Tech Companies Have a Unique View of Their Net Worth When Paying Property Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
mope54 said:
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.

Is your position that teachers in Baltimore or overpaid or underpaid?
Your responses read like you think the teachers aren't being paid appropriately but then keep following it up with a political slogan that "throwing money at a problem won't fix it" when paying someone who is underpaid more money *is* the fix to that specific problem.

You end with another feel good slogan that doesn't offer any insight into policy:
quality over quantity

but to do that you don't want to pay teachers more than $38K per year?
Click to expand...

*sigh* no I am addressing points you brought up that were tangental. None of that is accurate. You cant assume that increasing dollars spent per student will yield better education. There isnt a strong correlation there.

If money spent = better education then how does South Korea spend something like 6k/student and still have a better education system than the US? More money does not mean a better educational system, it just means a more expensive one. We need to figure out how to better educate our children. IF that means we pay 15k, 20, hell even 50k/student I am fine with that. But we cant just assume that we can put more money into the existing system and it will somehow magically improve.
 
Krazy925 said:
I too play the family/long term property game.
Click to expand...
And the upside, I don't have to live here to continue to enjoy said benefits. That's pointing towards my retirement goals, retire early, live off some poor slob willing to pay a full time salary worth of money in 99% of the US for rent just to live in San Francisco, enjoy the drinks in coconuts with little umbrellas.
 
kju1 said:
*sigh* no I am addressing points you brought up that were tangental. None of that is accurate. You cant assume that increasing dollars spent per student will yield better education. There isnt a strong correlation there.

If money spent = better education then how does South Korea spend something like 6k/student and still have a better education system than the US? More money does not mean a better educational system, it just means a more expensive one. We need to figure out how to better educate our children. IF that means we pay 15k, 20, hell even 50k/student I am fine with that. But we cant just assume that we can put more money into the existing system and it will somehow magically improve.
Click to expand...
I doubt you want to use South Korea as an example. They spend 3x what we do on education.

Giving instructional staff competing wages is not a "magical" idea. It's common sense in every other industry.

edit: I'm not going to go round and round with you on every single misunderstanding or misrepresentation you've got going on. But I will leave you with this, because I guess you didn't read it when I posted it earlier:

Garbage in > garbage out
If you use data that you don't understand or mishandle, then the information it gives you in the end will be useless or worse.

Case in point: SK spends $6K per year on education whereas we pay $15K. Seems pretty drastic, cut and dry, right?

Well, that is only so long as you ignore what those variable mean in context. As I pointed out previously, that $6K per student per year is roughly 3x what we spend on a national level.
How can that be?

Well, for starters, let's just look at how misleading the use of figures like that can be in this discussion. For starters, how much do SK make per year, on average? $15K. US workers: $60K

So, just using raw numbers without context, we'd have to argue that US schools would have to be paying $60K per student in order to match the relative spending SK's do for their students based on average yearly income. It's not done that way, but that's a raw data point.

Put another way, SK government spends as much per student as employee median wages, whereas the US only spends 1/4 of its population's median wages per student per year.

Anecdotally, SK parents spend nearly as much as the government does in private education *supplementing* public education. Not replacing it, but in addition to, via tutors and private educators. A truer cost of education in SK is roughly $30K per student per year...or roughly double what we spend per student in total dollars.

There exists a myriad of other factors, as well, but just that one tidbit you tossed out there is far more complicated than this conversation is giving credit and I doubt very many people have the desire or skillset to delve into it much deeper. It's much easier to stick with the slogans! Even if your bottom line position and mine are the same, I don't use those kinds of slogans because they do more harm than good even if, in a rudimentary way, they might be true-ish (in the sense that it's true to say that simply throwing money at a problem without thinking about the costs or ways in which it will be spent are not going to solve a problem, but obviously wrong in that literally no one is advocating for doing such a thing).
 
Last edited:
Rob94hawk said:
Nope. I pay $12,000 in property tax for a single family home. Illegals park 3-5 families in a single family home & not only split the property tax, but short change the school districts. Get back to me when a single illegal immigrant family pays $12,000 a year in property taxes on top of rent in a single family home. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

They are still paying for property tax, now if they are doing something illegal then that is up to law enforcement or someone to report it. But just because you have enough money and decide to live in a place that costs 12k in taxes doesn't mean other people are leaches if they prefer to live in a way that is cheaper. For instance I take property tax into account when I purchase a home, don't make your property taxes too high or I will look elsewhere. Second I am sure many immigrants legal or illegal are paying a lot more than 12k per year in CA.
 
sfsuphysics said:
And the upside, I don't have to live here to continue to enjoy said benefits. That's pointing towards my retirement goals, retire early, live off some poor slob willing to pay a full time salary worth of money in 99% of the US for rent just to live in San Francisco, enjoy the drinks in coconuts with little umbrellas.
Click to expand...
About to buy a 3/2 condo in the lake area around Oakland. Kicking around the idea of just buying the old family home in Danville instead. Property valued in the mid-90s makes this valuable.

Should have kept the 5 bedroom on lake Merced but that was a total fucking disaster.
 
rudy said:
They are still paying for property tax, now if they are doing something illegal then that is up to law enforcement or someone to report it. But just because you have enough money and decide to live in a place that costs 12k in taxes doesn't mean other people are leaches if they prefer to live in a way that is cheaper. For instance I take property tax into account when I purchase a home, don't make your property taxes too high or I will look elsewhere. Second I am sure many immigrants legal or illegal are paying a lot more than 12k per year in CA.
Click to expand...

LOL So much assumptions. Major fail.

You forget to take into account how long I've been living in my house to get to 12,000 in property taxes.

and

I would love to see an illegal single family paying 12,000 in property taxes. That would impress me. Just like seeing a unicorn.
 
Last edited:
mope54 said:
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.

The larger issue, however, is parental involvement.
Click to expand...

I live in NY. Private schools not only didn't adopt Regents, they didn't adopt common core. Why? Because they're not held hostage by state funding like public schools are.
 
mope54 said:
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.

You got a problem with that kind of way of discussing an issue rather than me simply yelling louder into the microphone until people either give in or give up?
Click to expand...

My kids, as well as countless others, were affected negatively by it. My response was to common core being the joke that it is. Not to you.
 
Rob94hawk said:
I live in NY. Private schools not only didn't adopt Regents, they didn't adopt common core. Why? Because they're not held hostage by state funding like public schools are.
Click to expand...
They didn't "adopt" it as in the government can't force private educators to deploy their standards, but private schools are already teaching above common core standards (at least, I hope so or else take them somewhere else) and, since all college entrance exams are pegged to Common Core, if private school students want to get into colleges (and their instructors damn sure want them to, which is why they will tell you as part of their recruitment where all their alumni have gone and what they have done with themselves after attending whichever school is under consideration), they certainly "teach" common core whether they tell you or not.

That's why I said I don't think you understand what it is, even if your children are in NY and etc. etc. That said, just being a parent even of school attending children isn't realistically going to give you a good idea over what certain standards are or are not and how they are deployed (or not) across an educational landscape.
 
chockomonkey said:
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!
Click to expand...
Oregon has a fun aystem where the lottery is used to pay for school/salary etc and the funding prior to this is put into the general fund and. "Reappropriated" so theres that
 
tetris42 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when you unnecessarily double your population with unneeded and unwanted poor immigrants from low IQ, 3rd world populations. It was planned. Face reality. And it was forced on the nation via subversion.
 
rudy said:
I don't know that I said anywhere that people whom come here should do so illegally. I merely pointed out your fallacy about none of them paying more property taxes than you, and none of them paying property taxes. Its just false and something you are saying cause you seem to have some major problem with immigrants. So you make outrageous false claims about them.
Click to expand...

Except he's not lying, while you are via your own contorted logic. Immigrants are a net drain on the economy, on wages, and on the standard of living, including the damage to the welfare system over time. Even the damage to ethical and productive culture cannot ignored. Breaking down the immigrant demographics shows the biggest problem sources.
 
mope54 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes private schools have an easier job due to the ability to kick out trouble makers and they also have the advantage of involved parents (usually)

However, private schools generally don't have the tax free status of a state school, the separate construction budgets/bonds, or the deep pockets of the state.

Private schools also don't have to deal with the teachers union, perhaps their biggest advantage.

Out here in California we have charter schools. They are public schools, that receive public funding, but they are run more like a private school.
Generally no unions, and much less administrative overhead.
Even though they receive less money per student, they usually have much better educational outcomes than public schools in the same area.

Less money, more autonomy, better education.... Seems to be a pattern.
 
Rob94hawk said:
Nope. I pay $12,000 in property tax for a single family home.
Click to expand...

$12,000 a year... Ouch.

You either live in high tax state, or live in an expensive area of California.
You would have had to spend over a million dollars for a home in California for a property tax that high.
(it's fixed at 1% of the purchase price and allowed to rise only 2% each year thanks to Prop 13)
 
nutzo said:
$12,000 a year... Ouch.

You either live in high tax state, or live in an expensive area of California.
You would have had to spend over a million dollars for a home in California for a property tax that high.
(it's fixed at 1% of the purchase price and allowed to rise only 2% each year thanks to Prop 13)
Click to expand...

They weren't always this high here. My taxes started at $5000 and worked it's way up over the decade. And it's not in California. I hear the middle class is fleeing in droves in that state.
 
Simple enough: If you like making american money, you pay American taxes. You want to pay less tax? go to a country that charges less and make their money.

When you start a business in the US, you agree to their rules. Doesn't matter how the rules "Should be" or "oughta be" or how much "taxation is theft!!1" you agree to the rules, and start a business knowing those rules. ANY attempt at trying to dodge those rules is a direct violation of the agreement.
 
mope54 said:
I doubt you want to use South Korea as an example. They spend 3x what we do on education.

Giving instructional staff competing wages is not a "magical" idea. It's common sense in every other industry.

edit: I'm not going to go round and round with you on every single misunderstanding or misrepresentation you've got going on. But I will leave you with this, because I guess you didn't read it when I posted it earlier:

Garbage in > garbage out
If you use data that you don't understand or mishandle, then the information it gives you in the end will be useless or worse.

Case in point: SK spends $6K per year on education whereas we pay $15K. Seems pretty drastic, cut and dry, right?

Well, that is only so long as you ignore what those variable mean in context. As I pointed out previously, that $6K per student per year is roughly 3x what we spend on a national level.
How can that be?

Well, for starters, let's just look at how misleading the use of figures like that can be in this discussion. For starters, how much do SK make per year, on average? $15K. US workers: $60K

So, just using raw numbers without context, we'd have to argue that US schools would have to be paying $60K per student in order to match the relative spending SK's do for their students based on average yearly income. It's not done that way, but that's a raw data point.

Put another way, SK government spends as much per student as employee median wages, whereas the US only spends 1/4 of its population's median wages per student per year.

Anecdotally, SK parents spend nearly as much as the government does in private education *supplementing* public education. Not replacing it, but in addition to, via tutors and private educators. A truer cost of education in SK is roughly $30K per student per year...or roughly double what we spend per student in total dollars.

There exists a myriad of other factors, as well, but just that one tidbit you tossed out there is far more complicated than this conversation is giving credit and I doubt very many people have the desire or skillset to delve into it much deeper. It's much easier to stick with the slogans! Even if your bottom line position and mine are the same, I don't use those kinds of slogans because they do more harm than good even if, in a rudimentary way, they might be true-ish (in the sense that it's true to say that simply throwing money at a problem without thinking about the costs or ways in which it will be spent are not going to solve a problem, but obviously wrong in that literally no one is advocating for doing such a thing).
Click to expand...

You missed his point entirely. Let me state his point as I understand it. It may be clearer:
-It does not matter what you spend on education if the structure of education is flawed. We should design a good education structure and then pay what that costs.

Metaphor: If your car has suspension damage putting in a new transmission is expensive, but it doesn't solve the problem of sparks flying while you drive down the road. You should look at what is broken and then pay to fix that. Maybe it will be cheaper, or maybe it will be more expensive. It depends on how bad the suspension is damaged.
 
rudy said:
They are still paying for property tax, now if they are doing something illegal then that is up to law enforcement or someone to report it. But just because you have enough money and decide to live in a place that costs 12k in taxes doesn't mean other people are leaches if they prefer to live in a way that is cheaper. For instance I take property tax into account when I purchase a home, don't make your property taxes too high or I will look elsewhere. Second I am sure many immigrants legal or illegal are paying a lot more than 12k per year in CA.
Click to expand...

If a residence has 10 kids and is paying $12,000 a year in property taxes they are essentially paying $1200 per year per kid.
If the neighbor has 2 kids and is paying $12,000 a year in property taxes they are paying $6,000 a year per kid.

The residence with 2 kids is effectively paying more for education of their kids.
The logic of this argument is flawed anyways because if you do not have kids you are still paying property tax.

The real question is why have they not sold their home and moved to a low tax state with a better living standard?
 
kju1 said:
Ok so conversely you are entirely ok with the government getting next to nothing when they go from being worth 100 million to 10 million overnight because they were overvalued? Property values are more stable and predictable...which is better for a tax base than the market which can be very volatile.
Click to expand...
For every company that does that the opposite happens. And you can stipulate a Monthy basis to average the year. I mean are you begrudging a company that is down on its luck? Or, do you just begrude them?

The purpose of taxes are not to "stick it to 'em".
 
Krazy925 said:
About to buy a 3/2 condo in the lake area around Oakland. Kicking around the idea of just buying the old family home in Danville instead. Property valued in the mid-90s makes this valuable.

Should have kept the 5 bedroom on lake Merced but that was a total fucking disaster.
Click to expand...
Don't buy the house, property gets reassessed on sales, it needs to be willed in a direct line, i.e. grandparents or parents. Happened to my aunt who had a VIctorian willed to her by her aunt, property got reassessed to just under a million, she ends up using it as a rental and that pays her more than both her husband's retirements combined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top