Tying to income means you'll have a ton of trust funders claiming 0 and funneling through trusts/corps.
Just change it so it only kicks in after a decade and is non-transferable, as well as phases out at 1 million in market value averaged over preceding 3 years.
It's everyone's (least) favorite political situation.
Do I vote for the flawed incremental progress that's on the table, or hold out for a better solution that may never come?
I will probably vote yes on this. Prop 13 was passed in 1978 and it's taken 42 years (by the time 2020 comes) to get any kind of reform on the ballot, so split roll it is!
This also aligns with my general stance of "Pay your taxes already so we can continue to have the civilization that comes with functioning government."
It's everyone's (least) favorite political situation.
Do I vote for the flawed incremental progress that's on the table, or hold out for a better solution that may never come?
I will probably vote yes on this. Prop 13 was passed in 1978 and it's taken 42 years (by the time 2020 comes) to get any kind of reform on the ballot, so split roll it is!
This also aligns with my general stance of "Pay your taxes already so we can continue to have the civilization that comes with functioning government."
I view this as incremental first step.
Incremental second step is "get rid of prop 13 on residential properties which are not primary residences."
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
She, despite being LGBT herself, voted twice to block same-sex marriage.
Personally, I'd rather not give her another 12 year term. Your mileage may vary.
How fitting! I already filled in no when I was looking her up on ballotpedia the other day. I didn't know about this tidbit, but I am glad to know now.
She, despite being LGBT herself, voted twice to block same-sex marriage.
Personally, I'd rather not give her another 12 year term. Your mileage may vary.
How fitting! I already filled in no when I was looking her up on ballotpedia the other day. I didn't know about this tidbit, but I am glad to know now.
Ha, I was looking at her and wondering, "Hmm, it looks like she must have been nominated by a Republican... She must be awful..."
And who knew, I was right!
Ha, although, look nation, an actually functional way of having a supreme court. 12 year terms with a vote yay/nay to retain the justice. It's infinity times better than the US Supreme Court!
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So what is the verdict on prop 8? One hand, the companies don't like this. Other hand, this doesn't seem to actually address the issue?
So what is the verdict on prop 8? One hand, the companies don't like this. Other hand, this doesn't seem to actually address the issue?
I was real torn on that one. I ended up voting for it, personally. Because I am pretty sure companies like DeVita will fuck over their patients either way.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The sheer amount of money that has been poured into the No side by medical companies is making me kinda want to go Yes, but this is the last one I'm really waffling on myself. This is the primary argument against which I kinda agree with (which boils down to good idea, poor implementation)
Prop 8 gets back at the companies by threatening their revenues. Prop 8 would dictate that dialysis clinics charge no more than what it costs to provide direct patient care and quality improvement, plus a 15% markup. Administrative costs (i.e., management) are pointedly missing. Allowable costs may only include staff wages and benefits, drugs and medical supplies, facilities and accounting systems. And cans of Raid, I assume.
DaVita and Fresenius would thus be forced to spend more on workers, supplies, and systems if they want more revenue. And they’ll have just 15% above those allowable expenses for administration, advertising, and profit.
What will the companies actually do if Prop 8 passes? Anything and everything to preserve their profit margins, exactly as you’d expect. This includes lawsuits, accounting tricks, under-the-table deals with equipment and pharmaceutical suppliers, inflation of IT contracts, and the closure of suddenly unprofitable clinics, primarily those in less populated areas.
When that happens, it won’t be good for anyone: not DaVita or Fresenius, not the laid-off workers, and not the patients, who will have to travel much farther for their thrice-weekly lifesaving treatments. I’m pretty sure this isn’t what the backers of Prop 8 have in mind.
I’m no opponent of labor unions. But Prop 8 is a miscalculation that will backfire horribly. Not only will the dialysis companies probably squirm out of the profit clamp, but the union will lose its leverage, and workers will suffer.
If anyone's still thinking on the others, here's where I'm landing (this has been discussed more in the state elections thread):
1: Yes, allocation isn't where I'd put it, but every bit helps.
2: Yes, it makes sense.
3: No - too few beneficiaries for something to be applied state-wide. But i won't be heartbroken when it wins
4: My other waffle, but leaning no. So many of these in the time I've been here, it shouldn't be considered a regular source of funding, and the CEOs of the hospitals apparently get crazy bonuses for acquiring funding.
5: Hell no
6: No
7: yes
8: see above
10: yes, erring on the side of "allowing municipalities"
11: No, this one's a trap. vote no.
12: yes
The sheer amount of money that has been poured into the No side by medical companies is making me kinda want to go Yes, but this is the last one I'm really waffling on myself. This is the primary argument against which I kinda agree with (which boils down to good idea, poor implementation)
Prop 8 gets back at the companies by threatening their revenues. Prop 8 would dictate that dialysis clinics charge no more than what it costs to provide direct patient care and quality improvement, plus a 15% markup. Administrative costs (i.e., management) are pointedly missing. Allowable costs may only include staff wages and benefits, drugs and medical supplies, facilities and accounting systems. And cans of Raid, I assume.
DaVita and Fresenius would thus be forced to spend more on workers, supplies, and systems if they want more revenue. And they’ll have just 15% above those allowable expenses for administration, advertising, and profit.
What will the companies actually do if Prop 8 passes? Anything and everything to preserve their profit margins, exactly as you’d expect. This includes lawsuits, accounting tricks, under-the-table deals with equipment and pharmaceutical suppliers, inflation of IT contracts, and the closure of suddenly unprofitable clinics, primarily those in less populated areas.
When that happens, it won’t be good for anyone: not DaVita or Fresenius, not the laid-off workers, and not the patients, who will have to travel much farther for their thrice-weekly lifesaving treatments. I’m pretty sure this isn’t what the backers of Prop 8 have in mind.
I’m no opponent of labor unions. But Prop 8 is a miscalculation that will backfire horribly. Not only will the dialysis companies probably squirm out of the profit clamp, but the union will lose its leverage, and workers will suffer.
I'm not a fan of the 'Good Idea, Bad Implementation' argument personally, because the implementation will NEVER be perfect. I've also never personally seen one of these get voted down and then later replaced with a better version. Instead, we just get NO implementation of any kind.
As for what they'll do if it passes.. Yeah, they are going to be shady as fuck. But they are ALREADY shady as fuck, and I am even less an fan of the argument of "If we try to stop them doing #terriblething# they might do #otherterrriblething#!"
I won't fault anyone making the other choice or having trouble deciding. It's a hard call, effectively a hostage situation. And to be honest I still wonder if I made the right call myself.
-edit-
Also, 15% profit margin seems real fair to me.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The sheer amount of money that has been poured into the No side by medical companies is making me kinda want to go Yes, but this is the last one I'm really waffling on myself. This is the primary argument against which I kinda agree with (which boils down to good idea, poor implementation)
Prop 8 gets back at the companies by threatening their revenues. Prop 8 would dictate that dialysis clinics charge no more than what it costs to provide direct patient care and quality improvement, plus a 15% markup. Administrative costs (i.e., management) are pointedly missing. Allowable costs may only include staff wages and benefits, drugs and medical supplies, facilities and accounting systems. And cans of Raid, I assume.
DaVita and Fresenius would thus be forced to spend more on workers, supplies, and systems if they want more revenue. And they’ll have just 15% above those allowable expenses for administration, advertising, and profit.
What will the companies actually do if Prop 8 passes? Anything and everything to preserve their profit margins, exactly as you’d expect. This includes lawsuits, accounting tricks, under-the-table deals with equipment and pharmaceutical suppliers, inflation of IT contracts, and the closure of suddenly unprofitable clinics, primarily those in less populated areas.
When that happens, it won’t be good for anyone: not DaVita or Fresenius, not the laid-off workers, and not the patients, who will have to travel much farther for their thrice-weekly lifesaving treatments. I’m pretty sure this isn’t what the backers of Prop 8 have in mind.
I’m no opponent of labor unions. But Prop 8 is a miscalculation that will backfire horribly. Not only will the dialysis companies probably squirm out of the profit clamp, but the union will lose its leverage, and workers will suffer.
I'm not a fan of the 'Good Idea, Bad Implementation' argument personally, because the implementation will NEVER be perfect. I've also never personally seen one of these get voted down and then later replaced with a better version. Instead, we just get NO implementation of any kind.
As for what they'll do if it passes.. Yeah, they are going to be shady as fuck. But they are ALREADY shady as fuck, and I am even less an fan of the argument of "If we try to stop them doing #terriblething# they might do #otherterrriblething#!"
I won't fault anyone making the other choice or having trouble deciding. It's a hard call, effectively a hostage situation. And to be honest I still wonder if I made the right call myself.
-edit-
Also, 15% profit margin seems real fair to me.
A 15% margin that doesn't include management seems pretty low to me, but I'm onboard with something is better than nothing so voted yes. I think it's far more likely it passes and then if it is unworkable gets modified than not passing and something better getting implemented.
Stolen from Facebook. Tagging @ElJeffe because I know he's in-county, too.
The election is tomorrow, and I wanted to let you know 5 facts to make your election night viewing of local races in Sacramento County more enjoyable:
1. This website uploads the fastest results, so use this one: https://eresults.saccounty.net/. Don't use the fancy looking colorful website, it gets slower updates.
2. The first update will be pushed out sometime between 8:00-8:05pm. This update will include any vote by mail ballots, vote center ballots, and conditional voter registration ballots counted by 3pm on Election Day. At 3pm, the elections office is clearing the rooms and setting up the tabulators for Vote Center ballots only and will stop counting the absentees for the day.
3. The next updates will be at 10:00pm, midnight, and 2:00am. These will all be election day vote center ballots only. Don't expect a huge numbers jump because most voters don't vote at vote centers. Unless races are REALLY close, you aren't going to see many changes happening during these updates.
4. The next update will come either Wednesday or Thursday, and it will be a very large update that starts to count the people who physically dropped off absentees on election day.
5. It's too far out to know the timetable for updates after this one, so stay tuned for the most up-to-date information.
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
Some results from last night:
Looks like prop 6 will fail, so the gas tax will NOT be repealed, which is good news to maintain infrastructure.
Unfortunately it looks like California pulled another dumb and voted down prop 10, because despite our absolutely bonkers rent situation, voters are freaking allergic to rent control.
And in somewhat depressing news, Feinstein is going to stay right where she is. I'd be more upset if the senate weren't a lost cause at this point, but her appeasement over the last two years has been grounds enough for her to get voted out, in my opinion.
Governor: Dem, not surprising
Lt Gov: Both candidates were Dem, the one with the $$$ backing won
Insurance Commissioner: Currently D has a slight lead over RI, which surprises me
Superintendent: Charter Schools has a slight lead over Unions
Controller/SoS/Treasurer: Dems cruise to victory
Legislature is trending towards supermajorities in both houses.
Prop 1 is passing by 8-ish points
Prop 2 is passing by almost 2:1 odds
Prop 3 is losing (!) by around 5 points
Prop 4 is passing by almost 2:1 odds
Prop 5 lost hooray
Prop 6 lost hooray
Prop 7 won in a landslide
Prop 8 lost in a landslide
Prop 10 lost by 2:1 odds
Prop 12 passed
Prop 11 lost hard. That's the real "fuck" of the evening for CA.
And no, DLS has literally zero changes right now. Only thing that changes is if the feds allow for "DST year round" to be an option, we can go to that.
Sucks that 10 lost but can't say I'm surprised, hopefully Prop 1 can actually help get some new supply built here in the Bay area.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
Sucks that 10 lost but can't say I'm surprised, hopefully Prop 1 can actually help get some new supply built here in the Bay area.
Bay area's problem is, and will continue to be, zoning.
The state as a whole's problem is going to be that the people who decide what houses to build are construction companies, and they build whatever is most profitable, not whatever is most needed.
I was really torn on that one. Like, more training and some mental health services are definitely good, given the shit EMTs deal with on a daily basis. On the other hand, given that they already do a grueling job, requiring them to be on-call during breaks in event of an emergency - which, isn't pretty much everything they do an emergency? It's in the job title FFS - is a pretty dick move when the companies could just hire more people. If your whole business is providing emergency services, you should be required to do so without violating labor laws.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
Yeah I don't think the rebuttal message to 11 really got out there.
On it's face people are going to read that and be like ok sure, without really thinking about it meaning private ambulance companies mostly just want to not have to hire enough staff to cover peoples breaks and lunches.
+2
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
Given the way that the ads and campaigning on Prop 11 were handled, I have absolutely zero surprise that it passed. The voter information booklet didn't even have an "against" argument in it, and "We need to help people in emergencies!!" is hard to make a case against.
That being said, I will also have absolutely zero surprise when Prop 11 is essentially used to royally fuck EMTs. I have every confidence that this is basically wage fuckery, pure and simple.
Prop 11 was really confusing, especially when it said one thing but then a bunch of different voices are saying it means something completely different and just agh.
Prop 10 would've absolutely ruined renting for future generations even moreso than it already has been ruined for us now. So glad it failed.
Rent control does not work and should really be removed entirely from California. Countless studies show this.
Actually that would have been Prop 5, so thank goodness that failed.
Rent control isn't a fundamentally BAD thing to control certain problems in the markets, and tenants do deserve generous protections, but rent control means fewer rental houses being built not less. Rent control is the answer if you have like, a monopolistic landlords consortium creating artificial supply constraints.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Y'all need public housing. Rent control can't do shit when you rely on the private market to provide solutions to the problem that the private market created in the first place.
Yep. All the people I knew in SF that qualified for rent control either subleased on the down low for profit or kept it as their "other" place with a roommate and lived in another city for cheaper.
0
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Prop 10 would've absolutely ruined renting for future generations even moreso than it already has been ruined for us now. So glad it failed.
Rent control does not work and should really be removed entirely from California. Countless studies show this.
Actually that would have been Prop 5, so thank goodness that failed.
Rent control isn't a fundamentally BAD thing to control certain problems in the markets, and tenants do deserve generous protections, but rent control means fewer rental houses being built not less. Rent control is the answer if you have like, a monopolistic landlords consortium creating artificial supply constraints.
As opposed to the oh-so-affordable rental options that are currently being built? Any time something new goes up, the price is ridiculous. Nothing affordable is being built anyway. I would've appreciated some regulations to prevent my existing rent from going up 10% just because my landlord feels like a payday. It's not even once a year! It's whenever the hell he feels like it.
Prop 10 wasn't even going to enact rent control. It was going to give municipalities more options to enact rent control. I'm not saying it was the answer to all the woes here, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to propose that rent control would've stifled the construction of affordable rental homes, because those aren't happening regardless.
I don't know how anyone raises a family in LA. In my neighborhood, 1 bedrooms start at $1850. If you want a 3 bedroom, you're looking at almost 4k/mo. God forbid you need child care.
Prop 5 may be coming back in 2020, with two new added provisions.
Eliminating Prop. 13 tax-rate transfers on inherited homes used as rentals or second homes.
Closing a loophole that allows commercial real estate buyers to avoid higher taxes after a sale. Normally, tax assessments rise to market values after real estate changes hands.
Probably to muddy the water for the prop which is already on the ballot to eliminate commercial prop 13
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The Democrats have a super-duper majority in the legislature, is there anything they can do to sort out the hot mess that is all the tax related propositions?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
Just change it so it only kicks in after a decade and is non-transferable, as well as phases out at 1 million in market value averaged over preceding 3 years.
Do I vote for the flawed incremental progress that's on the table, or hold out for a better solution that may never come?
I will probably vote yes on this. Prop 13 was passed in 1978 and it's taken 42 years (by the time 2020 comes) to get any kind of reform on the ballot, so split roll it is!
This also aligns with my general stance of "Pay your taxes already so we can continue to have the civilization that comes with functioning government."
I view this as incremental first step.
Incremental second step is "get rid of prop 13 on residential properties which are not primary residences."
Tomorrow is the last day to register.
I'm ready to rock and roll.
My poling place is so close to where I live that it's just a short walk to get over there.
Specifically Carol Corrigan, who is part of the CA Supreme Court.
http://democratsforequality.org/no-on-justice-carol-corrigan/
She, despite being LGBT herself, voted twice to block same-sex marriage.
Personally, I'd rather not give her another 12 year term. Your mileage may vary.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Too bad D&D doesn't have its own voter guide for this election.
How fitting! I already filled in no when I was looking her up on ballotpedia the other day. I didn't know about this tidbit, but I am glad to know now.
My Backloggery
Ha, I was looking at her and wondering, "Hmm, it looks like she must have been nominated by a Republican... She must be awful..."
And who knew, I was right!
Ha, although, look nation, an actually functional way of having a supreme court. 12 year terms with a vote yay/nay to retain the justice. It's infinity times better than the US Supreme Court!
I was real torn on that one. I ended up voting for it, personally. Because I am pretty sure companies like DeVita will fuck over their patients either way.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
2: Yes, it makes sense.
3: No - too few beneficiaries for something to be applied state-wide. But i won't be heartbroken when it wins
4: My other waffle, but leaning no. So many of these in the time I've been here, it shouldn't be considered a regular source of funding, and the CEOs of the hospitals apparently get crazy bonuses for acquiring funding.
5: Hell no
6: No
7: yes
8: see above
10: yes, erring on the side of "allowing municipalities"
11: No, this one's a trap. vote no.
12: yes
I'm not a fan of the 'Good Idea, Bad Implementation' argument personally, because the implementation will NEVER be perfect. I've also never personally seen one of these get voted down and then later replaced with a better version. Instead, we just get NO implementation of any kind.
As for what they'll do if it passes.. Yeah, they are going to be shady as fuck. But they are ALREADY shady as fuck, and I am even less an fan of the argument of "If we try to stop them doing #terriblething# they might do #otherterrriblething#!"
I won't fault anyone making the other choice or having trouble deciding. It's a hard call, effectively a hostage situation. And to be honest I still wonder if I made the right call myself.
-edit-
Also, 15% profit margin seems real fair to me.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
A 15% margin that doesn't include management seems pretty low to me, but I'm onboard with something is better than nothing so voted yes. I think it's far more likely it passes and then if it is unworkable gets modified than not passing and something better getting implemented.
e: I assume other counties will be similar?
Best I could find on short notice, which looks to be someone else who was annoyed at the same thing and collated everything himself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/9u6vbw/ca_judicial_candidates_and_resource_for_voter/
@JMan711 @Doodmann
Looks like prop 6 will fail, so the gas tax will NOT be repealed, which is good news to maintain infrastructure.
Unfortunately it looks like California pulled another dumb and voted down prop 10, because despite our absolutely bonkers rent situation, voters are freaking allergic to rent control.
And in somewhat depressing news, Feinstein is going to stay right where she is. I'd be more upset if the senate weren't a lost cause at this point, but her appeasement over the last two years has been grounds enough for her to get voted out, in my opinion.
Governor: Dem, not surprising
Lt Gov: Both candidates were Dem, the one with the $$$ backing won
Insurance Commissioner: Currently D has a slight lead over RI, which surprises me
Superintendent: Charter Schools has a slight lead over Unions
Controller/SoS/Treasurer: Dems cruise to victory
Legislature is trending towards supermajorities in both houses.
Prop 1 is passing by 8-ish points
Prop 2 is passing by almost 2:1 odds
Prop 3 is losing (!) by around 5 points
Prop 4 is passing by almost 2:1 odds
Prop 5 lost hooray
Prop 6 lost hooray
Prop 7 won in a landslide
Prop 8 lost in a landslide
Prop 10 lost by 2:1 odds
Prop 12 passed
Also what happened with 11?
Prop 11 lost hard. That's the real "fuck" of the evening for CA.
And no, DLS has literally zero changes right now. Only thing that changes is if the feds allow for "DST year round" to be an option, we can go to that.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/06/california-election-results-november-2018/amp/
Sucks that 10 lost but can't say I'm surprised, hopefully Prop 1 can actually help get some new supply built here in the Bay area.
Bay area's problem is, and will continue to be, zoning.
The state as a whole's problem is going to be that the people who decide what houses to build are construction companies, and they build whatever is most profitable, not whatever is most needed.
Yeah. Prop 11 WON hard, which is the "fuck" scenario. The bad thing happened with regards to prop 11. That's what I meant :P
On it's face people are going to read that and be like ok sure, without really thinking about it meaning private ambulance companies mostly just want to not have to hire enough staff to cover peoples breaks and lunches.
That being said, I will also have absolutely zero surprise when Prop 11 is essentially used to royally fuck EMTs. I have every confidence that this is basically wage fuckery, pure and simple.
Superintendent race update:
Thurmond (Unions) has pulled ahead of Tuck (Charters)
Rent control does not work and should really be removed entirely from California. Countless studies show this.
Actually that would have been Prop 5, so thank goodness that failed.
Rent control isn't a fundamentally BAD thing to control certain problems in the markets, and tenants do deserve generous protections, but rent control means fewer rental houses being built not less. Rent control is the answer if you have like, a monopolistic landlords consortium creating artificial supply constraints.
As opposed to the oh-so-affordable rental options that are currently being built? Any time something new goes up, the price is ridiculous. Nothing affordable is being built anyway. I would've appreciated some regulations to prevent my existing rent from going up 10% just because my landlord feels like a payday. It's not even once a year! It's whenever the hell he feels like it.
Prop 10 wasn't even going to enact rent control. It was going to give municipalities more options to enact rent control. I'm not saying it was the answer to all the woes here, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to propose that rent control would've stifled the construction of affordable rental homes, because those aren't happening regardless.
Prop 5 may be coming back in 2020, with two new added provisions.
Eliminating Prop. 13 tax-rate transfers on inherited homes used as rentals or second homes.
Closing a loophole that allows commercial real estate buyers to avoid higher taxes after a sale. Normally, tax assessments rise to market values after real estate changes hands.
Probably to muddy the water for the prop which is already on the ballot to eliminate commercial prop 13