California income taxes
12-29-2019, 02:36 PM
#341
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,175
Why should nextdoor neighbors owning identical houses pay vastly different taxes when they cost the city, county, and state the exact same amount to support in spending for services and infrastructure?
I’m not disagreeing with you or saying your viewpoint is wrong (in fact we probably agree on many tax issues), just wondering how you justify two citizens drawing the same services from the government but paying different prices?
12-29-2019, 06:24 PM
#342
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
This law has been around for many decades. If it was truly unfair, it wouldn’t hold up to the scrutiny of the equal protection clause nor a new law, just as slavery was outlawed.
This law treats anyone buying a house on the same day the same way. The fact that a house appreciates in value is a good thing. When you cash out and buy another house, it’ll treat you the same as the person doing the same thing. Anything else, I would call envy.
This law treats anyone buying a house on the same day the same way. The fact that a house appreciates in value is a good thing. When you cash out and buy another house, it’ll treat you the same as the person doing the same thing. Anything else, I would call envy.
12-29-2019, 06:50 PM
#343
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
California income taxes
I’ll see your theoretical tax argument and raise you another theoretical tax argument:
Why should nextdoor neighbors owning identical houses pay vastly different taxes when they cost the city, county, and state the exact same amount to support in spending for services and infrastructure?
I’m not disagreeing with you or saying your viewpoint is wrong (in fact we probably agree on many tax issues), just wondering how you justify two citizens drawing the same services from the government but paying different prices?
Why should nextdoor neighbors owning identical houses pay vastly different taxes when they cost the city, county, and state the exact same amount to support in spending for services and infrastructure?
I’m not disagreeing with you or saying your viewpoint is wrong (in fact we probably agree on many tax issues), just wondering how you justify two citizens drawing the same services from the government but paying different prices?
All I’m saying is that the tax law treats everyone the same. I see that as fair. And I’m saying that if you don’t feel that a law treating everyone the same is unfair, it’s because you see it more emotionally than rationally.
By the way, this is from someone who bought a house in California this year. I have absolutely no problem with my neighbors paying less than I do for the same services. Good for them. I wish I could’ve bought earlier but I don’t hold it against them nor do I lose sleep over it. I’m perfectly fine with it because those neighbors were in the same position I’m in when they bought their house years ago. And my new neighbors years from now will be in the position I’m in now. It’s fair.
12-29-2019, 06:52 PM
#344
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
California income taxes
I'm confused, do you incorrectly think that slavery was ruled unconstitutional (the constitution was amended once the confederate states succeeded and thus were not able to stop it)? Or are you saying that as long as a law is not repealed by another law, it is fair? Because that's also not how fairness is determined.
I’m saying both. It’s either unfair because of equal protection or because we changed the law because we didn’t like the previous law, prop 13 (assuming the new law treats everyone equally). Or in the case with slavery, amending the constitution. I’m claiming it’s fair because it treats everyone the same. Slavery obviously wasn’t fair because it didn’t treat everyone the same...obviously.
12-29-2019, 07:15 PM
#345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 456
All I’m saying is that the tax law treats everyone the same. I see that as fair. And I’m saying that if you don’t feel that a law treating everyone the same is unfair, it’s because you see it more emotionally than rationally.
By the way, this is from someone who bought a house in California this year. I have absolutely no problem with my neighbors paying less than I do for the same services. Good for them. I wish I could’ve bought earlier but I don’t hold it against them nor do I lose sleep over it. I’m perfectly fine with it because those neighbors were in the same position I’m in when they bought their house years ago. And my new neighbors years from now will be in the position I’m in now. It’s fair.
By the way, this is from someone who bought a house in California this year. I have absolutely no problem with my neighbors paying less than I do for the same services. Good for them. I wish I could’ve bought earlier but I don’t hold it against them nor do I lose sleep over it. I’m perfectly fine with it because those neighbors were in the same position I’m in when they bought their house years ago. And my new neighbors years from now will be in the position I’m in now. It’s fair.
That’s Prop 13 being “fair.”
12-29-2019, 10:21 PM
#346
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,789
Yes. Good for her.
And you will be able to provide the same for your children.
And you will be able to provide the same for your children.
12-29-2019, 10:40 PM
#347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,745
12-30-2019, 02:40 AM
#348
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,175
I have absolutely no problem with my neighbors paying less than I do for the same services. Good for them. I wish I could’ve bought earlier but I don’t hold it against them nor do I lose sleep over it. I’m perfectly fine with it because those neighbors were in the same position I’m in when they bought their house years ago. And my new neighbors years from now will be in the position I’m in now. It’s fair.
12-30-2019, 05:17 AM
#349
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 7ERA
Posts: 1,232
I’ll see your theoretical tax argument and raise you another theoretical tax argument:
Why should nextdoor neighbors owning identical houses pay vastly different taxes when they cost the city, county, and state the exact same amount to support in spending for services and infrastructure?
I’m not disagreeing with you or saying your viewpoint is wrong (in fact we probably agree on many tax issues), just wondering how you justify two citizens drawing the same services from the government but paying different prices?
Why should nextdoor neighbors owning identical houses pay vastly different taxes when they cost the city, county, and state the exact same amount to support in spending for services and infrastructure?
I’m not disagreeing with you or saying your viewpoint is wrong (in fact we probably agree on many tax issues), just wondering how you justify two citizens drawing the same services from the government but paying different prices?
By that argument, we should all pay a flat property tax. Does it really cost more to provide support and infrastructure for my neighbors million dollar house than it does my 500k house?
12-30-2019, 05:25 AM
#350
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 571
Just out of curiosity, is that tax bill for a cardboard box under an overpass in Bakersfield? The tax bill for a rundown, two bedroom hovel in the San Francisco Bay Area is easily four times that amount.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wannabepilot
Hangar Talk
0
04-25-2008 09:19 PM
