|
|
|
|
|
|
by pydry
1181 days ago
|
|
|
Top 1% of earners != Top 1% of wealth. The top 1% of earners (doctors, lawyers, dentists) usually get shafted with income taxes while the top 1% rentiers get taxed very little - especially in California (which has very low property taxes). The rentiers usually try to rhetorically conflate the two - primarily because the 1% of earners are taxed a lot and there is an obvious societal downside to taxing (e.g. dentists) more (we need their skills) but especially because the only societal downside to taxing a rentier more is by incorrectly identifying/taxing rentier behavior. |
|
|
In most states there are annual property taxes based on it's value. Those go to schools, roads, and whatnot.
Here in California we have statewide rent control, in LA there is a seemingly never ending eviction moratorium...
Hell, I sold my house a couple of years ago to RENT in a better area because it's cheaper and easier! Let the evil landlord deal with all of the headaches. It's a pain in the neck I don't need.
Rentiers are taking on great risk and responsibility, especially in socialist states like California. They deserve the reward. Often, rentiers that own large complexes like those discussed in the article are groups. Not single individuals. It's a stressful business. Have you personally dealt with code enforcement actions?
What good is wealth if it's just on paper?