revenue generated only by a per-response payment (e.g. I called 911 and now get a bill for the SO showing up? I did use them…)  These are just two illustrations for discussion and far from an exhaustive list.

I don’t like our current property tax system, but I haven’t heard a good alternative for the above questions, and admittedly haven’t spent much time brainstorming one. When people yell “taxation is theft,” I get it, but what’s your solution to things like the above? 

Too many confounding variables. 

First, income taxes, sales/use taxes, and wealth taxes (property tax) are all different concepts. The effects of adding or removing them changes based on which ones you change. You suggest two workable options.

2 hours ago, brabus said:

How are infrastructure and gov services (at state level primarily thinking transportation-related infrastructure and support, LE, EMS) funded?

No different than they are now. With revenues. You can use already collected revenues (either of the three sources), or issue debt and use future revenues to pay  off the debt. The problem with debt isn't the debt itself. Alexander Hamilton understood how good debt could be, and we are a powerhouse because of it. It is *what* you spend it on. The things you ask about are not why we are broke. 

 

2 hours ago, brabus said:

do you toll every road in existence for “use tax?” (can’t imagine the undertaking of such a massive project)

We came up with a solution to this. Fuel taxes. they have had to be adjusted, and electric cars have presented another opportunity to adjust, but it is a very simple way to tax those who use the roads in a fairly consistent manner. 

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Is the Sheriff’s Office revenue generated only by a per-response payment (e.g. I called 911 and now get a bill for the SO showing up? I did use them…)  These are just two illustrations for discussion and far from an exhaustive list.

Yeah, that would be strange. But I'm not sure why income or sales taxes couldn't pay for these services. That's a separate conversation from property taxes. 

2 hours ago, brabus said:

When people yell “taxation is theft,” I get it, but what’s your solution to things like the above? 

Taxation is not theft. If you are pointing that question at me, I never made that claim. What I said is that "property tax is unethical." And I believe that any tax that is unpredictable is immoral. If there is a tax that will exist in a perpetual recurring state (which is already questionable), you should be able to predict the maximum amount of that tax for every single year that you may be paying it from the time of the imposition of the tax. 

So in the case of California, when you buy a home, you know that the tax will be x% of the price you paid, and it will never go up more than 2% per year. 

Edited January 23 by Lord Ratner

[brabus]

@Lord Ratner First, just want to clarify I’m not directing these questions at anyone in particular, or necessarily because of anything written in this thread. I just see it as linked to the thread discussion and I’m genuinely curious at what thoughts are out there to re-do the tax system without heavy, unintended consequences. I suppose it could be its own thread, so understand if a mod wants to do that. 

With that said, obviously the quoted replies below are for you, but don’t take them as spears, just interested in the dialogue and wanting to see what’s out there that I haven’t thought about.

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

No different than they are now. With revenues.

I understand the generalities revenue/debt discussion, but how do you generate enough revenue when property taxes vanish? That would be a massive loss of revenue, of which most states rely on for education, infrastructure, and public service funding. I don’t think my paid sales tax at Lowe’s is going to cover the spread. I know we could go down rabbit holes of fuck funding public education if I homeschool, etc., but let’s not get into weeds and focus on the bigger pic discussion.

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

We came up with a solution to this. Fuel taxes. they have had to be adjusted, and electric cars have presented another opportunity to adjust, but it is a very simple way to tax those who use the roads in a fairly consistent manner. 

That makes sense generally. Though an unintended consequence is you would be effectively punishing people who live more rural (and people who drive for business, unless they maintain that deduction capability). That said, I guess I wouldn’t care that much if I also was not paying any property tax. 

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

But I'm not sure why income or sales taxes couldn't pay for these services

We all need EMS/LE equally, so why do I have to pay a higher percentage simply because I earn more/purchase more? My wealth has nothing to do with my need level for EMS/LE. Under current system, everyone except the homeless pay property taxes (including renters, as every landlord factors that into the rent amount), thus funding these departments through property taxes is probably about as fair as you can make it…i think, of course I’d love to hear another way to fairly fund without using the large revenue stream of property taxes. 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If there is a tax that will exist in a perpetual recurring state (which is already questionable), you should be able to predict the maximum amount of that tax for every single year that you may be paying it from the time of the imposition of the tax. 

So in the case of California, when you buy a home, you know that the tax will be x% of the price you paid, and it will never go up more than 2% per year. 

Agreed. I’d love to see property tax go away, it’s bullshit. But I also bring up the above questions because I don’t have a great answer for how to generally fund the things I mentioned at the state/county/town levels. I don’t think sales tax is going to cut it, unless maybe sales tax becomes insanely high to the point we crush our economy in an attempt to kill property tax.

I hear a lot of people (not you or anyone specific on here) yell about getting rid of property tax, and no they don’t want it replaced with a high sales tax, but also assumedly they don’t want to revert to 1800s level roads, utilities availability, basically zero LE/EMS services, etc. 

 

Edited January 23 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

No worries at all. Just want to make sure my position is clear, I am not anti-taxes.

2 minutes ago, brabus said:

I understand the generalities revenue/debt discussion, but how do you generate enough revenue when property taxes vanish? That would be a massive loss of revenue, of which most states rely on for education, infrastructure, and public service funding. I don’t think my paid sales tax at Lowe’s is going to cover the spread. I know we could go down rabbit holes of fuck funding public education if I homeschool, etc., but let’s not get into weeds and focus on the bigger pic discussion.

Personally, I would just boost consumption taxes into the stratosphere. If that makes the public lose their mind, great. People should know what governing costs. However, if we accept the "necessity" of a wealth tax, then it must be set at the time of taxation. So, whatever you paid for your house is what you will be assessed at. This is Prop 13 in a nutshell. 

More broadly, however, we need to cut the budget in half, at a minimum. We simply pay for too many things that we don't need to pay for. But that's not a taxation problem, that's a political/voting problem, and outside the context of the discussion.

It's not a coincidence Elon is in charge of DOGE. Twitter was a shot across the bow for every organization on Earth. Cutting 80% of your staff without changing the function of the organization reminded a whole lot of lazy capitalists that just because you are spending resources on something doesn't mean it's contributing to anything.

 

 

7 minutes ago, brabus said:

That makes sense generally. Though an unintended consequence is you would be effectively punishing people who live more rural (and people who drive for business, unless they maintain that deduction capability). That said, I guess I wouldn’t care that much if I also was not paying any property tax. 

That's not really a punishment though. They need the government funded roads more, they pay more. That is offset by many reduced costs in rural areas. 

8 minutes ago, brabus said:

We all need EMS/LE equally, so why do I have to pay a higher percentage simply because I earn more/purchase more? My wealth has nothing to do with my need level for EMS/LE. Under current system, everyone except the homeless pay property taxes (including renters, as every landlord factors that into the rent amount), thus funding these departments through property taxes is probably about as fair as you can make it…i think, of course I’d love to hear another way to fairly fund without using the large revenue stream of property taxes. 

Renters don't pay property taxes. Using that logic reduces all transactions to community purchases. Landlords charge what the market allows. If that covers property tax, great, but there is no mechanical reason why it has to. A parent renting to a child might be losing money on the transaction. A landlord who signed a 10 year lease doesn't get to raise the rate mid-term because the taxes went up. So no, renters don't pay property tax. But I'm not 100% sure what point you're getting towards, as I have never argued for a pure use-based system of taxation. Further, we do not in fact need EMS/LE equally, but again, I'm not sure that rabbit hole gets anywhere useful. 

14 minutes ago, brabus said:

Agreed. I’d love to see property tax go away, it’s bullshit. But I also bring up the above questions because I don’t have a great answer for how to generally fund the things I mentioned at the state/county/town levels. I don’t think sales tax is going to cut it, unless maybe sales tax becomes insanely high to the point we crush our economy in an attempt to kill property tax.

Why would it crush the economy? The people paying the highest property taxes are the ones paying the highest sales taxes (nominally). You would have to make allowances for the poor, which I endorse, and you actually have a more controllable way of helping the poor without creating loopholes for the rich. Here are some basic examples of sales-tax-only rules to cover social considerations:

• No sales tax on grocery store food purchases (limit on max exempt transaction amount)
• No sales tax on school supplies in August/Sept (many states do this already)
• No sales tax on the first $x,xxx of rent 
• No sales tax on the first $x,xxx of a vehicle purchase
• No sales tax on daycare

You put caps on these exemptions to prevent some billionaire from sending their kid to a $300,000/year "daycare," but you still end up exempting the poor from taxation on "human needs" while actually directing the charity of the tax system towards the things we want to help the poor with. No more using government money on drugs and vape and other non-essentials. And as a benefit, every American gets these benefits, not just the ones who are deemed poor by our overlords. No monitoring or verification required. All tax benefits are calculated at the register and applied on the spot. 

And no more filing taxes, a stupid industry unto itself. But that's just one way to do it. There are lots of proposals in this arena from much smarter people than me. 

[brabus]

@Lord Ratner Overall agree, good points. 
 

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Renters don't pay property taxes

I know they literally don’t, and understand your follow on points. But let’s be real, the vast majority (probably 99%) of landlords account for property tax in their rent amount. There are variances in say multi-year leases with a mid-lease property tax hike, but in the end, renters are effectively paying it for the most part. I’m not saying this is all a good reason to keep property tax, just a consideration in the discussion.

 

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Why would it crush the economy?

I’m just thinking what kind of sales tax would be required to replace the loss of property tax revenue. My state is right in the middle of property taxes nationwide (tax rate-wise, not total revenue), and in the top 10 least populated states.  In 2023 it had $1.8B in property tax revenue. I feel like that’s a lot of revenue to replace with sales tax, am I wrong? So if it takes a 25% state sales tax to make up that $1.8B (made up for discussion sake), how often do you think I’m going to buy shit that is totally unnecessary? The answer is rarely. Hospitality/food industry: $0, won’t miss it at all. Activities for my kids (gymnastics, etc.): $0, they’ve got plenty of shit to do outside of stuff like that.  New furniture, clothes, etc.: Very little - but we’re also not a “we need a refresh every year” family. An airplane…well yeah, I need that, so of course I’ll pay the tax! That’s the type of stuff I mean when I say it could really hurt the economy, at least in some areas. 

[Lord Ratner]

31 minutes ago, brabus said:

But let’s be real, the vast majority (probably 99%) of landlords account for property tax in their rent amount.

I would happily take the other side of that bet. The vast majority of landlords are going on Zillow, looking at what similar homes get, and hoping they can set their price $50 higher per month. Financial literacy is an endangered species, and I can't count how many landlords I've talked to who have no idea what their actual input costs are. In any case, it matters in the context of this conversation, when we are talking about financial incentives and burden distribution. 

31 minutes ago, brabus said:

how often do you think I’m going to buy shit that is totally unnecessary? The answer is rarely. Hospitality/food industry: $0, won’t miss it at all. Activities for my kids (gymnastics, etc.): $0, they’ve got plenty of shit to do outside of stuff like that.  New furniture, clothes, etc.: Very little - but we’re also not a “we need a refresh every year” family. An airplane…well yeah, I need that, so of course I’ll pay the tax! That’s the type of stuff I mean when I say it could really hurt the economy, at least in some areas. 

I'll take the opposite side of that bet too. You may buy less, but it would not be dramatically less. And it sure as shit wouldn't be zero. Take a look at what the UK pays in value-added tax. They most certainly have hospitality and food, activity for children, furniture, clothes, and all the other stuff. And they have property and income taxes on top of that. 

 

Now, there's a great argument that over taxation reduces spending, but we are talking about substituting one form of taxation with another. Honestly I'm not even sure why you think your spending would be reduced with a higher sales tax, considering this hypothetical is meant to replace one form of taxation that you believe everybody including renters is already paying, with another form that everybody would be paying. It's just moving from one bucket to another. 

 

It may be a psychological shock at first, but the mask shouldn't be particularly surprising.

 

Edit: Good chat by the way. You are asking all the most interesting questions.

Edited January 24 by Lord Ratner

[brabus]

@Lord Ratner Makes sense, didn’t think about the fact we’re really just trading one for another. I personally would still spend a lot less on unnecessary stuff if the sales tax was high enough, but admittedly that “high enough” definition is very subjective, and perhaps you’re right that for the majority it’d just be seen as a wash and not really move the economic needle an appreciable amount. 

A big part I do like about replacing property tax with high sales/use tax is I can somewhat control the latter via life choices whereas I have no control over property tax (outside of choosing where I live and what property value I choose to live in). At least if I’m paying a ton of sales tax it’s predominantly on me for deciding to buy new trucks, ski passes, a new TV, etc. 

Regarding landlords, apparently I made a poor assumption about people not being retarded. Business 101: know your operating costs and plan accordingly. 

Edited January 24 by brabus

[ViperMan]

@Lord Ratner I didn't open that line about prop 13 in order to convince you, personally, that the law is having the effects I outlined. The state of California knows it's a problem - as evidenced by their continual and repeated attempts to have it changed which recur, year after year after year. It is squarely in their sights. You or anyone else on this board doesn't need to take my word for it. State lawmakers know it was a poison pill they took in 1978 and are grappling with the deleterious effects on their governments. I provided a couple little links to show people how absolutely distorted the property tax burden truly is in CA, but if you care to, you can find manifold research on prop 13 which goes into the numerous other distortions it creates. People can do their own research and make up their own minds, and if they don't live in CA, they can click around their state assessor's website and see that their neighbors likely share a similar property tax burden. CA is uniquely different. That's the point. It's a one-off. The hyper-libertarian diversion you go down about there's no such thing as "under" collection as part of a deficit, I literally just can't make heads or tails of. Same with the "progressive" spaghetti you shotgun out. Your last post was a kaleidoscope; it was tough to keep up with what point you were making. What I got was the impression that you benefit from prop 13, but whatever. Again, I'm not advocating or disparaging taxes at a fundamental level. That's a separate discussion.

• Spending (output) - Taxes (collection) = Deficit (if negative) | Surplus (if positive)

Spending is half the equation, as you stated. Taxes (collection) are the other half. Or what am I missing? I literally don't get it which is why I think you were more making an ideological point about the fundamental legality or morality of taxes and talking past my point, rather than to it. It was tangential to begin with, and which is part of the reason I think @brabus engaged you on a more fundamental "well how do you think we should fund the government at all?" line of questioning because that's how your reasoning comes across in that post. We can (and should) have a discussion about the morality or ethics of taxation. But I'll save that for the PHIL 101 thread. Right here and now, in the present day, taxes pay for things like roads, police, firemen, and other public services. I can bang my head against the wall on that topic, but it's not going to accomplish much good.

Most people who are conservative (me) want the things we all use equally to be paid for equally. My home's toilets flush (on average) just as many times a day as a progressive's. Same with someone who is my neighbor. So no, I don't need to justify why someone shouldn't pay for services they are using. What it cost to flush a toilet in 1978 isn't what it costs now. Just because you got to go to Disneyland in 1982 for $17.50, doesn't mean you get to show up in 2025 and pay the same rate. Things change. It's the project of communists and socialists to hand out carve-outs and exceptions and "credits" to select groups of people. I only advocate for people paying for what they use. If it's something we all use equally, we all pay for it equally. That sounds pretty damn conservative / fair to me. If you can get Bernie Sanders on board with that, I'll buy you a drink of your choice, but I think you've got your work cut out for you. Prop 13 ensures that the opposite of that happens, and it ensures it into perpetuity.

The reason I brought it up, was because I like to get at the root cause of why something is happening. This message board is one of the better out there I've found because the mix of problem-solving, bar-napkin analysis, and trolling is tolerable. It's fun and partisan to score points dunking on Gavin Newsome and Karen Bass (and other "progressives"), but these are like "contributing factors" at this stage of failure. They are inept, corrupt, and I have no doubt share some responsibility for what happened. But, we're basically witnessing an infrastructure collapse which is a much bigger problem than can be solved by just pinning it all on one or two politicians, or even a whole political party. On the flip side of that coin, we can go full libertarian "you can't tax me bro! this muh house 'til the heat death of the universe" but we don't live in that world. This is a system level failure. That's why I pointed at prop 13. It goes back a long time - almost 50 years - and it informs the discussion at the "mission planning" level of analysis. Effects like this are baked-in. And we're not likely done dealing with the massive distortions laws like this create. Prop 13 is only one of many bad laws on the books. It's probably not the only policy CA has had in place over the long term that creates and contributes to issues like this, but it is certainly one of them.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

@Lord Ratner I didn't open that line about prop 13 in order to convince you, personally, that the law is having the effects I outlined. The state of California knows it's a problem - as evidenced by their continual and repeated attempts to have it changed which recur, year after year after year. It is squarely in their sights. You or anyone else on this board doesn't need to take my word for it. State lawmakers know it was a poison pill they took in 1978 and are grappling with the deleterious effects on their governments. I provided a couple little links to show people how absolutely distorted the property tax burden truly is in CA, but if you care to, you can find manifold research on prop 13 which goes into the numerous other distortions it creates. People can do their own research and make up their own minds, and if they don't live in CA, they can click around their state assessor's website and see that their neighbors likely share a similar property tax burden. CA is uniquely different. That's the point. It's a one-off. The hyper-libertarian diversion you go down about there's no such thing as "under" collection as part of a deficit, I literally just can't make heads or tails of. Same with the "progressive" spaghetti you shotgun out. Your last post was a kaleidoscope; it was tough to keep up with what point you were making. What I got was the impression that you benefit from prop 13, but whatever. Again, I'm not advocating or disparaging taxes at a fundamental level.

There is no "state of California" with a mind and an opinion. And if there was, it certainly doesn't agree with what you just said. If a state is its people, they have repeatedly (as you point out) refused to repeal 13. If a state is its politicians, then the democrats would like to repeal prop 13, and the republicans would not. Just look at Proposition 5 from the recent elections. If you are siding with the democrats (against the republicans) on a tax measure, your position is almost certainly not a conservative one. 

I don't live in CA anymore, so I don't benefit. I think the more likely source of your struggle to understand is that you have taken a poorly-considered position on an issue you don't understand well, combined with my poor ability to explain the matter. Everything you've written so far has been chapter-and-verse from the liberal position against proposition 13, yet you have tried to shroud the position as somehow an informed conservative stance. 

I will make it very simple. No tax that can be changed after the transaction is moral. It might be simpler if you just justify your support for Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. If you do not support such a tax, then perhaps just explain how property tax is not a wealth tax?
 

You point to the very successes of proposition 13 as the problem with it, then suggest that the supporters are confused. They are not. The two houses in your example were purchased for different prices. Period. Why do you believe that someone who buys something at one price should be saddled with your tax burden simply because you paid more for similar goods at a different time?

Your post reeks of the type of jealousy that drives socialist policy.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Spending is half the equation, as you stated. Taxes (collection) are the other half. Or what am I missing? I literally don't get it which is why I think you were more making an ideological point about the fundamental legality or morality of taxes and talking past my point, rather than to it. It was tangential to begin with, and which is part of the reason I think @brabus engaged you on a more fundamental "well how do you think we should fund the government at all?" line of questioning because that's how your reasoning comes across in that post. We can (and should) have a discussion about the morality or ethics of taxation. But I'll save that for the PHIL 101 thread. Right here and now, in the present day, taxes pay for things like roads, police, firemen, and other public services. I can bang my head against the wall on that topic, but it's not going to accomplish much good.

Because your point is illogical.

On 1/19/2025 at 5:57 PM, ViperMan said:

As an aside, I can't help but also point at prop 13 as a contributing factor. This is perhaps one of the consequences of serially under-funding your state based on a property tax law that all but guarantees your local governments will be unable to fund basic services. The way I see it, this fire was a decades-long policy decision in the making.

This is the tax version of "she shouldn't have worn that dress if she didn't want to be raped."

I already showed that the taxation and spending levels in CA wildly exceed similarly states, even with Prop 13. So when you say that prop 13 is a contributing factor, you either reduce the concept of contributing factor to the point of irrelevance (all taxes and spending are part of the equation, therefore everything is a contributing factor) or you are elevating prop 13 above the legion of bad tax and spending decisions in CA that should be fixed. I can simplify it further. Should CA repeal prop 13 or stop spending billions on not-solving homelessness. What about needle exchange programs? Zoning restrictions that prevent new housing from being built? I'm guessing you can come up with dozens or hundreds of things CA should do first before repealing the single tax provision that sets them ahead of the rest of the country in conservative/libertarian tax policy. 

The point is that when you have the biggest budget in the country, and the most tax revenue per capita, your problem is not with taxation. It is not a contributing factor, unless everything is, at which point, why say anything at all?

 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Most people who are conservative (me) want the things we all use equally to be paid for equally. My home's toilets flush (on average) just as many times a day as a progressive's. Same with someone who is my neighbor. So no, I don't need to justify why someone shouldn't pay for services they are using. What it cost to flush a toilet in 1978 isn't what it costs now. Just because you got to go to Disneyland in 1982 for $17.50, doesn't mean you get to show up in 2025 and pay the same rate. Things change. It's the project of communists and socialists to hand out carve-outs and exceptions and "credits" to select groups of people. I only advocate for people paying for what they use. If it's something we all use equally, we all pay for it equally. That sounds pretty damn conservative / fair to me. If you can get Bernie Sanders on board with that, I'll buy you a drink of your choice, but I think you've got your work cut out for you. Prop 13 ensures that the opposite of that happens, and it ensures it into perpetuity.

So in your mind, you don't own a home. The state owns it and you pay an adjustable fee for the privilege of living there, yes? These are absurd analogies. Let's go one by one: 

• Your toilet flushes are paid by the wastewater service fees assessed by your municipality. They do not scale with the price of your home over time.
• When you go to Disneyland, you are not purchasing a lifetime pass, nor are you purchasing one of the rides. This one is particularly weak.
• The communists are the ones who believe you have no right to ownership of property. Property tax is definitionally a wealth tax. 
• You bring up socialism as some sort of defense, but the simple reality is you are on the side of California Progressives and against California conservatives. That's not a guarantee you are wrong, but it's as close as you'll get. Which of us is siding with Bernie here?

Honestly it doesn't seems like you've thought much about this at all, as your examples and scenarios are incongruent at best. 

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

The reason I brought it up, was because I like to get at the root cause of why something is happening. This message board is one of the better out there I've found because the mix of problem-solving, bar-napkin analysis, and trolling is tolerable. It's fun and partisan to score points dunking on Gavin Newsome and Karen Bass (and other "progressives"), but these are like "contributing factors" at this stage of failure. They are inept, corrupt, and I have no doubt share some responsibility for what happened. But, we're basically witnessing an infrastructure collapse which is a much bigger problem than can be solved by just pinning it all on one or two politicians, or even a whole political party. On the flip side of that coin, we can go full libertarian "you can't tax me bro! this muh house 'til the heat death of the universe" but we don't live in that world. This is a system level failure. That's why I pointed at prop 13. It goes back a long time - almost 50 years - and it informs the discussion at the "mission planning" level of analysis. Effects like this are baked-in. And we're not likely done dealing with the massive distortions laws like this create. Prop 13 is only one of many bad laws on the books. It's probably not the only policy CA has had in place over the long term that creates and contributes to issues like this, but it is certainly one of them.

Agreed, this discussion is quite fun. 

Obviously on a surface (and largely useless) level you are correct literally. California doesn't have enough money. But that sentence is incomplete and misleading. The complete first sentence is : California does not have enough tax revenue to fund the infrastructure required to keep the state from burning to the ground and the many social programs they wish to enact. 

If you answer that sentence with: California needs to increase tax revenue in order to fund the infrastructure and social programs (which is absolutely not the conservative answer) then the next part gets us to prop 13. And that question is, assuming we are focusing on the property tax component and not the budget voting threshold:

Should a person who responsibly purchased a home at a price they could afford, with a tax burden they could afford, have to pay more (even if it exceeds their capacity to afford) simply because another person at a later date paid a higher price for a different but similar house?

 

If you believe the answer to that question is "yes," then I believe you hold an unethical position on the matter. 

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

There is no "state of California" with a mind and an opinion. And if there was, it certainly doesn't agree with what you just said. If a state is its people, they have repeatedly (as you point out) refused to repeal 13. If a state is its politicians, then the democrats would like to repeal prop 13, and the republicans would not. Just look at Proposition 5 from the recent elections. If you are siding with the democrats (against the republicans) on a tax measure, your position is almost certainly not a conservative one.

Yes, you are right, but this take appears to be disingenuous. Of course there is no "mind" of the state of California, which you thankfully identify, but then immediately turn around and imbue it with agency and convey that it still disagrees with me :). My point was clear though: there are repeated efforts in California to address problems that prop 13 is creating. People, with minds, are aware of those issues. I brought it up because I think people on this message board would like to see how tax law and policy choices create weapons effects down stream. Hence the discussion.

51 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

California doesn't have enough money. But that sentence is incomplete and misleading. The complete first sentence is : California does not have enough tax revenue to fund the infrastructure required to keep the state from burning to the ground and the many social programs they wish to enact.

Yes. This is correct. My point is to illustrate one of the hidden effects of prop 13. CA residents can wonder "why don't we have enough infrastructure??? I pay so much in taxes." It's reasons like prop 13 which mask the "why" of not having enough money to buy infrastructure AND all their favorite social programs. I'm just pointing that out. Dickering over what spending should be focused on is a good (political) topic, but a separate one.

53 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you answer that sentence with: California needs to increase tax revenue in order to fund the infrastructure and social programs (which is absolutely not the conservative answer) then the next part gets us to prop 13. And that question is, assuming we are focusing on the property tax component and not the budget voting threshold:

Should a person who responsibly purchased a home at a price they could afford, with a tax burden they could afford, have to pay more (even if it exceeds their capacity to afford) simply because another person at a later date paid a higher price for a different but similar house?

I'm not commenting on whether or not CA 'needs' to increase their tax revenue - it is implicit that they do because their infrastructure has failed. That's true, prima facie. I may not like it, but it is plainly the case. You are right in stating that CA doesn't have enough money. That's what I'm pointing out. You're placing 100% of the blame on social program spending. That's part of the spend side and is a part of the problem. I'm pointing out that there is also a systematic collection problem on the other side of the equation, and also an interesting one that most people aren't aware of. You're categorically denying there is a collection problem. That's ok. Neither you or I like taxes. We don't have to be happy with every fact in the world. I'm as conservative as you are, but any objective analysis must start with looking at facts. Not with "democrats are stupid and wrong in all cases and all circumstances a priori and anyone who doesn't agree with me is henceforth a democrat." That style of thinking led dems to align themselves with all manner of absurdity when Trump would state something obviously true, just because they had to be the opposite.

The question you present is framed in such a way as to side-step the issue and generate your pre-approved response. It hasn't got anything to do at all with what someone else paid for their home. Property taxes must cover the things we agree that property taxes must cover. If the cost of living in a neighborhood goes up because we need to run underground water pipes up the hillside in order to deliver water, that's going to be a cost borne by property taxes. I would argue that such a project should be shouldered equally, by all the people who are going to benefit from it. That is a conservative position. Prop 13 arrests that, which is why I think it's a problem.

We don't "own" our homes in the same sense we own our cars or our furniture. I don't like that, and I'm not advocating for that, but for the purposes of this discussion, and the world we all inhabit, it is the case. So embarking on a diatribe for you and constructing an answer about why property taxes need to change over time is playing into a misframed argument. The price of a toilet flush changes over time. You know this. Everyone else in the world knows this. As that price changes, funds have to be raised to cover those increased costs. In contrast, wealth taxes are designed specifically to take from all assets as they are construed by Pocahontas, and their intent is confiscatory - that is a new thing as far as our country is concerned and is something that I am equally frightened to see we are flirting with. Property taxes serve a different purpose, and as long as any of us has existed, they have been part of the equation. Painting with such a broad brush intentionally muddies the water and conflates two separate issues. Funding things like infrastructure with property taxes is the choice we have collectively made as a society. Again, that's just a fact in the world, not an endorsement.

We witnessed infrastructure collapse or at least not serve its function - ergo facto there is a problem there, maybe we should look at something. Hey prop 13 causes property taxes to function in a radically different way than in every other state, maybe that's part of our budget gap. Oooo, yeah, look, see here Bob, some people are paying only 1-2% of what other people are paying for all our infrastructure...maybe, just maybe, that's contributing to funding shortfalls, and could perhaps be the reason politicians have had to make trade-offs over the years and allow infrastructure projects to go unaddressed. That's all I'm saying. Constantly nudging the conversation back to all taxes are immoral, or at least property taxes in this case, is an interesting theoretical point, but not on topic. For the purposes of this discussion, they are a given. Not good or bad. Just a given.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Oooo, yeah, look, see here Bob, some people are paying only 1-2% of what other people are paying for all our infrastructure...maybe, just maybe, that's contributing to funding shortfalls, and could perhaps be the reason politicians have had to make trade-offs over the years and allow infrastructure projects to go unaddressed.

Once again, you're not really saying anything of substance. But we can take this argument one or two steps further to show the absolute absurdity of your contention. 

 

Some people, through the gross unfairness of the sales tax system, are paying far less than other people to fund all of our infrastructure because they just refuse to buy more things. 

 

Your most consistent "evidence" is how everyone else does it differently. That's rather amusing coming from an American. I believe we're one of only two or three countries on Earth who have codified Free speech into the foundation of our country. And boy does that create some problems with social division. I guess since we're the only ones doing it it must be a contributing factor, eh? Our gun laws are pretty unique as well. Doesn't take much to see what a huge contributing factor that is to violence and death. 

 

You have danced around every single attempt to address the actual issue of both property tax, and the concept of a property tax that adjusts based only on the spending of others. It doesn't matter how many other people are doing it. Is it right, or is it wrong? If it is wrong, then it is not a viable solution, and therefore not a contributing factor. The discussion has no point if we broaden it to allow for unethical systemic decisions. 

Nowhere have I asserted that taxation in and of itself is immoral or wrong. I've been very specific with what type of taxation I am referring to, even going deeper as to isolate changes to that mechanic rather than the mechanic itself. The *entire* point is that some forms of taxation are moral, and some forms are not. Prop 13 was a rebellion against an immoral form of taxation. That's it. Therefore whatever the solution is, it is not to revert to the immoral form of taxation just because everyone else is doing it. The solution, if you refuse to fix spending, is to increase the forms of taxation that are not unethical.

 

Look, California was just ahead of the curve. Texas is having this debate now and is moving in the direction of California anyways. For 100 plus years the housing market tracked inflation almost perfectly, so this conversation was largely irrelevant. Unless you were in California during the '70s when explosive growth caused their housing prices to balloon. The rest of the country didn't experience a similar spike in prices until the global financial crisis broke the housing market. That's the only reason "everyone else does it differently."

 

And all of this started with a statement you started with that is objectively false. "This is perhaps one of the consequences of serially under-funding your state based on a property tax law that all but guarantees your local governments will be unable to fund basic services."

It is top to bottom disingenuous to imply that California cannot fund basic services as a function of their property tax law. First of, all prop 13 does is limit tax *growth*. Second, home price appreciation in California has wildly outpaced inflation, so proposition 13 is only preventing the tax revenues from increasing in the same irrational manner that the housing market has increased. But the inflation in home prices is not matched by the inflation in infrastructure costs. Third, even the California government acknowledges that tax revenues are not lower due to prop 13 because other taxes were increased to compensate: 

Sales, Hotel, and Utility Taxes Largely Replaced Lost Property Tax Revenue. Figure 14 shows that since Proposition 13 passed property tax revenue (adjusted for inflation) for cities and counties increased over 100 percent. In comparison, hotel, sales, and utility taxes increased over 600 percent. The significant increase in these other local taxes reflects cities’ and counties’ efforts to replace lost property tax revenue. Adjusted for inflation, Proposition 13 reduced cities and counties property tax revenue by almost $10 billion in the first year. Compared to their revenues in 1978–79, local sales, hotel, and utility taxes generated roughly $8.5 billion in additional revenue in 2014–15.

Cities and Counties Rely Less on Property Tax Revenues Today. Figure 15 shows the share of revenue by source for cities and counties before Proposition 13 through 2014–15. Before Proposition 13, cities and counties relied almost entirely on property tax revenue. Over time, however, cities and counties increasingly relied on taxes they could raise with voter approval to replace lost property tax revenue. As a result, these other sources of revenue likely are paying for services that before Proposition 13 would have been paid with property tax revenue.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

You have danced around every single attempt to address the actual issue of both property tax, and the concept of a property tax that adjusts based only on the spending of others. It doesn't matter how many other people are doing it.

???

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The question you present is framed in such a way as to side-step the issue and generate your pre-approved response. It hasn't got anything to do at all with what someone else paid for their home. Property taxes must cover the things we agree that property taxes must cover. If the cost of living in a neighborhood goes up because we need to run underground water pipes up the hillside in order to deliver water, that's going to be a cost borne by property taxes. I would argue that such a project should be shouldered equally, by all the people who are going to benefit from it. That is a conservative position. Prop 13 arrests that, which is why I think it's a problem.

[ViperMan]

On 1/23/2025 at 9:54 AM, ViperMan said:

The aggregate effect of this massive, marginal under-taxation, is to generate insurmountable, unimaginable debts. I bet if you integrated a function like that, the total, hidden, debt would be in the hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars over the last number of decades.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Adjusted for inflation, Proposition 13 reduced cities and counties property tax revenue by almost $10 billion in the first year.

The defense rests.

[Lord Ratner]

55 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

 

The defense rests.

"It hasn't got anything to do at all with what someone else paid for their home. Property taxes must cover the things we agree that property taxes must cover."

 

You are not a conservative. That's fine, and maybe you are in other areas, but your taxation philosophy is juvenile at best. 

 

If you can engage on the topic by actually responding to the questions being posed to you, we can continue. Otherwise I can only point out how you're wrong, I can't actually make you read it. Or understand it for that matter. That's my shortcoming, not necessarily yours. 

[ViperMan]

21 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

"It hasn't got anything to do at all with what someone else paid for their home. Property taxes must cover the things we agree that property taxes must cover."

You are not a conservative. That's fine, and maybe you are in other areas, but your taxation philosophy is juvenile at best. 

If wanting people to pay for what they use makes me guilty of not being conservative, then lock me up.

[Springer]

Cockpit vid of C-130s fighting fires.  Impressive modernized cockpit displays and aileron inputs.

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:40 PM by Springer

[nunya]

17 minutes ago, Springer said:

Impressive modernized cockpit displays and aileron inputs.

The aileron inputs look like a normal CDS run in as #2-4.  😁

[lloyd christmas]

On 1/23/2025 at 2:12 AM, ViperMan said:

 

 

Moderators, we have a Name, Image and Likeness violation here.  Nobody asked if they could use my image.  

[HerkPerfMan]

CAL FIRE C-130H Tanker 122 fighting crosswinds near the start of the Palisades fire.

CAL FIRE acquired 7 C-130Hs from USCG with 1 operational so far. They are configured with the Coulson Aviation RADS drop system rather than that roll-on MAFFS used by C-130Js at 146 AW Channel Islands.

 

 

[slc]

Standard ops to have 2x "observers" on the flight deck?  Are they required? Obstacle clearance folks?