Common‐Sense Policy Reforms for California Housing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 авг 2021
- California's housing crisis is creating substantial financial distress for its residents. Because California incomes are only moderately higher than the national average, housing costs are much higher, exacerbating homelessness and poverty and squeezing household budgets to the point that they are significantly lowering the quality of life, particularly for low‐ and middle‐income households.
Policies and regulations that raise the cost of building and/or limit building-particularly near the coastal locations of the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego-are the primary reasons why housing prices and rents have increased so much. Constraints on supply are the primary driver of California’s housing crisis.
Therefore, California policymakers should undertake reforms, including: limiting the effects of urban‐growth boundaries and other land‐use restrictions so as to allow additional housing construction; eliminating regulations that artificially drive up construction costs, such as prevailing‐wage requirements; limiting construction permit fees; reforming the California Environmental Quality Act; limiting the power of Local Agency Formation Commissions; and eliminating unnecessary and exclusionary zoning restrictions.
In the absence of substantial reforms, California’s housing crisis will become more severe and economic inequality will expand. Middle‐income households, particularly those with school‐age children, will relocate outside of California so that the state will become primarily home to high‐income households that can afford the high housing costs.
More Information: www.cato.org/policy-analysis/...
www.Cato.org
Lots of progress was made this year during the last legislative session. They still need to upzone the entire state. And they need to just force cities to allow construction by right in areas where the relative environmental impacts are already known.
Hehe I thought for sure this was going to be some way to get gold prices to rise like backing banking with it. “Everyone just needs to buy a lil gold and let’s do the gold standard!” ;)
Project tax the rich or pay cuts across the board for non labor workers?
Tax the rich? The top 10% are the only net-taxpayers in the country, which means they pay more in than they receive, unlike everyone else, myself included. I’m tired of hearing people target the innovators and property rights by claiming the rich don’t “pay their fair share.”
With the exception of what’s currently being done to finance a portion of the current budget and allocations, with the government increasing the monetary supply and inducing rampant inflation that really only benefits real-time day traders, aka Wall Street, who price the inflation into markets before we do, which by the way causes wages to severely lag behind price inflation and thus cost of living, the only way the government has any tax receipts on file is derived from net-taxpayers.
What irrationality it takes to assume that no one is paying net-taxes, yet the government is able to annually spend about 5 trillion on Social Security and Medicare alone. The only reason the government is still running is because of the people you say aren’t paying their fair share - they pay far more than their fair share, while you pay absolutely nothing and the government takes from them to redistribute their property to you. So, shut your self-entitled, intellectually lazy pie hole. Seriously, what makes you think you and I aren’t paying taxes, the rich either aren’t paying their share or paying at all, when there’s literally over a hundred trillion in unfounded debt obligation year over year? Someone is obviously paying for it, and it ain’t you and I, buddy-boy, it’s the individuals who clawed their way to the top and have made possible this miraculous, aberration of quality living we so enjoy and then do everything to tear it down out of our own ignorance.
You would be a homeless, starving, tattered rag and war torn street thug, if it weren’t for the people, who comprise the rich, providing for the innovations and utilization of their property to engage in efficient productivity of it. So, with all due respect to my fellow American, but shut your mouth you ungrateful, Starbucks-sipping, Nike-wearing, neo-Fascist mouthpiece.
@@VindiceLibertas The middle class pays net taxes too, you’re fixated on income taxes. However, like you said, those of higher incomes do pay more. Top 20% pays 68% of all federal taxes and top 40% pays 86% (although ~40% is really upper middle class) This is of course before state and local taxes, but I digress. While surely some who claim that the wealthy ought to “pay their fair share” think that the rich tax dodge endlessly, others simply would like a more progressive taxation system in regards to raw rates. (I.E. Raising the top marginal tax rate from 37% to 45%, or the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%; rates not uncommon in the developed world) Of course, those with great amounts of wealth will have much more to give in taxes. Hence why ever developed nation has a progressive taxation system; ensuring (something charities cannot do) the welfare of the citizens is beneficial to the health of the economy and the nation as a whole, and that can’t often be financed with a flat tax rate. (Without like crushing the middle class with higher tax rates. For while they pay lower net taxes, they aren’t as financially comfortable as their more wealthy counterparts.) Studies have shown that if Medicaid was cut, for instance, economic growth would slow. Having 20% of the population’s spending power reduced by high medical costs is not great for business it turns out. Ultimately speaking, while those innovators have done great wonders for society, let’s not forgot who gave them their profits. They got rich off of us, off of our labor or our dollars, and so it only makes sense that they would give back more. Our well-being is their well-being in the long run, in other words. For even in a town hall with a bunch of Trump supporters, one strong-headed woman proclaimed “They got rich because of us! It’s time they pay us back!” While you might argue that they have paid us back in their products or services, if we aren’t doing so well financially, there would be no products or services paid for. So no, not everyone who would like higher tax rates is a California liberal with purple hair, as raising the corporate tax rate is a popular opinion amongst the masses. I’m also unsure as to why you feel the need to be so short with a random RUclips commenter or how raising corporate taxes is by any means “neo-fascist” but Ig anything people disagree with nowadays is evil and morally apprehensible. What sad times we’re living in.
@@jacoblawhern3007,
Firstly, there really is no static "middle-class," except for those who choose not to move up income bracket, predominantly as a consequence of the so-called "progressive" tax system you advocate. It's the reason my stepfather refused to move up from $80k to $100k+ when offered a pay raise, promotion, or new employment. He would have ended up making less, after taxes, than he had at his job making $80k/yr. Some progressive tax system, huh? That happens all throughout the brackets, where you end up earning less than you had before, on a nominal dollar basis, which disproportionately impacts the very individuals you tout as middle and upper-middle class. Moreover, according to a left-wing, "social welfare" academic, Mark. R. Rank, more than 12% of Americans will find themselves in the top 1% of income earners at some point in time, for at least 1 year; over 39% will be in the top 5%; and more than 50% will be in the top 10%. Accumulation of capital, among advancements in careers and other factors, are non-linear, all of which is happening at the same time at all times, with individuals moving in and out of income brackets. Arguably, the most immobile "class" of people are the ones who rely upon Social Security and Medicare (you referenced Medicaid) to survive. More on that later.
What is a business or corporation anyway? It's just a fictitious entity, of which is an abstraction of laborers voluntarily working together to produce and/or supply a market demand. When you redirect resources from them, toward the government, it's that much less available for reinvesting in the business, cutting prices, and increasing pay. There is no way to divert those resources, centralize or even decentralize the decision-making in their allocation, without causing deadweight loss, and there is no way to divert resources without diverting them from the worker. Fringe benefits, such as health insurance and other government mandated or voluntarily supplied benefits are part of the cost to higher an employee, which is negated from their compensatory rate as well, as are the so-called "social security taxes" people like to pretend come out of the pocket of some fictitious "corporation," as if that magical money-bag is what pays taxes - it's linguistic propaganda. No, the PEOPLE pay taxes, the workers pay the taxes, the consumers are paying the taxes with less demand for their labor, higher prices, and less employment and less compensation. Fundamentally, anything you take is a cost passed down to both the workers and consumers, one in the same, as are the regulatory costs of compliance for repeating the same test on a product hundreds and thousands of times under the purview of the permanent, federal job-security and monopoly soup, FDA (Food and Drug Administration), who think it's a great idea to repetitively test anthrax on dogs, torturing and killing them in the process, on MY DIME and at the expense of invaluable time I've traded away with my family, replicating this program in a dozen different departments and agencies. When they tax you and I, they're robbing us of our happiness and time, and then they're using those monies to rob us and our cohabitants some more.
Second, your perceived need of requiring greater reallocation of resources, taken from private hands, earned by the toils of their own labors, then to be turned over to the government for allocation, is based upon the growing and perceived need for the government to spend more, but I'd like to point out this isn't necessary to produce equal or greater outcomes than those you and I would both like to see. Since we're already on the topic of healthcare, we can start here, but this is an issue for various industries that're either partially or wholly nationalized. The healthcare industry is a great example of partial nationalization, before we even mention Medicare or state-operated healthcare facilities. For one, during the Republican administration of William Taft, a regulation, which exists to this very day, was implemented restricting the supply of healthcare workers to the labor market. There is a maximum number of licenses allowed to be issued for individuals to practice and supply the market with their labor. Because this labor is an intermediary to the production of healthcare goods and services, this results in artificially lower supply of healthcare goods and services, which induces a state of endless price inflation, with demand exceeding supply, and rationing. There are a plethora other regulatory interventions that have been made since, which have only served to result in the identical consequences, which you may feel free to read at greater length by reviewing the report produced by Milton Friedman, at Mises.org: mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
As mentioned before, not only do these anti-competition, monopoly-inducing regulations continue to induce artificial scarcity and price inflation within the markets, but they also forced doctors to ration their own supply of labor upon consumers, which has been extremely deadly for the American people. For instance, it led to the decades-long, and continuing, medical malpractice crisis of the 1960s. With demand exceeding supply, doctors are faced with the choice to choose between dozens of patients that come into their facilities, often with life-threatening conditions or injuries, especially in hospitals. So, while they operate on one patient, they have others dying, because they're unable to handle the in-flow of patients (demand for their services) and are making mistakes during the facilitation of those services. This is why medical malpractice is the number one cause of death in the United States, while this career field has the highest rate of suicide among its laborers, who often work several days without a single moment of rest - it's a significant problem plaguing the industry.
Lastly, it's true you're going to require more tax collection to continue maintaining policy as it currently is, but the better alternative is no longer obstructing the function of markets to such it's perceived as necessary and robbing people of their lives. If the appropriate reforms, as suggested in the report, were pursued, you'd be able to significantly cut spending, dissolve all public healthcare programs, while offering a cheaper, more efficient, and higher quality alternative of providing ALL Americans with a direct subsidy to attain private, catastrophic health insurance. But you must understand, the key to attaining that very outcome is by addressing the root problems as to why the markets are not functioning as they should and resulting in our inability to afford doing so. Only then can you offer healthcare to everyone, by leveraging the power free markets, free of deadweight loss and operating efficiently. The same can be said for public transit in most cities in the United States. This would grow the economy, as lower prices correlating to greater supply, with markets reaching an equilibrium, would result in higher consumption power for Americans (able to buy more for less), and increased rate of growth in compensation for laborers, given the increased demand for labor as a result of both increased accessibility and demand for the goods and services (because of lower prices) such labor is intermediary. All of this would then free up trillions of dollars in annual capital that can then be allocated to other markets, as a result of expanding expendable income for Americans, as they'd then be able to consume more from other markets likewise, which also translates to increased demand for the labors involved in those markets. In fact, it would free up so much capital that new markets would arise within our economy, from among the self-organizing and free populace empowered to do so by their right of voluntary exchange, which is so infringed upon by the aforementioned, Syndicalist policies that are, in fact, Fascist or Socialist, and harming our people.
No one said all Trump supporters were economic majors, and I never said they don't have a burgeoning, misguided political constituency, just as the left does, which is significantly harmful to the future prospects of our people remaining free, what little remains as it is already. Frankly, I think you're all undeserving my forefathers sacrifices for your liberties so conveniently taken for granted, traded away for false promises of prosperity under the boot of enslavement. That's precisely why we're having this conversation to begin with, because you are unworthy, and in time, you will outnumber the few voices that truly speak for the best interests of the people and reason, reaping what is sown. There can be no doubt.
@@jacoblawhern3007,
Fascism, or Syndicalism, is centralized planning, with a largely nationalized or Socialist/state-run economy, whereby any marginally private commercial activities are regulated by the laws implemented by corporate and labor cartels. It merges business and unions together, whereby representation by geography is supplanted with representation by trade and industry. Don't even TRY to pretend we have anything else in this country after the 17th Amendment making senators popularly-elective. That's all this country has been for a century, and the reality is capitalism - that is, self-ownership and the freedom to engage in voluntary exchange (the state in which slavery is absent from among man) - is PROGRESSIVELY being suffocated under the carpet-bagging weight of the regressive, so-called "progressive."
Be a little less concerned with doing what "everyone else is doing" and what's "common among other developed nations..." Communism was common among more than half the globe, in fact it has been throughout most the history of our species, with common ownership the norm, but we know all too well why our species spent millions of years in famine, and why it repeated itself when the world chose to regress toward that path once more, why it failed in early America and at Plymouth Rock, or even Rome and many other Platonian catastrophes birthed after his nonsense writing, Republic. If our species was an experiment, and the objective was its successful replication and autonomy into the future, I'd start anew. All I'm doing is wasting my time; there's no hope for any of it. You aren't going to comprehend and accept what I've stated, nor will you accept reality as it is and how it contradicts what you've claimed. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. Why do I even bother? It's a waste of time.
I like how my comment keeps getting removed. It's the only way your faction will succeed in subverting the public, relying upon their ignorance to do so. People, like myself, are shutdown, silenced, and banned. Digital book burning is what you're all doing. Can't have anyone reading, writing, or thinking any wrongthink.