On Sun, 20 May 2012, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Once again, I provide hard numbers and you (and everyone else weighing
>> in in support of this silly notion) won't even touch them.
>And explain why, and have the explanation ignored.
Give me a break. It was said that rents for dwellings would go up. I
proved that wrong. Then *you* said that businesses would pass on
increased costs. I showed that was even more unlikely than rents for
apartments/houses going up. Both times with a real life property tax
increase proposal that I'll be voting on come November.
If *any* of you really thought that it would cause homelessness, you
should be trying to persuade me not to vote for this increase in taxes
(I am inclined to vote Yes at the moment).
As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
context?
-- "Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden
In article <8ncjr7pd7983ob00llbh02vr5a9kph4...@4ax.com>,
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
> material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
> things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
> context?
Because the relevant point--that there isn't some minimal amount that pushes someone over a line--could be made briefly. As could the other relevant point--that Keith was thinking in continuous terms and you in discrete terms, and you thus took his statement more literally than it was intended.
Having made both points, there wasn't any reason for lengthy responses to posts which showed no evidence that you had understood them.
>> As an aside, why is it that you'll make 800 line (most of it quoted
>> material) posts in answer to DD-B on philosophical and theoretical
>> things, but when I provide hard data, you snip away almost *all*
>> context?
>Because the relevant point--that there isn't some minimal amount that >pushes someone over a line--could be made briefly.
Which is why I endeavored to prove that there would be *no* increase in
cost to the consumer - that the increase would be at the noise level for
the property owners.
If there is no increase in cost to the consumer, then there cannot be
anyone pushed over the edge into homelessness.
>As could the other >relevant point--that Keith was thinking in continuous terms and you in >discrete terms, and you thus took his statement more literally than it >was intended.
Keith said "every" increase in property taxes made a "few" people
homeless, Professor. A "few" is a minimum of two. That is *not*
thinking in "continuous terms" - at least not as you explained it in
terms of fractional persons.
-- "The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
In article <UoKdnVSrfoCmEynSnZ2dnUVZ_oudn...@earthlink.com>,
David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:14:27 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>Politics does not equal government.
>According to you, politics equals group decisions. Group decisions not
>only equals government,
Citation needed.
ObFandom: Minicon is going to have a committee meeting in a month or
two to decide which side of the hotel it prefers to be on, and how to
allocate the rooms on that side.
Government is not involved (at least, not since they moved the town
boundaries so that both sides of the hotel are in the same town :-)
In article <n687r7hgctg4v4708d3aq5d6algdt9l...@4ax.com>,
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
>living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
>them from losing their housing.
Nope; Keith's supposition is that *some* people _are_ living on the
ragged edge.
A continuity argument might help.
If real estate taxes quadrupled, would that make a number of people
homeless? If yes, consider: let real estate taxes increase by $1. Is
anybody made homeless? What about $2? $3? If "one measly little
extra dollar" can't make somebody homeless, then when my macro
finishes running a billion dollars from now, still nobody is made
homeless?
>On Fri, 18 May 2012, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> >If we suppose that being >>> >homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people >>> >have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone >>> >at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you >>> >are asking for makes no sense.
>>> As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
>>> going to push someone into homelessness.
>>Do you buy that any increase can?
>I've already answered this - I disagree that *any* increase in property
>taxes would make people homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any*
>increase (even a dollar on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely
>*not*. The very idea is ludicrous."
You're both right, sort of.
Say that an increase of 100% in property taxes made 100 people
homeless. (I'm intentionally not specifying the size of the location;
the same sort of argument works with 1000% over the entire US, or 10%
in a small town.) Then, on average, each 1% increase makes 1 person
homeless; at least 90% of all the 0.1% increases make no people
homeless, at least 99% of all the 0.01% increases make no people
homeless, etc.
So obviously, there are increases that don't make anybody homeless.
At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add up
enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody homeless,
contradicting the original assumption).
Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).
An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
US finance one high school's stadium?
Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school
district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to
$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
-- Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/ Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 01:24:19, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 May 2012, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>>wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> >If we suppose that being >>>> >homeless corresponds to an after tax income of (say) $10,000, and people >>>> >have a range of after tax incomes, then if there happens to be someone >>>> >at $10,000.01, a one penny tax hike pushes that person over. So what you >>>> >are asking for makes no sense.
>>>> As a person who is poor [2], I don't buy that a penny difference is
>>>> going to push someone into homelessness.
>>>Do you buy that any increase can?
>>I've already answered this - I disagree that *any* increase in property
>>taxes would make people homeless. A large enough one? Possibly. *Any*
>>increase (even a dollar on the lowest taxed person)? No. Absolutely
>>*not*. The very idea is ludicrous."
>You're both right, sort of.
>Say that an increase of 100% in property taxes made 100 people
>homeless. (I'm intentionally not specifying the size of the location;
>the same sort of argument works with 1000% over the entire US, or 10%
>in a small town.) Then, on average, each 1% increase makes 1 person
>homeless; at least 90% of all the 0.1% increases make no people
>homeless, at least 99% of all the 0.01% increases make no people
>homeless, etc.
>So obviously, there are increases that don't make anybody homeless.
>At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
>that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add up
>enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody homeless,
>contradicting the original assumption).
The property tax increase proposal that will be voted on here in St.
Louis County, Missouri come November is 0.0108%. It is what I am
modeling the dollar amount increases in property tax on. The County GIS
mapping site lists the assessed evaluation of each address.
-- "Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
On Tue, 22 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
>> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
>> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
>> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).
>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>US finance one high school's stadium?
Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation. For
example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest supermarket
has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent care medical center
across the street carries a valuation of $5,883,500. The mall down the
street has a valuation of $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in
the same school district.
Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District can
borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.
>Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
>would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school
>district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to
>$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
>were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
-- "I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
On Tue, 22 May 2012 01:17:20, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Keith's supposition flat out ignores the fact that most people are not
>>living on the ragged edge and can make adjustments that would prevent
>>them from losing their housing.
>Nope; Keith's supposition is that *some* people _are_ living on the
>ragged edge.
Keith's supposition is that more than one person (he says "a few") is
living on the ragged edge.
>A continuity argument might help.
>If real estate taxes quadrupled, would that make a number of people
>homeless? If yes, consider: let real estate taxes increase by $1. Is
>anybody made homeless? What about $2? $3? If "one measly little
>extra dollar" can't make somebody homeless, then when my macro
>finishes running a billion dollars from now, still nobody is made
>homeless?
I have explicitly stated that a sufficiently large increase will make
one (or more) people homeless. However, I do *not* believe a
sufficiently *small* one will either - and Keith said that "every"
increase makes "a few" people homeless.
The "at risk" people will, almost to a person, be living in apartments.
I have demonstrated that the proposed library tax increase is too small
to be passed on (pennies per apartment per month) in rent [1]. I have
demonstrated that the same proposed tax increase is too small to be
passed on by businesses. They are thoroughly isolated from the effects
of the increase.
That leaves home owners. Their assessed valuation is likely to have
dropped recently due to the bursting of the housing bubble, so they
could very well be paying for less in property tax than they did just a
few years ago. Almost all of them are paying mortgages, such that, if
the property tax does put them out of house, they are almost certainly
going to be able to get into a rental house or an apartment - so while
massively inconvenienced, not homeless.
You're down, for all intents and purposes, to those elderly who own
their own homes free and clear, who are living on the ragged edge, who
cannot get into an apartment [2], who cannot work any amount (part-time
- one or two days a week, say) in order to pay the higher tax, who have
no family to take them in or help out [3] and who haven't already been
put into homelessness (or at least out of their houses) by the inflation
in food and energy prices (neither of which are in the Core CPI [4])[5].
[1] And if the landlord does increase the rent, then other factors
swamped the property tax one (aka the landlord is making an excuse).
[2] There is aid to get people into housing. I received aid (from
Catholic Charities - deposit & first month's rent) to get me into this
apartment when my old apartment was found to have a non-correctable code
violation two years ago.
[3] I'm sure my father and uncles would have paid my grandmother's
property tax if that had become an issue for her.
[4] And the food inflation is killing my budget.
[5] And, I'm sure, a few other factors that I can't think of off the top
of my head.
-- "Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
>>> At the same time, for any size increase, there is a point at which
>>> that size increase does make someone homeless (else you could add
>>> up enough of them to reach 100% increase without making anybody
>>> homeless, contradicting the original assumption).
>>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They
>>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
>>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>>US finance one high school's stadium?
> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
> well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation. For
> example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest supermarket
> has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent care medical center
> across the street carries a valuation of $5,883,500. The mall down the
> street has a valuation of $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in
> the same school district.
Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations) have
total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those (near the
bottom) are apartment complexes. The remainder are large corporate
offices or shopping centers. It looks like the net taxable value for
Allen ISD last year was $7.3 billion.
> Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District can
> borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.
I think this is typical for capital improvements. In this case it looks
like the bond issue increased the tax rate by 0.0697%, or $142/year on
the median single family home and roughly $30-$60/year (per unit) on the
highest value apartments. The M&O rate increased by 0.13% during the
same period.
Note also that it's not uncommon for tax rates to go down as well. Bonds
being paid off reduce the debt service rate and changing property
values, especially new construction on empty land, allow lowering both
the debt service and M&O rates. The total rate in our district over the
last 12 years started at 1.6500% (1999), has been a low of 1.4763% (2007),
a high of 1.8234% (2005) and is currently at 1.5350%. They've been doing a
lot of construction, going from two elementary schools to three elementary,
one junior high, one high school and a second junior high currently under
construction during the same period. All of that construction costs, but
the influx of people that triggered it also increased the tax base
enormously. It will be interesting to see what happens to our rates next
year. Three new housing developments, the construction of a Walmart
Supercenter and the passage of a city sales tax increase to offset property
tax might cause the overall rate to drop substantially, especially if all of
the bonds for school construction have been issued.
Robert
-- Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
<rkshul...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax
>> as well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation.
On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.
When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
course also lead to increased homelessness.
> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.
On Wed, 23 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
><rkshul...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax
>>> as well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation.
>On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
>to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
>it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
>homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.
Of course, Keith probably hasn't done the math on an increase in
property tax on his building/complex.
I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
The fact that Keith considers renters most in danger essentially
confirms my own assumptions and fairly conclusively shuts out all but a
few individuals from even remotely being in danger of homelessness for a
sufficiently small increase.
>When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
>by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
>both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
>course also lead to increased homelessness.
Again - did the math for the shopping center the nearest grocery store
is in. Less than $1100 a year for the entire center. The amount is
essentially noise in the revenue generated by the grocery store without
even considering the other businesses in center.
>> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
>> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
>> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.
>I'm not surprised.
-- "A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough
to take it all away."
- Barry Goldwater
Something bothered me after I sent off the previous response. So I
Looked again at Keith's reply and the posts that Robert and I made that
he was responding to and decided a second response was in order with
text added back in to provide much needed context.
On Wed, 23 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
><rkshul...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>>An interesting question is what's the best size of the tax base to
>>>>finance a $60 million high school football stadium to minimize the
>>>>expected number of families rendered homeless in the process. They >>>>could tax a hundred households $600,000 each, and that would likely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>make nearly all of those hundred families homeless. If they tax
>>>>every household in the US 60 cents each, that would make a very tiny
>>>>proportion of them homeless. But would the proportion really be less
>>>>than one in a million? Even if it would, why should the whole of the
>>>>US finance one high school's stadium?
>>> Keith seems to be missing the fact that businesses pay property tax as
>>> well and frequently have properties have a much higher valuation. >On the contrary. I pointed out that renters like me are not immune
>to property tax increases. The landlord pays it, and makes up for
>it by increasing rents. Indeed, when I first mentioned the risk of
>homelessness, it was primarily renters I had in mind.
Then why did you *switch* to only assessing households in the sections
above and below? Why the top 100 households and not any businesses at
all above? Why top N richest households and no businesses below?
And, while we're here, why go after the richest? Aren't they more
likely to send their children off to a private school and not use the
stadium at all (other than possible away games)? Why not user fees
based on how much each student uses the facility? Heck, we could even
go to model more like they have in college. Charge separately for each
class. Have a base fee to cover shared facilities (heating, cooling,
the cafeteria, administration, etc.). Surely calculus, which requires
teachers with a higher level of training, should cost more than mere
algebra, right?
>When other businesses pay higher property tax, they compensate for it
>by increasing their prices, lowering their employees' salaries, or
>both. Or they may simply go out of business. All of which can of
>course also lead to increased homelessness.
>> Similar situation here...the top 10 taxpayers (all corporations)
>> have total taxable value of $720 million. I think two of those
>> (near the bottom) are apartment complexes.
>I'm not surprised.
>>> For example, the local shopping center that contains the nearest >>> supermarket has an assessed value of $10,123,200. The urgent >>> care medical center across the street carries a valuation of >>> $5,883,500. The mall down the street has a valuation of >>> $48,881,199. All of these buildings are in the same school >>> district.
>>> Nor does the tax have to raise that much per year. The District >>> can borrow the money and pay it back with the tax receipts.
>>>>Maybe the "best" approach, assuming such a stadium must be built,
>>>>would be to select the N richest inhabitants of the relevant school
>>>>district, N to be selected such that their total wealth adds up to
^^^^^^^^
>>>>$60 million, shoot them, and seize everything they own. Say they
>>>>were drug dealers to justify the shooting and the seizure.
-- "A lady came up to me on the street and pointed to my suede jacket.
"You know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" she sneered. I replied
in a psychotic tone, "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now
I'll have to kill you too."
- Jake Johanson
In article <dnnor75u87b6osfivkft6nnfc8scp6d...@4ax.com>,
David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800. Would that increase the
rent? Then _some_ $0.38 increase does cause the rent to increase, and
maybe it's the next one.
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
possibility.
>Would that increase the
>rent? Then _some_ $0.38 increase does cause the rent to increase, and
>maybe it's the next one.
One more time, Seth. Keith said that *every* increase makes at least "a
few" people homeless. From the very start I have stipulated that a
large enough increase would have the effect that Keith postulates. If
you want to add in that an impossible number of small ones would also,
that is fine too - because the objection was to Keith saying that
*every* increase makes more than one person homeless.
And, again, we haven't even gotten into the aid (from the government,
family, friends and charity) available for people who are close enough
to get pushed over the edge [1][2].
People become homeless over mental issues and large changes in their
financial circumstances like the loss of a job.
[1] Again, when I was forced out of my old apartment by nonfixable
building code violations that were none of my doing, I was given aid by
family, friends and the government (through a charitable organization).
I've been there (on the cusp of being homeless - although for different
reasons than the one we are bandying about here).
[2] Like Section Eight which would just keep on paying the rent if the
rate went up slightly due to increased Property Tax.
-- "I love it when a plan comes together."
Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith
In article <p4dhs7pvc1p7lafr3752rihf5u5e7l6...@4ax.com>,
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
> >>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
> >>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
> >10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
> There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
> increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
> possibility.
Your word was "nobody." Not "only very few people if any, because it is a slight possibility."
Or in other words, you apply a different standard to your claims than to Keith's.
>> >>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>> >>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>> >>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>> >10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>> There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>> increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>> possibility.
>Your word was "nobody." Not "only very few people if any, because it is >a slight possibility."
And I stand by it.
>Or in other words, you apply a different standard to your claims than to >Keith's.
No. Not at all. Seth had to apply *10,000* such increases. My remark
was about a single instance. Those are not equivalent - at all.
Even if you take it to mean "spread out over 10,000 apartments," the
idea is still ludicrous. Even if every apartment had rent as low as
mine, the gross take would be $4,000,000 a month. $3800 is noise when
compared to that.
-- "The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>possibility.
It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
of causing a rent increase.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>possibility.
>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.
>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>of causing a rent increase.
Again.
My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
-- "Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>>possibility.
>>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
> And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
> gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
> increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.
>>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>>of causing a rent increase.
> Again.
> My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
> at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
> notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:19:56, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> writes:
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>>>possibility.
>>>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>>>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>>>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>>>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
>> And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
>> gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
>> increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.
>>>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>>>of causing a rent increase.
>> Again.
>> My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
>> at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
>> notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
>Those two statements seem nearly equivalent to me. It's statistically
>likely, in a large city at least,
And here we go qualifying things where Keith did not.
>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.
Then show your work.
I've shown mine.
The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
population here in the county is 998,954.
Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
challenge.
>Considering one of them true and the
>other absurd strikes me as...absurd.
And no one seems to take into account the other factors I've cited -
like available aid.
-- "Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:19:56, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> writes:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>>>>verdict? 38¢ a month per apartment.
>>>>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>>>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>>>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>>>>possibility.
>>>>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>>>>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>>>>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>>>>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
>>> And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
>>> gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
>>> increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.
>>>>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>>>>of causing a rent increase.
>>> Again.
>>> My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
>>> at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
>>> notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
>>Those two statements seem nearly equivalent to me. It's statistically
>>likely, in a large city at least,
> And here we go qualifying things where Keith did not.
Fewer and fewer people live in small towns.
And I don't much care about them.
>>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.
> Then show your work.
Seth just did.
> I've shown mine.
> The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
> assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
> population here in the county is 998,954.
> Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
> when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
> challenge.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:28:43, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:19:56, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:29:14, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:26:28, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>>>>David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>I *have* done the math for my old apartment building and an actually
>>>>>>>>proposed (as in on the ballot in November) property tax increase. The
>>>>>>>>verdict? 38 a month per apartment.
Doing the math for this complex (the buildings north of the dividing
street are taxed as a unit), it comes to less than 25 a month (I had to
guess at the number of units in the building furthest to the south and I
guessed low).
>>>>>>>>Nobody is going to have their rent raised over that small an increase.
>>>>>>>>Any landlord/management company that says otherwise is lying (because
>>>>>>>>the minimum rent hike will be $5 a month).
>>>>>>>10,000 increases, each of $0.38, is $3800.
>>>>>>There will be neither 10,000 units in one building *or* 10,000
>>>>>>increases. You've gone off into silly territory to prove a slight
>>>>>>possibility.
>>>>>It's called a "slippery slope argument". If one increase of $0.38 (in
>>>>>tax per apartment) can't cause a rent increase, then two such
>>>>>increases can't either, nor can three such increases, . . .
>>>>>But clearly, 20 such increases can, because they total more than $5.
>>>> And, in the meantime, the electric bill for the building electric has
>>>> gone up over $20 in the ten year period needed to enact 20 property tax
>>>> increases - swamping the effects of the property tax.
>>>>>Therefore, at least one of those 20 increases did cross the threshold
>>>>>of causing a rent increase.
>>>> Again.
>>>> My objection is not to the notion that one particular increase will make
>>>> at least someone homeless or even that many or most will. It is the
>>>> notion that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people homeless.
>>>Those two statements seem nearly equivalent to me. It's statistically
>>>likely, in a large city at least,
>> And here we go qualifying things where Keith did not.
>Fewer and fewer people live in small towns.
>And I don't much care about them.
Keith claims that _*EVERY*_ increase will make "_*a few*_" people
homeless. I see no room for exclusion of small towns from that.
>>>that each and every increase will be the last straw for *somebody*.
>> Then show your work.
>Seth just did.
No. He proved that one might or that enough of them compounded will.
I've long *stipulated* such a result.
>> I've shown mine.
>> The proposed library tax increase works out to $17.10 for a building
>> assessed at $158,000 (which is the county average for a home). The
>> population here in the county is 998,954.
>> Everyone keeps saying that it *has* to be the way Keith claims. Yet,
>> when I ask them to work with hard numbers, no one has risen to the
>> challenge.
>At this point, I don't have a clue what might convince you.
Numbers.
Actual increases in rent over and above the amount needed to make
*homeless* (and I don't mean make move to a different location) more
than one person.
Hell, take a spin up to MSP and do a survey of the homeless shelters if
you want. By Keith's statement, the place should be absolutely
*teeming* with people who are homeless because their Property Taxes went
up. I'm betting there aren't more than one or two.
>It's blatantly obvious to the rest of us.
Then you should be able to *prove* it.
Do you really believe that an increase in property taxes for an
apartment building/complex of less than a dollar a month per unit will
*always* be passed on?
-- "I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
