On poverty

1) Thank you!

2) You're thinking of someone else. I never had that conversation with you.

 

Which is the flip side of the equity coin.

That's precisely why equity is so bad.

 

That's NOT the reasons they're failing. Many women do a fine job raising good men.

A present father is much better of course, but a bad mother can do more harm than an absent father.

 

But you did make some flawed assertions let's take a look:

Let me preface this by saying 'mobile' is highly misleading. they are manufactured homes, and once installed, it is rare they are moved from there.
They are NOT 'trailers' or like RVs.

First, I live in CA, and my interests and reasoning is based on CA. I don't care about other states. And yes, there is a CA market.

Second, CA has a 75% use tax.

Third, a mobile selling for $5000 in ohio is older than being built in 1976. With that low of a price, probably going to be built in 1968 or so. what that means is that you won't be able to permit it in CA. (you can buy in a CA park that is that old, they are grandfathered in, still the average price is about $135k, even if they are that old). If it is newer than 1976 it still have to be made up to code, so now you are entering building code v permit hell.

Fourth, to avoid building code and HUD regulation nightmares, the wise thing to do is purchase a new one, and a nice one, one that the average person would like to live in, priced outside of CA, your standard 20x58 rectangular manufactured home goes for about $60k. To truck two sides of that mobile ( it's a double wide, mobile homes parks are no longer allowing new single wides in CA, afaik, so it will take two trucks ) and truck them all the way to CA is going to be costly. With the use tax, you are up to $105k, with a complete installation and all the accoutrements a park would require, plus the trucking fees, I'd estimate another $50k. Taxes, etc, So, now you are pushing $160k. Now, you have to deal with permits, and all that, which isn't a lot of fun.

Fifth, here's the real deal killer for shipping to CA from OH or FLA:

You’ll likely need to get a permit for each county or state the home travels through.

You could purchase one, maybe 20 years older,it very good condition, for about that price, in CA, so why bother?

THAT is why there is, indeed, a CA market.

Manufacturer outlets or dealers. If you are going to purchase from an individual in CA, it will be already installed in a lot, been their for years, and double wides are going for about $135k or so and that will involve a realtor, almost always. You could find old single wide for less, but have fun living in 700 sq ft. they are not wise to buy because they are hard to sell, and if you can't sell it, you still have to pay the park rent. I did it once, never again.

See above.

 

I don't think I did. I guessed that a used mobile home might be a few grand, and it appears I was correct.

 

It most certainly does.

So what? The difference between the market rent and the controlled rent is a financial benefit to you, reflecting your ownership of the lease rights that go with your home.

Because as I already informed you, those who have to pay more rent for the land don't want to pay that much to live in smaller, dilapidated homes. Ask your park's owner how much he would be willing to pay to have your space permanently exempted from rent control. That's how much rent control adds to the value of your home.

I dare you.

You've already proved you are wrong by declining my dare.

I.e., the land. Thank you for agreeing that I am right.

"Practically."

Wrong again. This took me about 30 seconds to find:

https://www.realtor.com/realestatea...ina-Ave-Unit-404_Sylmar_CA_91342_M19518-53894

https://www.realtor.com/realestatea...ina-Ave-Unit-360_Sylmar_CA_91342_M26919-76848

That's what I said: they are more expensive because they have more and better improvements than your home on its rent-controlled land parcel.

Of the land.

It was about how tenants in rent-controlled spaces obtain de facto legal ownership of land value.

It means that what you said was an increase in the value of your mobile was actually an increase in the value of the right to occupy the space it sits on for less than the market rent.

Garbage. Rent control can only be enforced because there is an official record of the rent amount. You probably had to provide a copy your lease agreement to get an address change, utility billings, etc.

Nope. Already disproved by the NYC case.

No, for landowners, and most land value is corporate owned. Prop 13 has done enormously more for corporations than individual homeowners because corporations tend to hold land for much longer periods, and they don't die. In fact, corporate landowners in CA have figured out how to keep their property taxes near zero when they sell real estate to each other: they strip the corporation that owns the property of all its assets but the property, then sell the empty corporation to another corporation. The owner's name on the title stays the same, so the sale is not recorded and the taxable value stays where it was decades before. So while individual homeowners' share of CA's revenue has fallen by a quarter since 1978 thanks to Prop 13, the corporate property tax share has fallen by half.

So much for your whining about poor seniors who have had so much money shoveled into their pockets in return for nothing that they can't afford to repay even 1% of it.

And it's all you'll ever know, because you refuse to learn anything from someone who self-evidently knows far more about it than you.

I.e., if you are a rich, greedy, parasitic landowner or an honest, productive working person. Right. You are on the side of the former, I am on the side of the latter. Simple.

Because the increase is all in the unimproved land value, and unimproved land value measures what the owner is expected to take from everyone else by excluding them from the land. You apparently think that because someone is a senior citizen, they should be legally entitled to steal from everyone else.

He's not forced to sell his home. You simply made that up. If they want to pocket the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have been given for doing nothing and seek accommodation better suited to their needs and (greatly increased) means, that's up to them. But if they don't want to, they have many attractive options: they can let rooms, rent out parking or garden space, get a reverse mortgage, etc. That is why no one has ever been able to identify one single verifiable case of CA seniors being "forced out of their homes" by property taxes before Prop 13. But many thousands WERE forced out of their homes, and financially destroyed to boot, by the housing bubble and global financial crisis that Prop 13 did so much to cause.

Because the unimproved land value is the measure of what he is taking from the community. You apparently think that if a senior buys a loaf of bread from a bakery for $2, they should also be entitled to buy a better one from the same bakery ten years later for $2.

People paying others for what they take from them is self-evidently and indisputably fair.

I.e., it forced working people to subsidize rich, greedy, idle landowners even more than before. California committed suicide when it passed Prop 13, the greatest public policy blunder by any US state since the Civil War.

That's right: they will pay more income tax and other taxes and have less real purchasing power, and meanwhile house prices will increase far faster than inflation thanks to Prop 13. The children and grandchildren of those seniors (whose narrow financial interests you claim should have unconditional priority over everyone else's rights) will consequently be permanently enslaved by rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners and mortgage lenders.

So if a senior buys a loaf of bread for $2, they should be entitled to pay only $2 for a much better loaf of bread 10 years later because their incomes don't rise as fast??

Run that one by me again.

No, for the sake of JUSTICE, which you evidently hate.

So, the same "argument" that was made for retaining slavery: "But... but... I'm counting on owning my slaves!"

The genius of an evil institution is that first it makes its victims participate in it in self-defense; then it makes them dependent on it ; and finally it recruits them as its loudest defenders. You are evidently in the third stage.

Some slave owners had them work for other people and took their wages, others sold them, yet others just willed them to their kids.

Yes. The problem is that seniors being dependent on an evil does not in any way make that evil less evil.

Nothing. I am merely able to understand a relationship you cannot understand:

https://www.henrygeorge.org/catsup.htm

No it didn't. Corporate landowners have benefited far more than individual homeowners. Prop 13 simply forced working people to subsidize rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners even more. Homeowners as a whole are worse off because of Prop 13 because they are almost all working people, and have had to pay far higher prices for their homes and far more interest to mortgage lenders, as well as higher taxes on everything else they buy. You just don't understand how. You can't see the cat.

Why should people be taxed according to how much they contribute to the community by their labor rather than how much they take from the community by depriving others of access to economic opportunity? Why?

No I won't, because I understand that something like Prop 13 would sacrifice my children and grandchildren on the altar of the Great God Property for the unearned profit of the richest, greediest, and least productive segment of society.

When Prop 13 passed in 1978, CA had one of the best public school systems in the country. Today it has one of the worst. The same is true of almost all publicly provided infrastructure and services. That result was predicted by Prop 13's opponents, and it has come true in spades. Meanwhile, every promise that Howard Jarvis and his gang of liars made about Prop 13's benefits to CA has been broken save one: that it would reduce property taxes. By contrast, every prediction Prop 13's opponents made about its harmful effects has come true. Every single one.

I am stating it as an indisputable fact.

I already explained to you that the supply of land is fixed, and demand for it is identical to the expected after-tax subsidy. Low interest rates just increase the discounted present value of that subsidy.

GARBAGE. People are leaving CA for TX, yet TX housing prices are about half CA's. The difference: TX has high property tax rates.

No it isn't. CA was much more desirable before Prop 13 -- ask anyone who was there at the time, as I was, and has seen it in the last decade -- but real estate prices have escalated astronomically since Prop 13.

Because they are.

The CA market is what it is because Prop 13 made it that way.
quote]Why should their be property taxes in the first place?[/quote]
Because the unimproved rental value of land measures how much the owner is taking from the community.

I'm not a Republican -- actually, I am not American, and I think Democrats are lying garbage but Republicans are evil filth -- but I am against wealth taxes because they do not distinguish between earned and unearned wealth. Of course all wealth is earned -- land value just isn't earned by the people who get to pocket it.

There's a reason all honest and competent economists favor taxing the unimproved value of land:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Open_letter_to_Mikhail_Gorbachev_(1990)

Read it. All of it. And if you can't understand any of it, ask.

"Ability to pay" is one principle of sound taxation policy. The other is "beneficiary pay."

The supply of land is fixed. So what creates demand for it?

Blank out.

<sigh> Whoever buys your mobile also gets the cheap rent.

GET IT???

Are such transparent evasions really effective in preventing you from knowing facts?

In many cities that would be considered roomy. My wife and son and I lived in ~220ft^2 in Tokyo, and half the apartments in the same building were ~180ft^2.

 

You are right; but Patricio is in CA, where somehow, the term, "mobile home" legally means a home that is not mobile, but rather a manufactured or prefabricated home. I.e., it is built in sections in a factory and moved by truck to be installed at a certain location, but unlike what everyone else calls a mobile home, it is not permanently mounted on wheels and cannot be moved afterwards.

 

It's a major reason.

But many more don't. Especially between the ages of 2 and 4, children need an example of an adult whose behavior is governed by reason rather than emotion to help them understand what mature adult behavior is. Few single mothers seem to be able to provide that. Maybe being governed by emotion rather than reason is the reason they are single mothers in the first place.

Of course there are extreme cases both ways, but statistically, children brought up in homes without fathers have two strikes against them, and that's in addition to the financial strikes.

 

That's exactly the kind of building I was talking about. Pre-fab.

 

read my post for your flawed assertions, particularly 'trucking them to CA' as I've indicated.

 

Well, I reviewed my title, sorry, it doesn't convey interest in real property. I'm not going to repeat this again because
doing so will yield the same result, the very definition of insanity.

No, it's a benefit commanded by the city. There is no legal interest in the land.
You are trying to assert that the value I save based on what it might be charged if there were no rent control, is an 'interest'.
If I moved my mobile to a new location, there would be no deed transfered to the new inhabitants. My lease would end and the park would draw up a new one for the new inhabitants who took over the space.

AS for your 'pecuniary interest'. All you are alluding to is the difference between what the park might get if there were no control, minus what I'm paying.

It's a saving for me granted by the state paid for by the corporation. It's like a tax.

But, any large corporation investing in mobile parks and big apartment buildings are aware that cites might impose rent control in poor areas and areas that are zoned for seniors. They know this up front, it comes with the territory. They make it on some, not as much on others.

If you don't like it the deal, you invest in other sectors of society and you sell the park to someone else. Well, I've been in my park for 11 years, and no new owners thus far, so apparently they are just fine with the arrangement.

You think I'm going to lose sleep over this, and there you go off with your pontificating with your self righteous indignation, Ask me if I care.

My benefit is like a tax paid for by a corporation.

What, you feel sorry for the corporation? Give me a break.

It's similar to taxes, some pay more taxes other less. You make it on some deals, not so much others.

Taxes are not about 'quid pro quo' they are about wealth distribution. No one is suggesting making everything and everyone equal, the policy is about making it a little easier for the folks at the bottom by placing the burden on those who can afford it.

All western developed nations have have similar economic philosophies on those lines. It's a philosophy called 'egalitarianism'.

In a totally free market, the top gets richer and richer and richer while the bottom gets poorer and poorer and poorer.

Egalitarianism is a philosophy which attempts to try and put a lid on it -- to give the guys who are constantly being squeezed at the bottom, a bigger slice of the pie. But, as long as we have republicans and conservatives in legislatures,
egalitarianism isn't applied to a degree that democrats would prefer it. but, we have successes, here and there.

According to the wealth distribution tables published by the Federal Reserve, the upper 50% own 98% of the nation's wealthing, leaving the bottom half with only 2%.


So, excuse me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the corporation having to live with rent control. I'm just not.

By the way, Mobile Home Parks in CA are regulated, and it's not technically 'rent control'. What it is is that the park owner is allowed to raise the rents according to cost of living increases, capping it at 5% of the inflation rate.

My rent when I moved in 11 years ago, including water, was $650 per month. Now it is $714, so with a 5% cap above inflation, my park has raised rents less than they were allowed to.

https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/pdfs/RentControlHistory.pdf?v=2

So, apparently my park is fine with what they are charging me, noting that if they purchased a park in Oceanside, they'd be making less.

Here you have given incontrovertible proof that you're inability to grasp logic. That is not a logical statement.

Moreover, you are misinformed, per the above.

Oh, you got a problem with the word, "practically".

Okay, I'm going to be more precise, they are comparable. Even parks side by side are not 'identical', so you nitpicking is stupid.

I wouldn't call those 'mobiles' I'd call them manufactured/modular, i.e., "pre fab" where the modules are taken to the site and it's assembled on site.
Sure, most manufactured/modular homes have garages. I wasn't talking about those.

I'm referring to the standard rectangular 20x58 mobile that is constructed off site (left and right sides) and moved to a site and installed. They have carports.

Those are good prices, but, then, you'd have to live in Sylmar, where it's hot as hell during the summer.

Like I said, modular homes have garages, but your standard rectangular 20x58 have carports, it's apples and oranges.

That's just a newer, nicer, park. All mobile home parks in CA are rent controlled (in a sense, per the above link) . So, your premise is moot.

Again, mobile home regulation is not technically rent controlled in the way rent control is applied to apartments, per the link above.
Or see:
https://mhphoa.com/ca/rso/

Either you have a deed, or you don't. If you have a deed, you are the de jure owner. with a Mobile, you have title and registration, just like you do a car, it's not a deed. You are not the de jure owner of the land in a mobile home park, the park owners are.

Now, your 'pecuniary interest' examples in NYC belies a circumstance brought about by the unique circumstances in NYC, where 'de facto' has meaning. In Escondido, he has no meaning. There is no value transferred in the land insofar as your 'pecuniary interest' here in Escondido. Nobody is going to pay me to take my spot because the rent is cheap.

Why?

The rent is cheap for mobiles just about everywhere in CA.

https://mhphoa.com/ca/rso/

Imagine, an "expert" didn't do his homework.

Moot point, as indicated above.

Moot point, as indicated above.

Incorrect, as indicated above.

Here we agree, I would support a modification of Prop 13 to exclude corporate owned land. I think there is a bill, I'll have to check.

Oh, really? in Escondido and CA, 'de facto legal ownership', while might be a thing in NYC owing to it's unique circumstance, is, indeed, and oxymoron here. Shows you how much you know.

WTF are you talking about? so someone who owns a home cannot be a productive working person?

You seem to be saying owning a home is immoral.

You are on the side of unreality. Simple.

That's the same thing as saying taxes are theft.
social policy is not theft. There's this thing, it's called 'civilization', and most civilized societies employ egalitarian policies of one kind or another, some more than others.

You're doing what I call 'lawyering' an argument. What you are expressing is misleading.

If we are headed towards a wall at all deliberate speed, you don't need a historical example to demonstrate that if you don't alter your course you are going to hit the ****ing wall.

Capiche? Mr Lawyer?

The housing bubble, I got this to say to you. I'm 70, I've been in CA since 1959, and, without prop 13, the wall would have been hit for many who have been here for many damn years longer before a lot of newcomers, and without it, yeah, the wall would have been hit. Just because it wasn't hit in 1978 doesn't mean it wouldn't have been hit 20 years later.

We believe that since we've been hear the longest, should shouldn't be kicked out of our homes due to speculators and johnny come - latelies driving up real estate prices.

We're not talking about the retail price, we're talking about the tax, Moreover, You don't live on a loaf of bread. Sorry, there are more dynamic an complex issues between the two, so 'false analogy'.

Moot point, per above rebuttals.

No, it allowed me to remain in the state, which, as someone who has lived her most of my life, I'm entitled to.
You characterize home owners as 'greedy, idle, rich', etc. WTF? Are you a communist? You sure sound like it.

Sorry, the majority rules on proposition 13. You can always live somewhere else if you don't like it.
https://calmatters.org/economy/2018/09/california-proposition-13-approval-rating/

If you want to know what I feel about it, land should be owned by the state and leased to dwelling owners by ability to pay.
I feel that way because, despite your rantings against prop 13, the de facto reasons prices of RE rise in CA are due to the very fact
that highly desirable land is fixed.

If you could manufacture land, just like cars, the prices would hold steady with inflation.

But land in CA is more desirable than land in most states.

Is that CA's fault? No, it just happens to be near the pacific ocean.

So, that would be my preference, but in a capitalistic spectator investing universe where the rich exploit the poor, prop 13 is all I got.

And yes, when you drive towards a wall, if you don't reverse course, you are going to hit the wall,

They'd get cheap rent in any mobile home park in many cities in CA.
Moot point.

**** Tokyo. Japanese are conditioned to tiny spaces. This is the land of vast wide open spaces, lincolns & cadillacs, remember?

 

Gangs do not APPEAL to young men, anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject knows that gangs do not APPEAL to young men to join.

 

Huh? If gangs are not appealing to young men, why do they join them??

 

For Christs sake look it up. many of your opinions are based on your pre-determined views.
As a start, look at what happens to non gang members in these areas. Then look at what happens to those who refuse to join.

 

Do you have any credible statistics to offer, or just your feelings?

 

Anybody who has investigated this will know the situations facing these young men. I can only assume you haven't.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/gangs-criminal-exploitation/

 

<yawn> Too bad you didn't read it before conclusively demolishing and humiliating yourself. This is what YOUR OWN SOURCE says:

"Children and young people may become involved in gangs for many reasons, including:

• peer pressure and wanting to fit in with their friends
• they feel respected and important
• they want to feel protected from other gangs, or bullies
• they want to make money, and are promised rewards
• they want to gain status, and feel powerful
• they’ve been excluded from school and don’t feel they have a future"

​

So, pretty much the exact appeal of gangs that I identified, and you so incorrectly denied. Not one word about threats or extortion by the gangs recruiting them, as you claimed. Thanks for providing the proof that I was right and you were wrong.

 

Shame on you cherry picking the bits to suit your argument instead of being interested in the real issues.
Many gangs offer new members expensive designer clothes, trainers etc. This entices new members who later find their new "friends" want payment for said "gifts"

I am not bothered about embarrassment, I am interested in helping people by understanding the nuances of their problems and trying to suggest practices accordingly.
Scoring cheap crappy points with ducks on a forum is of no interest to me at all.

 

So, "shame on" me for identifying the only actual evidence in this exchange, which just happens to prove me right and you wrong??

Riiigghtt...

That would be called, "appealing" to them. Proving me right and you wrong.

Obviously....

So you dispute my quite nuanced understanding of the problem by just makin' $#!+ up, and then act all butt hurt when I call you on it. That fits.

Or respecting facts.

 

Liberals Clarify They Only Want Black Voices To Be Heard When They’re Saying Liberal Things.

​

Got it.

 

Don't be tagging **** on to my posts and make believe that is my position. Just because I found things Dave Chappelle said note worthy doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

It is interesting in response to criticism about the show you referenced Chappelle has said he will be changing his routine. For whatever that's worth