![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Everyone who lives in an area pays property tax it's just rolled into their rent. But the tax is still there and typically rental properties are taxed higher than a homestead.
It gets even more surreal when you consider the majority of welfare recipients are working, they're just not earning enough to cover basic living costs. That's totally not a failure of the market or anything.
I included the video of Apple Park to illustrate how there is literally nothing on the campus that looks like it is worth $200.
This corporate property tax in this discussion.
That doesn’t work in Oakland when the market is booming. My drinking buddy is a real estate attorney with the best pedigree I’ve ever seen (Harvard law, Rhodes scholar). It’s a waste of time to fight it here unless you’re making corporation amounts of money.
I feel like the people saying public schools just need more money don't know the first thing about public schools lol sure give em more money. Won't be going to teachers I can tell ya that!
He's undermining his own points. Yes, we have tax property protection in California and also can appeal any tax assessments. He has no idea how easy or hard it is to prevail because he's never done it and won't even try. He's already convinced himself that it won't work before the fact. But look at his reasoning: if it's true that an appeal won't work because market conditions would indicate the valuation wasn't too high, that's the market at work and not government edict. If he is paying too high taxes, and it's not clear he is, it's certainly not because the State of California is telling him to do so in spite of market conditions based on what he wrote here.
This chunk was a little confusing, but my experience leads me to conclude that my ESL students aren't half as bad as the ones who come from this background:
Cool! What are you teaching them?
hmmm, interesting, what are your teaching qualifications?
. I just evicted the third set this year. Baltimore sucks. It's not what you wrote, but it is what you meant. You can't have an honest conversation citing the "high" cost of education when you're using poverty metrics. When someone is legitimately being underpaid, then *paying* them more or appropriate is not "throwing money at a problem." Using that kind of logic would mean that if I try and fix a plumbing leak but make the situation worse from my nickel and dime HD remedies, then when I finally pony up for a licensed plumber I'm merely throwing money at the problem!
I didn't make any claims regarding whether the changes that occurred during the administration were positive or negative, but it's not true the administration did nothing. More to the point, the changes are still playing out and people will have different reactions to their implementation. I simply provided a link to those changes where people can go to read more information and make conclusions based on the information.
As an aside, it doesn't seem like you know or understand what common core is. Private schools are *required* to adopt the standards. For some reason you equate private schools' not implementing a program to their indictment of the standards laid out when in fact they already teach to a higher standard so it's an irrelevant point.
I have to admit I'm completely confused by what you are trying to argue here. You tell me to get some facts and then completely undermine your own argument.
That's mainly because most people do not know, or even care to know, what goes into the cost of educating the general public. Comparing private to public schools straight across the board without accounting for relevant variables certainly makes it seem like the public school system is doing a shit job with more money. But absent from that analysis is the cost of all of the other bullshit.