Comments on: Affordable housing in South San Francisco

By: DreamT

DreamT — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:35:45 +0000

My statement was about people’s perception of someone’s credibility. The stuff they think they know about you based on public tidbits.

By: Real Estater

Real Estater — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:17:27 +0000

Wealth does not equal credibility, but it helps…just like money does not buy happiness, but it helps.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:43:17 +0000

nomadic – Isn’t it a prerequisite to be self-made / independently wealthy in order to go into politics? Since a lot of people equate wealth with credibility…

By: nomadic

nomadic — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:40:04 +0000

Wow, DT, you should go into politics!

By: DreamT

DreamT — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:25:37 +0000

A., “free market for labor” with the tax and governance reform I mentioned
I am all about advocating for better incentives for higher wages as well as equal compensation for equal contributions. I also favor law enforcement on companies that exploit illegal immigrants; but understand the tension here: on one hand, free trade pressures local companies out of business because they cannot compete with foreign companies at local wages; on the other hand, protectionism damages both our economy and foreign economies; and finally you just cannot reduce minimum wage. There’s a difficult balance to strike, and I don’t see it resolved by shutting down agriculture and construction in California. I’m no politician and don’t have an answer on this, my gut feeling just warns me on what the bad answers sound like.
Regarding the budget, you’re suggesting to raise new taxes to cover existing expenses due to loss of revenue. You won’t see me agree on this, because these are not new expenses, unless as mentioned existing expenses are reformed with $ saving incentives. You’re listing a set of existing expenses and then trying to figure out how to pay for it. That’s the wrong approach to crafting a balanced budget. Most of these expenses can be reduced by reform without significant impact or even with improvement on the end service, but your approach is to blindly, artificially increase revenue (increase taxes) which only works short-term (taxes put a brake on recovery). I’m not against increasing taxes, but never as the initial approach to a problem because it doesn’t address the underlying inequities and inefficiencies, built over time by various interest groups.

By: A. Lewis

A. Lewis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:35:02 +0000

I think you answered me – it seems we’re pretty far apart on our evaluation – you don’t seem concerned about it as a systemic problem. I get the impression you think the free market for labor should basically set the prices of high and low-paid workers by itself, so there’s no point in advocating, as a bystander (instead of say, a stockholder) for changes in anyone else’s wages.

Maybe I could get you on board with advocating for better incentives to companies for more equitable wages? Like enforcing the existing employment laws so they can’t exploit illegal immigrants with very low wages and no benefits. Or encouraging – somehow – companies to make long term sustainable profits, and tie C-suite salaries to that instead of the current system where pumping up things Enron-style for a couple of years can mean a $150M golden parachute if they time it right.

And to talk more about the CA state budget, here are some other necessary expenditures I might feel compelled to raise taxes for: Public School funding, police and fire services, health care for poor children, maintenance for our roads & bridges, the water system, functioning courts and jails, and the state parks.

I’m very worried about what the state budget crisis is going to do to MY kids’ elementary school, this year. They just become school-age, and it’s awfully frustrating that my fellow Calfornians have effectively been undermining the public school system for decades to present me with a decayed, poorly performing remnant. And I pay extra to live in the district.

Now the housing bulls want to advocate I buy here and prop housing prices up? Let’s see how long this ‘good school’ can maintain in spite of continuing budget crises and the rule where you can never raise taxes unless a few Republicans want to. I’m starting to get the impression it’s on it’s last legs – not just a temporary setback.

I’m looking to keep my options open – if I need to bail out to private school, I want to switch to the neighborhood next door that has the same low crime, but a mediocre school, and much lower rents (and home prices). It’ll be easier to move as a renter than an owner.

I wonder if anyone else is making the same calculus I am?

By: DreamT

DreamT — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:44:21 +0000

A., not having analyzed the current state budget, I won’t follow you there. Hopefully I answered you on income inequalities at least.

By: A. Lewis

A. Lewis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:07:18 +0000

Finally, it seems that taxes should only be discussed when you have a properly defined (with $ saving incentives) new expense to meet.

Oh but we do, we do have such an expense! For good ness sakes, I’m not interested in higher taxes just for the fun of it!

We do have expenses to meet (maybe they’re not new) – Healthcare, education, and the prevention of global warming are all underfunded necessities I want to pay for. I have some other budget items to slash to help (big subsidies for agribusiness, energy, and other industries), but by my math, we need some income tax increase to do these 3 properly.

I also am in complete agreement with you on closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code to make it all hang together.

By: Pralay

Pralay — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:45:28 +0000

Please take non-real estate related discussions elsewhere.
—–

RealEstater,
Last time checked you were not the owner of this blog. So keep barking.

By: DreamT

DreamT — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:44:41 +0000

shoo troll, shoo!