Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

Sorry. This was the second post of mine today for which people just totally missed the point. (No, I'm not even counting Ty's "huh?") When everyone is honking at you on the freeway, it's time to move beyond "they must all suck as drivers."

My main point was found in the last sentence, in which I look at CA's propensity to do exactly what the examples illustrate, and not just in a wage-for-profession sense.

Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

Schools don't have a funding crisis. Funding is at an incredible level, historically.

Schools have a role crisis. We've tried to turn them into parents, doctors, jailers, counselors, AAG's, propogandists, therapists, nutritionists and soup kitchens, fashion arbiters, moral guides, . . . .

If we want them to do everything, we should just give them all our money, and our kids, 24/7.

But I don't think that's what we really want. I, for one, just want them to teach my kids the things that schools historically taught kids. I can do the rest.

Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

I wouldn't lay all that at the feet of parents.

I also think that an awful lot of money is spent on some kids with particular needs, and so it's not quite the right comparison to include them in the mix.

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

I'm not a member of the Arizona CLU, but Hi! anyway.

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

Quick question! you went to public schools and your parents were liberals, right?

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

Yes and no and yes and no.

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

flip flopper!

aV

Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

If she sold and bought a more expensive place (then her current place originally cost her), she would have higher property taxes than she currently has, but these would be more than offset by the appreciation on her first home. The delta works both ways. The lower her first place initally cost her, the greater likely increase in her property tax, but also the greater appreciation she would realize. In other words, I don't think this is a significant deterrent for most.

I also don't think those in this position are numerous enough to greatly affect the housing market.

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

The committee on PB post quality met, and I proposed that when I do a blanket slam of the libs I switch to you being the poster child- not Ty. then RT admitted that even the libs think you're brain damage so you wouldn't work in the Ty role. It's one of those things I'm not sure I should tell you about, like when your sis worked my cousin's bachelor party, but then and now I just thought you would want to know.

Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

It's very odd to find myself having to explain to you why a screwed-up government initiative is messing up the operation of markets, but here we are. Of course my neighbor will benefit from the appreciation on her current abode, offsetting the increased property taxes, but the proper comparison here should be to a world without the distorting effects of Prop 13. (And she already knows she'll get the one-time boost from selling her current place, but she'll have to pay those property taxes every year.)

This clearly affects housing markets, in the same way that rent control distorts them. Maybe it's not a "significant deterrent for most," but that's not necessary for it to affect housing prices. Prop 13 makes housing more expensive.

Anyone Catch Herpes Last Night?
 

Well, I suppose if China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe can be members of the UN Commission on Human Rights . . .

I knew Tyrone Slothrop,and you sir are no Tyrone Slothrop
 

See, Ty would have included the US under the Bush administration in the list....

Anyone Catch Arnold Last Night?
 

One goal of any person with appreciated capital is to avoid realizing that gain and having to pay taxes on it. If one's home has appreciated in value, every incentive is to avoid a sale and have to pay taxes on the k-gain. (I.e., paper gains are more valuable than actual gains). Realizing the gain does nothing, other than to avoid any loss in the future--that's the only benefit. One can easily take advantage of teh increased value through a refinance. So, there's no "delta" to work in your favor by selling.

Prop. 13 locks in homeowners to their current homes, because all things being equal, the taxes on teh current abode are lower than the taxes on a new house. Why would one want to sell a $1m home and buy another one for $1m, when the taxes will be higher? In fact, downsizing a home probably still means an upsizing in tax bills, if one has owned the older home long enough. In many cases, the net present value of the increase in taxes may be so large that a sale makes no sense (absent exiting the market altogether).

Prop. 13 may have social benefits, but a much better targeted program could achieve the same benefits without the lock-in costs.

De mortuis nihil nisi bene
 

Is that the only explanation as to why Rather's head isn't rolling as well?

(link)