MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Kamala Harris Bill Asks Federal Taxpayers to Subsidize California's High Housing Costs

Expensive tax credits for renters are not the solution to America's housing woes.

ANNA MONEYMAKER/UPI/NewscomANNA MONEYMAKER/UPI/NewscomRents in California have skyrocketed over the past decade, thanks to the innumerable restrictions, taxes, and fees that the state imposes on new housing development. Now Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) wants the rest of the country to pay to fix this problem.

On Thursday, Harris, along with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Maggie Hasan (D–N.H.), and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would provide refundable tax credits for tenants who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

While doing little to address the root of the housing crunch—namely restrictions on supply—Harris' bill is undoubtably good politics in a state where 58 percent of renters pay more than a third of their income in rent. The bill has gotten glowing reviews from local politicians who are only too happy to deflect any blame they might share for the Golden State's housing woes.

"With the billions in tax subsidies allotted to billionaires through last year's tax changes, this legislation provides a refreshing contrast for working families who struggle daily," says Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose, where it's illegal to build multi-family housing in some 75 percent of the city.

"Senator Harris' legislation would help protect millions of families from losing their homes, by expanding benefits and opportunities for people who pay rent every month," declares Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who wholeheartedly endorsed development fees in Los Angeles that add between $5,616 and $10,530 to the costs of building an average-sized one-bedroom apartment.

Yet both the fairness and the economics of the proposal leave a lot to be desired, says Lynn Fisher, a housing policy expert with the American Enterprise Institute.

"We would be asking the whole United States to subsidize the bad behavior of some locales that are artificially pushing up rents by not allowing more building to happen," says Fisher.

In contrast to the rhetoric about helping hard-pressed renters, Fisher notes, Harris' plan would shower benefits on a staggering number of tenants, including relatively high-income ones. The Rent Relief Act would give tax credits for people earning as much as $100,000 a year and renting out apartments that cost up to 150 percent of an area's median fair market rent.

Americans' earning $25,000 or less would give a tax credit worth 100 percent of the portion of their rent that exceeds 30 percent threshold of their income. Those staying in government-subsidized housing—where rents are capped at 30 percent of a tenant's income—would get a tax credit worth a whole month's rent.

The costs of utilities would be included in rent costs. Because the tax credit is refundable, even those with no tax liability would still get a check.

Absent any reforms that would make housing easier to build, Fisher suggests that all this would serve only to inflate costs. "If [Harris' bill] increases market demand and the supply doesn't expand with this, if supply can't expand, then simply what've you've done is to raise rents in many of these areas," Fisher tells Reason.

Low-income tenants could be made worse off still if these newly-inflated rents spawn higher security deposits and other move-in fees that would not be subsidized by Harris' legislation.

Harris' bill has little chance of passing a Republican-controlled Congress loathe to spend billions on the rents of liberal voters in big, blue cities. But her bill, like so many other proposed housing initiatives, illustrates how willing Democratic policy makers are to ignore the true drivers of housing costs while pushing expensive interventions that will only make the problem worse.

Photo Credit: ANNA MONEYMAKER/UPI/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    ...this may be a bit out of line, and it's definitely a generalization, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

    Democrats SUCK.

  • Microaggressor||

    Socialists lie; people die. Get used to it.

  • BambiB||

    "Getting used to it" only encourages them. Imagine what would happen if, instead of "getting used to it" we simply shot them? Would the second socialist, seeing the first lying in a pool of his own blood, and knowing it was for lying, then also lie?

    Perhaps.

    But would the third?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Well... let's just say the "useful idiot" end of their bell curve just isn't too bright.

    Think, "What would Tony do?"

  • MoreFreedom||

    Shooting socialists is out of line. We should return the country back into protecting us, from others who'd take our money for their own purposes including redistributing it others for votes. I'll fight by voting and posting and contributing to candidates who support libertarian positions.

    You can't have freedom and the prosperity that comes with freedom, unless you are first willing to give it to others. Socialists obviously aren't willing to give people the freedom (and the responsibility that goes with freedom) that produces prosperity, and would rather use government to steal from others for their benefit. Socialist politician always benefit the most, while some people get free stuff in the beginning until they run out of money.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In America, we have a saying: The Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Ammo Box.

    The USA was teetering between the Ballot Box and the Ammo box before Trump came along. Trump is leading a charge to rollback government and the SJWs gains where they used government.

  • Johnimo||

    Great post, MoreFreedom. You're right on the mark with your comments, and "thank you," for introducing a little reason to the conversation:

    "Socialist politician always benefit the most, while some people get free stuff in the beginning until they run out of money."

    ... and as you undoubtedly know -- and as Maggie Thatcher stated -- the money that they "run out of" comes from the productive members of society, and those people find ways to hide their money ... or they move to a lower tax locale.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "Shooting socialists is out of line. We should return the country back into protecting us"

    How exactly is a country supposed to protect us except by shooting certain people? As a few libertarians have pointed out, all gov't is force, or more specifically, all gov't is the use of lethal force or the threat of lethal force.

    You can't have a country protecting us without the threat of and actual shooting of some purportedly bad people. That's what protection is.

    I'm not advocating this gov't use of force, just pointing out that your line of thinking is already wrong if you turn to the country for your protection. Ultimately, the only ethical form of protection is self-defense, meaning that one person takes all the responsibility of protecting oneself onto oneself.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    What happens when 51% of the voters are nimrods who don't understand economics and don't want to educate themselves?

  • Trollificus||

  • Rock Lobster||

    Nah. You're good.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democrats SUCK.

    That seems to be the consensus among half-educated rubes, downscale bigots, superstitious yahoos, disaffected gun nuts, backwaters-inhabiting goobers, white-grievance queens, movement conservatives, Republicans, Trump voters, and faux libertarians.

  • Pepe||

    Sadly, if you support these kinds of Dems, you reflect the ignorance of basic economics and understanding of political economy that elect them. Oh, BTW, name-calling is the admittance of defeat in debates.

  • IceTrey||

    So real libertarians like Democrats?

  • Trollificus||

    Are we not doing "bitter clingers" any more?

  • Frank D||

    So says the democrat which is the party of slavery. The party of the KKK. The party of Jim Crow laws. The party of baby murderers. All democrats do is suck money off working people. So yes

    Democrats SUCK

  • CDRSchafer||

    You are being restrained. They are much, more worse than just sucking.

  • perlchpr||

    Jesus fuck no. Just no.

    Build some more fucking houses. The problem will solve itself. Do not cause a problem all by yourself and then stick a gun in my face to pay for your mistake.

  • perlchpr||

    "You want the Federal Government to solve your problem, cunt? Fine, we'll solve your problem."

    *prosecutes entire California Environmental Board for Delaying Construction under RICO, forcibly rezones all of CA to allow multifamily dwellings, and grants pre-emptive pardon to anyone accused of violating historical society rules*

  • dchang0||

    And then, if the Federal gov't gets it wrong, as it is sure to do, we'll have the UN send in so-called Peacekeepers to forcibly ensure affordable housing... Keep your young girls inside, those Peacekeepers are kinda rapey.

  • Ariki||

    Whats the point of power if you don't get to keep the peace of local ass?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Wood not.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Continually astonishes me -- the great lengths statists will go to, to emulate and simulate markets with central planning, when all the problems are the predicted outcome of previous government intervention.

    Prices are such a fucking marvelous invention, the bets invention ever in my personal opinion. They convey so much information in such a handy little package, easily memorized and compared. And yet every politician's instinct is to distort them to meaningless, and then they freak out when nature works around their distortions with new equilibria It's a word now, dammit!).

    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.

    -- Thomas Sowell

  • Hunthjof||

    Well remember we have states now suing because of the SALT deduction cap. Same exact thing. "OMG the feds gotta fix our problem."

  • Rock Lobster||

    Thomas Sowell has a gift for expressing basic economic principles in such simple, commonsense terms that even a Democrat could understand them... if they wanted to.

    Envy is such an ugly emotion. And as a political strategy, it's pure evil.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But soooo effective.

  • swampwiz||

    Like Trump's assault on pricing (i.e., tariffs).

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I am curious to where the funds raised from the tariffs are going, assuming that goods are still being sold with tariffs. Is that just a defacto tax increase, to offset the tax breaks?

  • gphx||

    You forgot to capitalize Assault on Pricing like War on Women or For the Children.

    Actually tariffs were originally the primary source of federal income until the institution of the illegal income tax. Trump lowered taxes and increased tariffs relatively simultaneously.

    Some people would prefer only other countries have import tariffs and we have higher taxes because they desperately want Trump to suck.

  • creech||

    Pretty creepy that grown men and women still believe in Santa Claus.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    *Uncle Sugar

  • loveconstitution1789||

    FUCK YOU Kamala Harris!

    You Californians have chose your path to socialism. Now deal with the consequences.

  • perlchpr||

    Honestly, it doesn't even make any sense, historically. Commies fucking love giant communal housing structures. I'm surprised SF doesn't mandate them, let alone forbid them.

  • Microaggressor||

    Just sit back and wait for the gulags.

  • Rat on a train||

    They love other people living in communal housing as long as the communal housing is far away from them.

  • DiegoF||

    What sort of commie elites have ever wanted "giant communal housing structures" blocking the views from their estates?

  • perlchpr||

    But the estates of the elite in SF aren't in the Sunset. They could easily flatten all of those single family dwellings and put in massive concrete arcologies. And they'd be way off at the edge of the city, not anywhere near where the real people live.

  • TeamsterX||

    They already do this...it is called "Oakland"

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Which coincidentally is where Kamala Slaver Harris is from

  • Diane Merriam||

    The love it all right, just NIMBY ... as far away as possible from *them*. They don't need to interact with the hoi polloi themselves. They're too much evolved past that.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Commies also love their dachas. California is their dacha. They only want the feds to subsidize the rent so their servants can afford to live relatively close by.

  • markm23||

    perlchpr: The commies that loved giant communal housing structures didn't care about how the people that lived in them cared, because the elections were fixed. California commies can't steal enough votes to keep their cushy positions when enough of the voters are angry at them.

  • dchang0||

    That comes later, in the form of large work camps. But such work camps can never be built within sight of the socialist elites in their San Francisco homes; they must be built far out in the desert.

    One side benefit is that they won't have to use ovens to kill the masses. They can simply use exposure to the elements like the USSR did in Siberia. Deserts are deadly both at high noon and midnight.

  • Mark22||

    You are such a bigoted racist! Look at that poor oppressed black woman standing up for the rights of minorities!

    She is the poor child of hard, working-class, minority parents. Why, her father was working his fingers to the bone in the cotton fields of the Stanford economics department, while her mother was forced to prostitute herself as a medical researcher at McGill Medical School and Montreal's Jewish General Hospital, just to make ends meet! She grew up in the horrid slum known as Berkeley, California, and then in the even more horrid slum of Westmount, Quebec. Harris was teased and discriminated against her entire life for her ebony dark skin and her ridiculous looks.

    And from that position of oppression and poverty, she wants to bring social justice to the world and make sure nobody has to have the kind of horrid childhood and oppression she experienced!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No federal money.

  • Hidebehindyourcause||

    Yeah I know, we need to have sympathy for her oppressed upbringing

  • Johnimo||

    Soon, very soon, they'll be wanting the rest of the country to bail-out California municipalities from their unfunded, public employee pension liabilities. It's going to get much uglier.

  • DiegoF||

    Housing is only expensive because most Americans work two jobs. Also, one look at southern Brooklyn nowadays will tell you the Russians have hacked the real estate market.

  • JesseAz||

    To be fair.... Liberals, especially the socialist kind, are really bad at math.

  • BillyG||

    And economics

  • Ariki||

    And science

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    And relationships

  • MoreFreedom||

    "Housing is only expensive because most Americans work two jobs."

    I disagree. Housing is expensive because 1) governments restrict building housing via zoning 2) government restrict what kind of housing can be built, 3) government mandates exist that make houses more expensive to build and 4) property taxes are high, 5) government subsidies for housing raise the price of rents, and 5) the burden of high government taxation consumes a lot of people's income that could otherwise be spent on housing making housing more affordable.

    Free markets make things less expensive and people more prosperous. More government makes things more expensive and people less prosperous. It's that simple.

  • Pepe||

    It really is that simple. There will be consequences that may not be appealing, but those are mitigated yet again by- you guessed it- free markets.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I think Diego was going with sarcasm there. Hence the Russians part.

  • Jerry B.||

    "Housing is only expensive because most Americans work two jobs."

    Nope.

    Politifact

  • Trollificus||

    Damn Russian bots! That's how they do y'know...drive around all day listening to raps and shooting all the condos.

  • Rich||

    a state where 58 percent of renters pay more than a third of their income in rent.

    THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!!

  • Echo Chamber||

    and this bill will entrench that by creating an incentive to raise rents since somebody else will foot the bill.
    More freebies! Yeah Team D!

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    OUR MUSTACHES AND BEARDS ARE TOO DAMN FLY!

  • JesseAz||

    Any guesses if roommate payments were excluded from the statistic as non income?

  • An Non||

    And odds are they won't even consider adopting the proposals of the now sadly-defunct The Rent Is Too Damn High party, such as not taxing rental property. (Taxing the income earned by renting, yes, but don't double-dip.)

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Where did this 1/3rd of income measuring stick come from?

  • JesseAz||

    Common sense.

  • Pepe||

    No- it came out of the same imagination that unicorns came from.

  • Brubaker||

    It came out of thin air, just like the rest of Kamala's feel-good farce.

  • DrZ||

    It came from statistics. Seventy-one percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

  • JFree||

    During the Depression. It was set at 2x the average housing payment - as the upper limit for banks to use in mortgage originations for first-time buyers and the max rent for those in municipal public housing (both of which received a federal subsidy at that time).

  • JFree||

    According to Census Bureau, this is how the actual average rent as % of average income (for the subset of renters) has changed over time:

    1940 - 14%
    1950 - 18%
    1960 - 20%
    1970 - 21%
    1980 - 25%
    1990 - 26%
    2000 - 26%
    2010 - 30%

  • JFree||

    These changes over time are almost entirely due to subsidies for mortgages driving up prices of real property - cuz those numbers by country are very different and few subsidize that like we do:

    Switzerland - 19%
    Germany - 21%
    France - 22%
    Italy - 26%
    Canada - 26%
    UK - 30%
    Spain - 32%

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Move to cheaper area.

    San Francisco's housing policy makes housing expensive.

    Basic economics.

  • soldiermedic76||

    1940s and 1950s housing was expanding exponentially, therefore prices were cheap. 1960s environmentalist and others began implementing anti-development rules and regulations, housing prices begin to soar. Gee I think you don't understand cause and effect.

  • JFree||

    Gee I think you don't understand cause and effect.

    Oh I guarantee I understand more about land/housing - and actual empirical data - than you do. The decades with a slow squeeze on renters (everything post-WW2) are the mortgage subsidy. The ones with a fast squeeze - 70's and 2000-now - are a combo of that subsidy and subsidized interest rates also.

  • soldiermedic76||

    When you make unsupported assumptions be prepared to be proven a fool. I could get in a dick measuring contest with you, especially to your understanding of empirical evidence (e.g. I happen to be on off campus science professor for a well respected state University, and am published in multiple, respected, peer reviewed science journals), however, I think the fact that you made this assumption without any knowledge of my background shows your ignorance perfectly.

  • JFree||

    Well it's pretty obvious that YOU are the one who made unsupported empirical assertions. 40's/50's housing did not grow as much as you seem to believe - and rents were NOT cheap. They were in fact rising - to the highest then seen relative to incomes. Because of the then new thing called 30-year mortgages which got subsidized multiple ways. And while there was plenty of housing built in suburbs - for homeowners - it was partially offset by rental housing being destroyed in cities in order to construct/widen highways for those now living in suburbs. Which was another indirect govt subsidy for homeowners at the expense of renters (though not a mortgage one).

    Rents then only look cheap now - IN HINDSIGHT - because we have continued to subsidize mortgages and thus driven up house prices even more. The data clearly does not support your nonsense cause/effect assertion

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Ok, but you also have to look at what it takes to build the homes, densities/scarcity, and the entirely different type of homes built. How many 5,000 sqft mansions in suburbia with five air conditioners did you have in 1970?

  • JFree||

    Yeah sure. Cuz everyone knows renters rent 5000 sq ft mansions. Except apparently those who actually build ACTUAL housing intended for ACTUAL renters. Where the sq footage has been roughly the same in a very narrow range for decades - majority is 1200 sq ft or less - the amount greater than 1800 sq ft is miniscule (4% or less of the rental stock).

    The reason that size housing can't be built - and rented at an affordable rent to those who actually have to rent - in many places (not all - just many) is because LAND PRICES are too high. And that is mostly because homeowners/landowners (and the banks who lend the money for building a depreciating asset on that land) EXPECT govt to deliver increasing land prices over time - and EXPECT that speculative lending to be subsidized via all means necessary. Mortgage subsidy is only a part of that. Mostly it is by distorting prop taxes and by looking the other way when banks get bailed out and when we try to 'prevent recessions' via monetary policy.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I find your points pretty compelling and interesting JFree. Thanks for sharing.

  • gphx||

    Oh, so if people aren't deemed a reasonable risk by creditors the taxpayers will now assume the expense and risk with zero payback. Makes sense - to California.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The diamond cartel (wait, that's a different outrageous number)

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They should just extend the mortgage deduction to rentals as well. Or do the other logical thing and get rid of the mortgage deduction entirely.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Exactly. House prices would be lower if mortgage payments weren't being subsidized

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Just do it either way. It's not right to subsidize mortages, but it's not even consistent to only subsidize one type of cost of living.

  • DiegoF||

    Yes. If you just gave it to everyone it would stop distorting behavior and therefore destroying wealth in our economy. Normally it's a chore to convince libertarians that that's a worthy goal in and of itself--that it would be better to get rid of it either way!

  • JFree||

    If you just gave it to everyone it would stop distorting behavior and therefore destroying wealth in our economy.

    No. If you give it to everyone, then you simply make land ownership a massive tax subsidy that would distort capital decisions even more

  • DiegoF||

    False. If you give a deduction to everyone it would just be a "negative poll tax" and would not distort jack shit. Look at the context of the subthread. We are talking precisely about not limiting it to landowners.

  • DiegoF||

    Addendum: Actually, yes, now that I think about it the amount of the deduction would still vary, and you could adjust it by your ownership or rental behavior. It wouldn't be flat. I don't know what I was thinking. Still not quite right to say it would subsidize land ownership per se, but it would favor housing spending over other spending. And that of course is prima facie bad.

  • JFree||

    The tax credit for renters would, like Sec8 payments, just enable landlords to raise the rent beyond what they otherwise can get - and that's what they will do too. In aggregate that would raise the ROI of and hence the price of land - where different tax credits/subsidies currently exist too - esp in those areas where rents are already at the level where they are gonna kill growth (which they are in any place where the only rental stuff being built is 'luxury rentals').

    I actually don't know whether the tax subsidy would flow more to the land or the real capital property. Too much weeds for me. But given that this is originating from CA, I will bet that it goes to the land (so it won't even stimulate housing development as much as it does land speculation). It will NOT really go to the renter.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    No tax credits for renters and end the mortgage deduction.

    Lower taxes across the board. Cut federal and state governments.

  • Echo Chamber||

    At least the act of doubling the standard deduction has lowered the value of that subsidy.

  • Rat on a train||

    They should have done away with SALT as well.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm fine with that as well. I'm always for pulling back taxes, but I am also for getting rid of specific holdouts for certain groups if they can't be done with entirely.

  • DiegoF||

    *Nixon's, Brezhnev's corpses shed single tears*

  • Rat on a train||

    in 2002

  • JesseAz||

    What mortgage deductions? Only the rich get them now. How many people are itemizing 24k in expenses next year?

  • Diane Merriam||

    What the ??? Who has 24K to expense anything? That's more than I even make. If you've got that kind of cash floating around, you must need to send some of it my way. I take cash ... preferably in small unmarked bills.

  • Happy Chandler||

    If you have a 480k mortgage at 5%, you are paying 24k in interest.

  • Longtobefree||

    So a 2/2 in California?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    If you bought in 1990, sure.

  • Rock Lobster||

    If you have a 480k mortgage, and you can't afford that and the interest you were quoted upfront, you're a goddamned fool who deserves his fate. Especially if you support collectivist kleptocrats like Kamala Harris.

    Move, idiot. Just not to Texas, please.

  • RoninX||

    Hah, you can't even get a studio apartment in San Francisco for $480K.

    Here's what you can get for $799K in San Jose.

  • CE||

    That story is 3 months old. The 1066 square foot burned out studio on a 5850 sq ft lot actually sold for 938K. Zillow has it estimated at 1.029M now.

  • JesseAz||

    Now look at San Francisco land use policies. In fact reason had an article about SF blocking a laundromat that wanted to become multi family housing. It's the government stupid.

  • JesseAz||

    Now look at San Francisco land use policies. In fact reason had an article about SF blocking a laundromat that wanted to become multi family housing. It's the government stupid.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    SF can only benefit from being put under martial law by Trump. It could only increase freedom.

  • RoninX||

    Of course it is.

    Unsurprisingly, the Democrats want to reinstate rent control on all apartments, including new construction.

    Spoiler: This won't work.

  • RoninX||

    To be clear, I'm replying to JesseAz, not the shitlord.

    I'm opposed to SF building restrictions, but I'm not a fan of martial law.

  • Happy Chandler||

    I was hoping someone could bring it up. Two good points in one day by BUCS! Something about a stopped clock?
    This isn't just a Democratic thing. Suburbs, especially Republican leaning ones, are worse when it comes to zoning restrictions. Much of Orange County is zoned for single family homes, and the zoning was all done when it was behind the Orange Curtain.

    The other thing we need is to fix Prop 13. It incentivizes people who have lived in their home a long time, and raises their taxes if they move. Empty nesters may want to downsize, but they can't because it would jack up their property taxes.

    And rent control. That's an issue, but I don't know how to fix it without causing displacement.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Two good points in one day by BUCS! Something about a stopped clock?

    Huh, couldn't choose to be friendly even when agreeing with someone.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Thought you had a sense of humor. Apologies for making that assumption.

  • MarkLastname||

    You're really an insufferable douche bag, aren't you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Empty nesters may want to downsize, but they can't because it would jack up their property taxes.

    Proposition 13 was passed to keep "empty nesters" from losing their homes because of a rapacious spending machine known as the California government.

    But let's take the middle ground: Let's just lower property taxes across the board, making it more affordable to live whether you hang on to your property or not.

  • Happy Chandler||

    If I were King of California, there would be only income tax and maybe some sin taxes. No property taxes, no sales taxes. Simplify things.

    No corporate or payroll or gross receipts taxes.

    Prop 13 has been the king of unintended consequences. Someone who's lived in their house for 30 years pays $1000/year for property taxes. Their next door neighbor who moves in can pay 1000/month. Commercial properties never get reassessed, as the corporate owner can stay the same and never dies.

    Reforming Prop 13 would lower taxes for everybody except those who locked in low taxes decades ago.

  • Sevo||

    "Reforming Prop 13 would lower taxes for everybody except those who locked in low taxes decades ago."

    Yes, "reform" it by extending it to everyone.

  • Happy Chandler||

    It applies to everyone.

  • Sevo||

    Happy Chandler|7.21.18 @ 4:29AM|#
    "It applies to everyone."

    You're full of shit.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If I were King of CA, I would execute most of the state assembly, Gov. Brown, a lot of the appointed progressive turds, and also the Hamburger, as he has it coming.

    Then I would gut spending turn off all services to illegals, work with President Trump to MAGA, by clearing the 50% or so of the CA prison population that must cost $ billions per year and deport their asses all to Sweden (They claim they're not from there, but, oh well).

    From there it would be a quick trip to just generally gutting the budget, disbanding CARB, purring the state employee rolls of all the socialists, and using the State Police to bring places SF into line.

    I would say there is far more than that needs to be done, like opening up offshore drilling, but the above would be a good set of first step.

    And yes, I'm a big meanie.

  • perlchpr||

    Your comment makes me wonder: Are there any exploitable oil sources in the Bay Area? Like, could you legit find oil drilling in the SF Bay?

    Because I like to think what the sight of such a thing would do to the sensitive souls of SF.

  • Sevo||

    "Your comment makes me wonder: Are there any exploitable oil sources in the Bay Area? Like, could you legit find oil drilling in the SF Bay?"

    Not likely.
    "Assembling California" (John McPhee) tells you that Nor Cal has old low-tide muck as a base. So Cal, parts of the south Central Valley and coastal up to close to King City have petroleum reserves.
    It is a shame that Nor Cal has a lot of money as a result of a lot of tech skills and a lot of tech-skilled idiots and politicos willing to fleece them all.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Don't forget fracking. Lots of fracking.

    Progs love fracking.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fracking progs? Well, falgercarb.

  • Happy Chandler||

    So you want to turn us into Mississippi?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Would definitely like to de-communize the place.

  • General_Tso||

    I would like to direct this to the distinguished members of the panel: You lousy cork-soakers. You have violated my farging rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so that the liberties of common patriotic citizens like me could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes... like yourselves.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties that want to be king.

    Big surprise.

    Prop 13 is great! It keeps Lefties from spending even more.

  • DrZ||

    The state may have lost some property tax revenue from the empty nesters due to prop13, but believe me they make up for it in taxing retirement income. Too many empty nesters are in the 9.3% state income marginal when taking required minimum distributions from an IRA. Add to this federal taxes and a California sales tax of around 9% depending on place of residence and it's a whole lot of money.

    You young'ins out there may want to take a serious look at Roth 401ks especially if you live in a high tax state such as California where RMDs are taxed heavily.

  • CE||

    The 9.3 pct rate doesn't kick in until you make 52.6K a year, or 105.2K for a couple. I doubt your 401k minimum distributions will ever be that high. California income taxes are actually lower than a lot of "low tax" red states if you have a modest income, since they kick in at much higher levels. Idaho has a 7.4 pct top rate, but it kicks in at 10.9K. In California you don't pay 8 pct until you're making 41.6K.

    But my plan is just to max out the 401k while I work here, then leave the state when I retire and go somewhere with no income tax at all.

  • JesseAz||

    Contribute to the post tax 401k. Easier. Saves you from the threat of liberal tax changes for those evil savers thinking about the future.

  • DrZ||

    You are correct, but it still hurts. I looked up my 2017 California effective and it's 4.1%, but I am in the 9.3% so it hurts if I want to make some extra money.

    Again, that 9%+ sales tax makes me cringe. I recently bought a $30K mini SUV and paying $2700.00 in taxes hurt. An elevated registration fee north of $300 and super high gas prices hurt even more.

    So, I suspect those red states of which you write make have lower brackets, many don't have sales tax or have lower taxes and just about anywhere I go outside of California gas is at least $1/gal less and so is housing and food. I know it's complicated, but California isn't a cheap place and it's not friendly to those in the middle class, at least speaking for the Sillicon Valley-SF area.

    You know, if I could see a difference my tax dollars made, I wouldn't be here complaining, but I don't. The roads are terrible, the state is going broke mainly due to CalPERS, traffic congestion is terrible and they are building a choo-choo train that makes no sense.

    Move you ask? Can't without a divorce. My spouse has a small business. Most of her profits go to taxes, but it's her "social life".

  • MarkLastname||

    That must be why Houston is as badly zoned as LA (sarc)

    And the way to fix rent control is to get rid of it and let developers build. That's it. There's no way to make housing more affordable other than letting supply increase (well other than rationing real estate like the Soviet Union if you're into that).

  • perlchpr||

    How would that work from a practical perspective? The "mortgage deduction" is actually the "mortgage interest deduction". Rentals don't have mortgage interest, obviously. So how would you calculate how much to give them?

  • MoreFreedom||

    The owner of the rental gets the mortgage deduction. And market forces essentially already pass on part of that deduction to renters. Your idea, like many in the political sphere, ignores the unintended consequences. It would lead to much more rental property than exists today. Consider, I could buy a home, then rent it to myself, and deduct both the mortgage interest, and "mortgage deduction" for the renter as well. Or it might lead a lot of married couples to divorce, so the husband could get the mortgage deduction, and then by renting the home to his wife, she'd get to deduct that money again. Or I could buy my neighbor's home and they could buy mine, and we'd rent from each other. And of course, these schemes also have their own unintended consequences (will my neighbor keep up the property?).

    You see the unintended consequences. Besides, Trump's tax plan has made the mortgage deduction worth a lot less by capping it and raising the standard deduction so the wealthy don't benefit so much from it.

  • Johnimo||

    Tax simplification is the way to go. Best to get rid of income taxes altogether or go to a flat tax. Imagine how easy it would be if the ONLY deduction was for family members, the personal deduction. Better still, get rid of the income tax and go to national sales tax. The latter will not happen because it would put too many CPAs out of business.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Is there something in the water out there?

  • perlchpr||

    Something that causes serious dissociation from reality.

  • Conchfritters||

    On Thursday, Harris, along with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Maggie Hasan (D–N.H.), and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.)

    Looks awfully bi-partisan.

    /s

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kinda bi. Maybe a foursome for Blumenthal?

  • ||

    Maggie Hasan (D–N.H.)

    Ms. Hasan ought to live free or die.

  • Hackmaschine Mutter||

    I can't remeber, has someone already said, Oh Hell No?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Did she also introduce a bill to allow sugar daddies to deduct 80% of the money they spend on a whore's rent?

    -jcr

  • Happy Chandler||

    Ahh, Libertarians. Tax cuts for everybody!!!!
    Unless you aren't rich.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    ???

  • DiegoF||

    ???

    Excellent point about Matt Lesko. Congress is practically giving free money away to all of us, not just the wealthy.

  • JesseAz||

    Honest question.... Are you too fucking stupid to look at the effective tax rate tables at the IRS website?

  • MarkLastname||

    So you're retarded on this issue too?

  • JesseAz||

    I think at this point we can just make blanket assumptions about him.

  • Johnimo||

    Well .... 50% aren't paying income taxes. Did you want them to get refunds on taxes not paid? Just curious?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Harris' bill has little chance of passing a Republican-controlled Congress loathe to spend billions on the rents of liberal voters in big, blue cities

    Thanks but no thanks. Got a major homeless problem here that's cost me a billion already and quadrupled the problem.

  • John B. Egan||

    This statement 'Rents in California have skyrocketed over the past decade, thanks to the innumerable restrictions, taxes, and fees that the state imposes on new housing development.' is really not true. Rents are going up because (1) People want to live here and
    (2) as the article notes, housing is in short supply.

    As a long term landlord and past rental manager, it is all supply and demand, feast and famine. What we have here in California is simply a lack of construction following the Bush Jr Depression and a ballooning of tenants as a result of Boomers having kids.

    Seeing as everyone fights tooth and nail to block an increase in the minimum wage, and seeing as that minimum wage (and regular wages) have lost buying power over the last many years, is it surprising that people cannot afford rent? (My girlfriend and I rented a 2 bedroom duplex for $175 a month. Total utilities... $30 a month. Food $200 a month.... Both of us were earning about $6 p/h.... We lived pretty well, went out drinking, etc.. Try that on a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour when rents for a studio in most areas now exceed $1200 a month, gasoline is $3.75 a gallon, utilities run $200 a month, etc..

    Very simply put, wages have not kept up with inflation... So kick Kamala for trying to find a work-around? BS!

    Wage stagnation over the years: https://bit.ly/2LDP08l

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    The "workaround" is more of a "spendaround", perhaps. Consequences? What consequences?! We can just appropriate more funds from the magic money tree.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Without even the courtesy of a "reach-around."

    (Props to R. Lee Ermey, RIP)

  • DRM||

    Yes, it is a matter of supply and demand. Which is why both you and Kamela Harris are idiots who should be stripped of the right to vote, much less hold office; you're demonstrably unfit to be allowed to try to turn your opinions into law.

    If you give the demand side more money in a case where supply cannot increase, all that happens is that the demanders can spend more money (the money you gave them), which simply increases the market-clearing price for the available supply. You might as well hand the landlords the money directly, because that's exactly where it's going to go. It doesn't matter whether you give that extra money to the demand side in direct Federal subsidies on rent, or in increased wages, or any other mechanism; the people you give the money to will not have any benefit, as their inflation-adjusted cost-of-living will rise to eat the money you gave them.

    The only way that more money creates more supply is if it is economically practical for competitors on the supply side to increase the supply. But if it were, given current housing prices in California, we would already see a massive building boom. The very fact that there isn't one (despite the large amounts of land and low-density development in California that could be converted into higher-density housing, and it being nine years since the end of the "Bush Jr. Depression") is, in and of itself, proof that external restrictions on development are preventing supply increases.

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    Egan: "As a long term landlord..."
    DRM: "... you and Kamela Harris are idiots. . . You might as well hand the landlords the money directly, because that's exactly where it's going to go."
    Whatever he is, I don't think he's an idiot. Now, I'm wondering if Kamala Harris has rental property, too.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Egan: I really hope you are a parody account. If not, it means the movie Idiocracy was a prediction turned into documentary.

  • Sevo||

    "Wage stagnation over the years: https://bit.ly/2LDP08l"

    Is that a Power-Point slide you did last week?"Financial Ramblings" is not a source that springs to mind when I want accurate info.
    BTW, you are certainly right about S/D, and 'rent control' has pretty much killed supply in most of the Bay Area (largest contributor to the high rent conditions).
    And you're full of shit regarding minimum wage; fuck off, slaver.

  • MarkLastname||

    Yes it's all supply and demand. And what's keeping supply down? Regulations!

    If you don't believe that, then I do t believe you've ever been to California let alone live there.

    As for minimum wages, I regret to inform you that supply and demand apply to labor just the same as anything else.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So instead of addressing supply you instead will just throw more money at the problem? That does nothing to lower demand and you are doing nothing to raise supply. Fucking moron.

  • Rock Lobster||

    How about we kick you instead, asshole? And all your prog California buddies, including Kamala.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So Egan, are you blaming this on a lack of higher minimum wage mandates?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    "Rents are going up because (1) People want to live here and (2) as the article notes, housing is in short supply."

    Sorry, fucktard, but I refuse to endorse, let alone subsidize, fantasy. People can "want" a lot of things they can't have. Just wanting to live in Cali does not justify any entitlements. Lots of cheap rentals in desolate towns in fly-over country.

    And piss off about minimum wage. Less than 1% of US workers earn the minimum (BLS 2016).

  • Chili Dogg||

    JBE, You have so many things wrong. You completely miss the role of government regulation in causing higher prices, such as green space restrictions, rent control, zoning, etc. Housing was already expensive before the housing crisis and recession, which were caused largely by the federal reserve and democrats.

    The youngest baby boomers are 54 years old now. They have NOT been having children over the past decade! Have you not noticed millions of Hispanic immigrants, legal and otherwise, coming into CA? Actually, the rate of growth in population in California has been decreasing the last few decades, so blaming population growth is not correct.

    Why do you think there is not enough construction to keep up with the population growth? Do you think builders just don't wanna make money building? No, it is largely government actions and interference that keep them from building more.

    Do some research on the minimum wage and why inflation - the increase in the money supply - leads to rising prices.

    A lot of factors have led to the increase in housing in California, most of them having to do with government actions. Other places, such as Georgia and Texas, have grown a lot over the past few decades w/o such huge increases in housing prices, so your excuse of population growth does not hold water. Georgia and Texas have lower taxes, smaller governments, and less regulation (oh yeah, and fewer democrats).

  • JFree||

    Actually both Georgia and Texas have HIGHER taxes than CA re the specific tax - property tax - that matter re housing prices and construction and such

    Texas - roughly a 1.9% prop tax rate (one of the highest in the country) - and very consistent across the board
    Georgia - roughly a 0.95% prop tax rate (middling) - and pretty consistent across the board
    California - a 1% in theory - a 0.81% effective rate in practice - and because of Prop13 inconsistencies there's a ton of folks paying a 0.2% or less rate.

    Prop taxes work exactly the opposite as the way people seem to assume now - in large part because modern economics completely ignores the difference between land and capital. Yes GA and TX limit their govt spending - so that it fits more within the amount they can raise via prop taxes - and that is a good thing because the other sorts of taxes really distort econ activity far more than prop taxes do

  • CDRSchafer||

    Around San Antonio, a decent house goes for about $200K.

    In California, a decent house goes for what, $700K? If you're lucky?

    Californians pay more in property taxes. And we don't have an income tax.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Gee ... that'd get me a few hundred bucks a month. It's still wrong.

  • Spookk||

    The problem in CA is not "lack of supply"; it is too many goddamn people. Quit permitting development, and let the market sort it out. There's no more water, either.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Yes, stop developing. Rigghht.

  • Sevo||

    "...Quit permitting development, and let the market sort it out...."
    They pretty much did that with rent control, and you see where that got us.

    "...There's no more water, either...."
    Bullshit. There's no storage facilities.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Just delete all the progressives in CA. Problem solved.

  • MarkLastname||

    This has to be sarcasm.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It is sorting itawlf. All the middle class is moving to Neveda, Arizona and Texas. All you have left is the ultra rich and the servant class to poor to move.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How many of those middle class will vote for the same parasitic bullshit that drove them away in the first place? They have certainly done a good job of poisoning WA state.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Unfortunately, this tends to be the case.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Growing up in Kootenai County, Idaho and having lived in Latah County, I know this is to often the case.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Water falls from the sky in California just as it does everywhere else. By funding reservoirs instead of not-so-fast choo-choos, and California too could rediscover the obvious.

    Maybe the state government acting as a consulate of Mexico and actively abetting the reconquista isn't such a bright idea, either.

    As for the market? Take your goddamn thumb off the scale in all respects, especially "permitting," and watch the miracle of capitalism unfold.

    (... dumbass)

  • Longtobefree||

    Does that bill eliminate section 8 vouchers? Because no one has to pay more than 30% of their income in rent. The feds already took care of that one.

  • JFree||

    Because no one has to pay more than 30% of their income in rent. The feds already took care of that one

    And yet - in Los Angeles (the least affordable city in the US because incomes aren't as high as in Bay Area), the average rent-to-income was 47% in 2013 and is higher now.

  • JoeBlow123||

    People need to move. That is pretty nuts.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Crap like this, and the coastal elites can't understand why the center of this country voted to the right last election.

  • Arcxjo||

    "Senator Harris' legislation would help protect millions of families from losing their homes,"

    I don't think Garcetti knows what the word "their" means.

  • Real American||

    Rest of the country to California: "That sounds like a YOU problem, not an US problem."

  • CDRSchafer||

    California politicians want to nationalize their corruption and incompetence. If I have to pay for their idiot state polices I want to vote in their state elections. No taxation without representation.

  • Let freedom ring||

    Because libertarians and conservatives refuse to understand the US Individual Income tax abuses like this scheme continue to be proposed and implemented.
    Most of these renters and possible landowners as well have no income tax liability, but are being coerced into paying. Then phony deductions that make the tax farmers rich are passed, or at least proposed, that only add more complexity to the overly complicated system.
    Instead of whining about every IRS wacko new threat or liberals crazy new deductions to pay for their market failures, libs and conservatives should concentrate on asking the big question-what exactly is the US income tax? Is it a tax on everything that comes in for everybody, an un-apportioned direct tax? Or is it an excise tax on those who profit from a federal privilege, a constitutionally proper indirect tax?
    Since a good 1% of the enlightened public are already standing up for the rule of law and getting full refunds of state and federal withholdings, including payroll taxes, the IRS is admitting the tax is indirect.
    But libs and conservatives who claim to honor the constitution and rule of law refuse to look into this, because, well, because they are lazy and scared to . see www.losthorizons.com

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    I understand Irwin Schiff's cell is available . . .

  • perlchpr||

    No no no! You don't understand, man! There's a magical cantrip, which if you say it just right, forces the American Jurisprudence System to admit that it only has jurisdiction over Naval matters!

    And will magically make the IRS go away and stop garnishing your wages and seizing your bank accounts.

  • retiredfire||

    REASON's comment rules suck.
    Had a link to what the guy "Let freedom Ring" wants you to listen to, on taxation, got in jail time for him and his wife but REASON's syntax rules wouldn't let it be posted because the hyphenated link had too many letters.
    Do a DuckDuckGo search for Peter Hendrickson.

  • jm15xy||

    It's like Arnold Kling said about healthcare, the policy of the government is to restrict supply and stimulate demand.

  • DrZ||

    I am from California. I apologize for Kamala Harris. I didn't vote for her, but I want to apologize anyway for what she and the state of California is trying to do to the rest of the country and I want to apologize for what the state will do for the rest of the country when it goes belly up due to public employee retirement committment it can never fulfil.

    So much to apologize for, so little time.

  • DiegoF||

    Just secede and all will be forgiven.

    Nah, I actually kind of like you. Maybe I will move there and bring my own straws and plastic bags. But how did a state go this proggy this quickly? I feel like even the Deukmejian type centrists there is no room for anymore in California, let alone what used to be a major intellectual center of very austere conservatism and libertarianism.

  • DiegoF||

    Maybe Sevo can tell me too, since he was there when the missions were established.

  • Sevo||

    Well, son ('scuse me gotta go pee)...
    Well, son, we did wear an onion in our belts 'cause it was the fashion of the time, and, what were you asking about?
    Just a minute; gotta go pee...
    Oh, yeah, rents, that's right. Well Levi told me the rents in San Francisco were outrageous. Levi? Yeah, that guy who made those canvas pants; no one's gonna buy 'em.
    Gotta go pee...

  • Happy Chandler||

    California leads the nation politically. We had Nixon before you. We had Reagan first. We had a feckless Republican governor who tried to cultivate an all white coalition. Then, we had an accidental celebrity through a wacky election who didn't know what he was doing. That was the last Republican elected state wide.

    The nation will follow us. Too bad Jerry Brown wasn't ejected instead of Clinton.

  • Pepe||

    Sorry- I won't be following their path on the "road to serfdom." Use your own money to subsidize your own mistakes.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Maybe since California has always been about fantasy and escape, plus never growing up?

  • kc75081||

    Kamala's a tremendous shakedown artist. She'll probably get some kind of redistribution of wealth through eventually for this terrible injustice in housing.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Dr Z, perhaps you could track Senator Harris to her coffin, shortly before dawn. Then wait for her to begin her unholy daytime slumber, and drive a wooden stake through her heart.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Fuck you, Kamala.

    No.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That's how I feel about bailouts for the half-educated, unskilled Trump voters who expect bailouts because tariffs are precipitating layoffs and business setbacks in Outer Yahooville.

    Let those goobers eat their Trump hats.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Rev, you're a dishonest POS, you know it, and everyone who comments here knows it. In case you missed it, my reply to you from the Amy Coney Barrett thread from 7/3/18 is quite sufficient:

    "My strategy is to prefer progress..."

    Obviously, although this begs the question, progress toward what exactly? Certainly not a society with a smaller, less active, less powerful government.

    And since you are such an ardent advocate for state mediated "solutions" to the grab bag of vague bugaboos and activist-friendly issues you list--"solutions" you apparently believe can be so easily and effectively imposed without regard to the damage done in the process to individual liberty and personal responsibility--you ought to come right out and forthrightly declare that you are a proud progressive.

    On that note, I can't help but notice a few omissions in your exhaustive list of preferences, chiefly any mention of freedom or sovereignty of the individual. That you could not be bothered to include them is telling, and this isn't an oversight on your part. Your statement is an obfuscation, but then, there is no mention of honesty in your list either.

    In short, good Rev, the "L" in your name doesn't stand for "libertarian," as you claim. It stands for liar. Deception and dissembling, at which you are very skilled, are hallmarks of the left. I prefer the direct, libertarian approach.

  • Sevo||

    "In short, good Rev, the "L" in your name doesn't stand for "libertarian," as you claim. It stands for liar. Deception and dissembling, at which you are very skilled, are hallmarks of the left."
    You are too kind to the annoying asshole.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Sure enough.

  • perlchpr||

    4/10

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "That's how I feel about bailouts for the half-educated, unskilled Trump voters who expect bailouts because tariffs are precipitating layoffs and business setbacks in Outer Yahooville."

    What a joke. the Rev. is just a high school dropout.

  • Pepe||

    You might want to buy a thesaurus, Rev.- your vocabulary makes you look ignorant. Stay on topic- the article is referring to a communist proposal by presumably American representatives.

  • Rockabilly||

    That's only fair man because what's a steak unless it's grilled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQmEODdXDfE

  • DiegoF||

    ...it's pan fried, like the cowboys did it! Very tasty also.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Reducing the tax burden of the productive, successful, education citizens who subsidize our shambling residents of left-behind yahoo precincts might not be an entirely bad idea.

  • perlchpr||

    4/10

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I sense you are a disaffected tech-school (likely IT) graduate with poor people skills, nursing grudges against all of the people at your job and throughout society who do not recognize what a great person you are, unsure about precisely where along the spectrum you fall, trying to muster the courage to get out of the house and join a militia, fearful about the future of regular white Americans in this hard-to-understand, changing world.

    Good luck with your quest to overcome your problems.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|7.21.18 @ 10:00AM|#
    "I sense you are a disaffected tech-school (likely IT) graduate with poor people skills,..."

    Jealous, I see.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The Rev. didn't even make it through high school and now foes something like emptying waste baskets for the offices of a company run by wealthy conservatives that he murderously envies. He covets what they have and his posts here are reflective of all that, plus his ongoing progressive delusions.

  • perlchpr||

    Better. 6/10

    You can do it!

  • Sevo||

    "Reducing the tax burden of the productive, successful, education citizens who subsidize our shambling residents of left-behind yahoo precincts might not be an entirely bad idea."

    Yeah, asshole, you're giving OBL a run for the most imbecilic-lefty comments.

  • Fairbanks||

    While more supply would help, there's a lot more to it than that. In Orange County there is a building boom in some cities like I've never seen in my 25 years here, and prices/rents are skyrocketing. And the most desirable cities are pretty much all built out. It's huge demand that is driving this. But no worries - if the Assembly has its way the future taxes necessary to fund pensions, high speed trains, etc. will kill the demand.

  • DiegoF||

    After 9/11 when, hard as it is to imagine now, people were genuinely worried that that was it for New York's recovery as a city, people observed things like Goldman Sachs opening its New Jersey campus and thought advancing telecommunications was going to make the need for traditional "centers of business" like Wall Street obsolete. There was no reason for a finance company, say, to center itself in Manhattan instead of, say, Trenton or even Dubuque. That doesn't seem to have transpired. A handful of purpose-dedicated cities seem to be hotter than ever, and I wonder why.

  • Sevo||

    "And the most desirable cities are pretty much all built out."
    Bullshit.
    They are "built out" to the limit of the NIMBYs living there and the city governments catering to the NIMBYs. Plus, those cities with rent control (quite a bit of the Bay Area now, and coming soon to a city near you) manage to kill supply as even our oh, so 'liberal' neighbors convert to single-family, condos or TICs. Mind you, they really do support 'rent control'; they VOTED for it. Just so long as others have to deal with it.
    Along with idiocy, hypocrisy is epidemic among SF voters.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Trump should put SF under martial law and re-allocate extra rooms in wealthy households to the poor. For their trouble, the affluent progs will receive MAGA bumper stickers frothier hybrids, and Trump 2020! trucker's hats.

  • An Non||

    Not to mention finally getting actual, personal experience with what it's like to not be part of the social elite--as opposed to having all those icky poor (and typically minority) people be kept a safe distance away from them.

  • Donald Sexton||

    CA kleptocracy (along with the Veterans Admin, NGOs & other profiteering parasites) already steals the funds, subsidies, grants, & else provided by HUD & other Federal provisions. Exploit, neglect & hoard.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Isn't she the head econazi Cassandra shrieking that electricity causes global warming? Let the California Carbon Tax buy them out of the hole.

  • Donald Sexton||

    Injuries, Injustice, Crime, Corruption Endured by Homeless Destitute Disabled Honorable USN Retiree
    During 2015 - 2017, requested assistance from city, county, state & federal beside various NGOs. Despite timely & numerous notifications, received no assistance to maintain a residence had for nearly 17 years; despite eligibility, physical disability, & imminent homeless condition, no assistance to alleviate veterans homelessness. Reprisal, injustice & corruption endured.
    Eventually, sought assistance from Legal Aid Society, only arrangement made was vacating premises by July 2017, no moving or relocation assistance provided to destitute disabled Navy retiree.
    During moving arrangements June 2017, critically injured when pothole-ridden, rutted, hazardous road conditions in designated bicycle lane caused crash resulting critical injuries (fractures & dislocations to clavicle & several ribs, pneumothorax, & other injuries, ...), into trauma unit for week, urgent care & other treatment for months, crippled & severely weakened, incident of syncope.
    Yet despite most urgent need for intervention, assistance, & protection, nobody helped even though Veterans Administration & others aware. In July, forced onto street & homeless while con artists & thieves took advantage. For five months, abandoned & into debt paying for unsanitary rodent-infested inordinately expensive motel costing several hundred dollars more than rent. I am still injured homeless destitute condition.

  • Donald Sexton||

    Since 2015 (began seeking housing subsidy & support by VA, SDHC, et al) well before that, enduring injury (2006 harmed by negligent motorist; 2012 assault & battery among other crimes by indulged terrorists, ...), injustice, poverty, crime, sought assistance because notified 20% rent increase (still better than area but unaffordable), nobody assisted or intervened ... 2017, critically injured & forced into homelessness in San Diego, CA, from residence maintained nearly 17 years; ignored by city, county, Veterans Administration, NGOs funded to alleviate conditions enduring, people supposed to help move property turned out to be con artists & thieves that abandoned or stole most of it. Also took car title & set of keys in attempt to steal it. Enduring critical injuries & catastrophic losses, also believe unjust eviction recorded. For months while critically injured, weakened, & syncope risk, abandoned in inordinately expensive unsanitary rodent-infested motel; into debt paying several hundred dollars more than prior rent. Nobody among requisite authority & organizations, much less anybody else including media, provided protection, support, medical treatment, exposure, or any concern about abuses, injuries, injustice, disparity, poverty, catastrophe, & crime happening to honorable USN retiree.
    Never helped then or before, eventually evacuated, still enduring untreated crippling injuries, disparity, injustice, homelessness, ...

  • Sevo||

    Is there a point there, or is it a robo post of random idiocy?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Robo post.

  • Flinch||

    Some people learn absolutely nothing in the process of obtaining a degree I sometimes wonder. Housing prices are what people can pay plus more based on what people can typically borrow. Throwing federal money into the mix will jack housing prices up even further. What California needs is to chart a clear course on what government can do to reduce the cost of living. Tell Kamela to pound sand: her idea is the worst possible thing imaginable. Say... does she own rental property? Skewing home prices would be to the benefit of landlords.

  • fdog50||

    Another stupid idea from California. That place just never runs out of 'em.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They can't all be Alabamas, Mississippis, or Oklahomas, you ignorant rube.

  • Sevo||

    "They can't all be Alabamas, Mississippis, or Oklahomas, you ignorant rube."

    Seems those states haven't screwed the housing market such as to require a bail out, you fucking ignoramus.

  • soldiermedic76||

    States with growing economies and low cost of living and improving standards of living, is that what you meant?

  • TeamsterX||

    He's just mad because his parent's are raising his rent again.

  • The Iconoclast||

    Our fix is to take money from people who don't live here and give it to people who do... and of course even if they did it it wouldn't work.

    There's a good chance this is your Democratic candidate for President of the United States in 2020, folks.

  • Rock Lobster||

    She already has a PAC in place:

    C alifornians

    U united for

    N ational

    T ransformation

  • damikesc||

    "With the billions in tax subsidies allotted to billionaires through last year's tax changes, this legislation provides a refreshing contrast for working families who struggle daily," says Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose, where it's illegal to build multi-family housing in some 75 percent of the city.
  • damikesc||

    Isn't CA one of the states suing that tax deductibility has been cut, which only impacts their very rich citizens?

    I guess increasing supply isn't a viable option. Best to make me pay for their policies and laws since I have such control over them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The same yahoos who object to "bailing out" their betters (the Californians who subsidize our can't-keep-up red states) will soon demand and applaud government bailouts for the left-behind, economically inadequate goobers hurt by tariffs.

    Of course, nobody ever said the yahoos were principled, consistent, well-educated, well-adjusted, or useful.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • damikesc||

    Why should he suffer less pain than he makes us suffer with his tedious bullshit?

    Woodchippers, friend. Wood. Chippers.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Feet first for the good Rev, if you please.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    applaud government bailouts for the left-behind, economically inadequate goobers

    I thought Ocassio-Cortez was running as a Dem. I'm sure she supports spending more taxpayer dollars to prop up failing blue states/municipalities.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You must be speaking about blue states, because the last time I looked, red States seem to be growing and improving economically speaking.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Leave it to you too supply the weakest, least productive, sophomoric, and founded without principle argument. You sound like a child braying at a parent about how your brother Johnny got a popsicle with doing chores first.

    Just because one mistake is made you don't double down on the mistake. As much as you love for government to paw at every problem, real and imagined, you should love those you are currently mocking.

    Fuck off, asshole slaver.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, you faggots don't subsidize a goddamn thing. That old canard is nothing more than progressive bullshit. The fact is that red states subsidize you assholes.

    Now get back to your glory hole and start sucking, so you can scratch out a living, you proggie piece of shit.

  • newshutz||

    Why should "their betters" need bailing out from the "left-behind"?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yeah, cuz federal subsidies for higher ed really brought tuition prices down.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The media will never cover this. Reason glosses over it but does discuss it.

  • Trollificus||

    That situation is perfectly analogous to housing cost. The most awful part is that university administrations have, across the board, decided to spend the newly-acquired money on...administration, not teachers or any of that other fun stuff. That's how they can give the new "Dean of Diversity and Inclusion" a quarter mill a year and a fully staffed department at the snap of a finger. It also explains the actions of college presidents when faced with extremist protests over deranged claims of omnipresent rape, racist murder and hatred of the gaywads. They always act like people willing to do anything to not end a sweet, sweet scam.

    The money Harris wants would be eaten up by a new Department of Rent Control and Housing Cost Regulation (with plenty of nice patronage jobs for the well-connected activists), and, OF COURSE, higher rents charged by the kind of people who, entirely coincidentally, donate to Democratic Party candidates.

  • Pepe||

    Let's see- you skew the market with perverse rules and regulations that prevent markets from doing their magic, and then complain about the predictable results: poverty for the average citizen.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Kamala Harris won't win any votes in red states, where rents are lower, with this proposal. Independents will see it for what it is. Let California taxpayers do it for people living in California and see how well it works first.

    A reporter should be asking why don't they implement in NY, CA, NJ or some solid blue state first. It would obviously pass there if it's such a good plan that Democrats back. The Democrats want their SALT and full mortgage interest deductions back, because it benefits the rich (but they obviously don't want to say that because it shows who they really support).

  • Lawn Darts||

    I'm going to get back any rent over 30% of my income!? Awesome! I'm going to go get a better, more expensive apartment.

  • markm23||

    You'll get a more expensive apartment under Harris's proposal. You won't get a bigger or better one because the cities still won't allow building new apartments without adding years of delays and millions in costs - if they allow building at all.

  • Trollificus||

    Yeah, was gonna say exactly that. YOUR apartment will be more expensive, if not bigger or better.

    While she's at it, and disregarding economic realities, why doesn't she just propose that everyone in the USA and anyone who manages to get across the border be declared millionaires? She could probably buy (or, better, get the State Department to buy) some of those 1,000,000 ZWD notes Mugabe has stacks of at a YUUUUGE discount and just hand 'em out! Rent, minimum wage and homelessness all solved in one fell legislative swoop!!

  • Skyhawk||

    Figures, not a single mention of the $23 billion illigal immigrants cost the state of California, nor the pressure of the millions of low-skilled, poorly educated illegal immigrants have on the housing market.

  • swampwiz||

    If we are going to go down this path, let's just do Guaranteed Income to incentivize these folks living in ridiculously high-cost areas to decamp to a cheap place.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    This is the exact same thing as everything else. Screw thinks up at the municipal and state level and then require federal help,aka everyone else, to fund your stupidity. It's easier to just get folks farthest away from the issue to throw money at a problem because it's more difficult to point to a single person or small group as the real source of the problem.

    It's bullshit. Fix your own state. And stop moving to Texas and trying to tell us to run our state into the ground like you did your own.

  • mpercy||

    Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive.

    In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available."1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the "right" to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party's welfare state, on the "left." Myrdal stated, "Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision."3

    His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing."

  • mpercy||

    Meant to bold this part: "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing."

  • Agent Walter||

    I will recommend anyone looking for Business loan to OAKTREE CAPITAL they helped me with 500,000 USD loan to startup my Quilting business and it's was fast When obtaining a loan from them it was surprising at how easy they were to work with. The process was fast and secure. It was definitely a positive experience.Avoid scammers on here and contact OAKTREE CAPITAL On. (oak-treecapital@yandex.com) if you looking for business or any kind of loan,

    Tell: +1 (512) 399-6558
    Email: oak-treecapital@yandex.com
    Best Regards
    Thanks.

  • Salero21||

    Kamala, just another COMMIE from Mexifornia.

  • jotilubar5656||

  • Salero21||

    Is it true that Commie/Marxist women don't shower, use soap, deodorant, perfumes, and feminine Toiletries 'cause they say those things are Male Capitalists inventions for the Petite bourgeoisie.

  • Headache||

    OPEN BORDERS. Good thing the well to do are leaving CA. Otherwise the housing problem would be worse.

  • Donald Sexton||

    Yet dark money, opaque PACs, dubious NGOs, fraudulent foundations, corporateers, profiteers, lobbyists, & other corruption evades scrutiny for causing disparities & distortions ... badness as usual indulged.

  • Trollificus||

    I read that there are no less than 92 organizations dealing with the "homelessness problem" in the Bay Area (may include Oakland, I guess). That's several hundred (and possibly a few thousand) six-figure white collar jobs provided by mostly public money. Their goal, endgame and motivation is the continuance and expansion of the jobs and budgets of their organizations. The "housing problem" is just another area of specialization for helping these people pay off their student loans.

    And people wonder why the problems they purport to address never get solved! Hell, in Seattle, spending on homelessness went up 50% over two years, but the homeless population only went up 37%! I'm sure the "housing cost" charities, activist organizations and NGOs can do better than that, and by advocating more rent control and more restrictions on "luxury" housing, add considerably to the "housing cost" crisis.

  • Donald Sexton||

    Injury, Injustice, Crime, Corruption Endured by Homeless Disabled USN Retiree
    Last year in San Diego, CA, evacuated by Relief Society.
    November 2015, notified 20% rent increase by February 2016. Years before, impoverished & untreated injuries causing disabilities, no assistance or medical treatment provided. Injuries by negligence, assault & battery, fraud, malpractice, rights violations, suppressing evidence, harassment, theft, & other abuses but indulged by corruption in San Diego government with collusion by regional VA & else.
    During 2015 - 2017, requested assistance from city, county, state, federal, & NGOs. Despite notifications, no assistance to maintain residence I had nearly 17 years; despite eligibility, physical disability, & imminent homelessness. Further reprisal, injustice & corruption.
    Sought assistance from Legal Aid Society, terrible experience without protection, personal identity further compromised, conniving people & thieves took advantage of condition to steal my property.
    June 2017, critically injured when pothole-ridden, rutted, hazardous road conditions in designated bicycle lane caused crash, trauma unit for a week, urgent care & other treatment for months, crippled & severely weakened, syncope.
    Despite most urgent catastrophic need, nobody helped. Forced onto street, abandoned & into debt paying for rodent-infested unsanitary motel costing several hundred more than prior rent. Still injured & in an unstable homeless destitute condition.

  • Donald Sexton||

    My experience reveals corrupt scam & cronyism: Veterans Administration, San Diego city & county, NGOs, ...; profit by exploiting & neglecting veterans. No exposure much less deserved assistance, advocacy, or protection ... extends to local media, lack of integrity & suppression part of overall lack of accountability.
    Other undeserved grants, subsidies, fiat, indulgences, fraud, malfeasance, especially: market scams & financial schemes; industries & real estate; GSEs; corporateers, institutional corruption, including education, medicine, health can't insurers; fraudulent foundations, dubious non-profits, NGOs; overarmed volatile dangerous distrustful local popo; rampant kleptocracy (sales, usage, property & other taxes; fees; fines; theft); indulging harm, persecution, fraud, disparity, human & civil rights violations; suppressing truth & evidence about physical abuses & injury, harass witnesses, ...; numerous industries subsidized & crooked bail outs, forsaking fiscal responsibility for outright malfeasance & distorting costs of living especially shelter & necessities, ... serious matters & other grave issues adversely affected my life, caused physical harm to forsaken USN retiree. Further details on ordeal I endure 7406840034
    Thanks for attention, any possible assistance & exposure to my condition.

  • Donald Sexton||

    Harris is callous as she is clueless & indulgent.
    Since 2015 & before, enduring injury, injustice, poverty, crime, ... In 2017, critically injured & forced into homelessness in San Diego, CA, ignored by all organizations funded & supposed to avert exact conditions enduring, while people supposed to help move my property were con artists & thieves that abandoned or stole most. Little remaining property diverted to auto repair shop adjacent to NavSta, more was picked off despite promise to store & protect. Also took car title & set of keys in attempt to steal car. Enduring critical injuries & catastrophic losses. Nobody among requisite authorities & organizations, much less anybody else or media, provided protection, support, requisite medical treatment, or had concern about abuses, injuries, injustice, disparity, poverty, catastrophe, & crimes that have happened to an honorable USN retiree.

  • lap83||

    introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would provide refundable tax credits for tenants who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent.

    Here in flyover country we also have people who spend more than 30% of their income on rent, they're called unemployed or bad with finances.

  • rdlynch||

    California, New York, and Connecticut have no right to expect residents of other states to pay for the extravagant taxes "enjoyed" by these pig states. They can cut their taxes. Good grief, who do they think they are?

  • Schamsie||

    It is interesting that you feel that the Federal government would be subsidizing California as the result of this law. As things currently stand California gets $.77 back for every $1 it sends to the Federal Government. It seems that you want them to subsidize even more. Maybe you should look at a stalwart, conservative state like Mississippi instead.

  • Rahul Chandra||

    Teri Ane Ki Ahhat Jab Hoti Hai.
    Mann Mai Ek Khushi Ki Lehr Si Uth Thi Hai
    Tumse Milke Ataa Hai Chain Mjhe
    Manno Pure Hue Ho Dil Ke Armaan Mere…!

    Hindi Love Shayari
    Sad Love Shayari
    Sad Love Shayari In Hindi
    sad shayari
    sad love shayari

    Socha Na Tha Yeh Din Aayega,
    Is Awara Dil Ko Tu Bha Jayega
    Nachegi Dharti Amber Zhoom Uthega,
    Anjaan Nagri Mein Sanam Mil Jayega!

  • TxJack 112||

    Maybe is California stopped taxing everyone to death for every thing they can imagine, the cost of living might drop along with housing costs. The expectation that Federal taxpayers would subsidize the costs associated with out of control, irresponsible state government spending and taxation is the epitome of socialism and the very reason Democrats lose elections again and again.

  • Schamsie||

    You do realize that California only gets $.77 for every dollar sent to the federal government, don't you? They are subsidizing the feds, not the other way around.

  • D-Pizzle||

    Citation please.

  • some random poster||

    Nearly all of the problems that libs complain about, including the lack of affordable housing, are either caused or exacerbated by mass Third World migration, legal and illegal. The cities that attract the most migrants simply can't handle the influx at the current rate. Weren't libs the ones who used to complain about overpopulation? They're importing a problem we don't have, then complaining about a housing shortage, too many cars on the road, overcrowded classrooms, not enough hospital beds, etc.

    And let's not forget the water! In addition to being told to get out of our cars and on to buses, Californians are being told to take shorter showers and let our lawns die. There are fines (of course!) if you water your lawn out of turn. And what are these sacrifices for? More immigration!

    You can build all the high-rise tenements that the government will allow (of course they won't be in Malibu or Brentwood or Calabasas), but if we're handing them over to an unending stream of migrants, the problem will never be fixed.

  • ZZZMike||

    I suppose if California wants to have that sort of thing - where we pay part of our neighbor's rent, that would certainly be OK (except for some Californians) - but to ask people in Vermont to kick in? Only a socialist would ask such a thing.

  • georgekaplan||

    Kamala Harris doesn't know a g_d damned thing about affordable housing. I work for CA Dept. of Housing and Community Dev. EVERYTHING we do makes the housing problem worse.

  • HANSENWT||

    She knows that her real estate investments will go up in value and the Feds will keep the tenants in. What the tenants don't know is they will see little of this money as they will just pay it right back out so more crazy fees, local taxes etc and housing costs can just keep going up. How about say San Jose changes a law so they can build multi-family housing? How about there is a gouging on value vs land etc...how about incentives for companies (CA tax break) if they pay some housing cost as a work benefit similar to college assistance or heathcare...like maybe the employee gets to pick one and should be part of their full pay package. Just some thoughts. but all of them CA controlled...this is not a Federal problem.

  • Rodolfo||

    Maybe the socialists (communists) of California are running out of other people's money. The State is technically bankrupt if one looks at their balance sheet INCLUDING unfunded liabilities. That doesn't stop them from spending, spending, spending, however.

  • ||

    I never regarded Kamala Harris as a BRIGHT bulb in the (D) Senate chandelier ….but her latest "request" is so absurdedly STUPID that I would suggest she makes a 5 months trip to Venezuela before making more such INsane requests to bail out what her State has done without outside HELP ,,, has she ever heard of COMMON SENSE nad Accountability????

  • ||

    I never regarded Kamala Harris as a BRIGHT bulb in the (D) Senate chandelier ….but her latest "request" is so absurdedly STUPID that I would suggest she makes a 5 months trip to Venezuela before making more such INsane requests to bail out what her State has done without outside HELP ,,, has she ever heard of COMMON SENSE nad Accountability????

  • HANSENWT||

    I hope people are figuring it out...everytime you connect a social program (Fed) to a commercial program (local)...that costs is going to balloon...because the Feds are bailing it out. If California wants to do it for Californians that should be up to them as we do get NJ rebates from NJ not the Feds here...I am not sure how good that program is or how it affects...but the point is NJ voted for it and NJ pays for it....so also and I hope Repub senators read this....you can bet if Feds bail out CA then other states are coming to call....How about maybe CA reassesses real estate value/prices...I should not have to pay FED taxes so someone can pay over a million dollars for a 1 bedroom shack near the beach. Please pay attention...regardless of how she shifts in 2020 for election...this is the kind of things she will try to get to happen and who knows if she wants to bail out everyone or just California....only matters on principle...cost wise we can't afford either....note how she offers to pay for it.....you wont find it. This reeks of something that will get tossed in to get a budget accross...we need to get pork off the menu!

  • DrT||

    This is just the tip of the iceberg in California. Its a political lay up for Harris and DiFi. Wait till they come back and want the rest of us to subsidize their pension system. Roughly $2T of pension obligations in the state and munis with roughly $650B in assets. If we're stupid enough to foot the bill for bad housing policy, we're probably stupid enough to pay for their excessive pensions too.

  • CDRSchafer||

    How much would the price of a car go up overnight, if the government started giving $20K checks so everyone could "afford" a new car?

  • Marijuana Packin||

    Yes, too many empty nesters are in the 9.3% state income marginal when taking required minimum distributions from an IRA.

  • gphx||

    Just let California secede from the Union then the moment they do conquer them and take that shit back.

    Bad plan?

    Why? That's exactly what the Union did to the South.

  • Juvenal||

    Kamala Harris may not be the brightest light on the porch, but she knows her constituents (i.e., the Cali crazies). She's just posturing for a run for president in 2020. I can't imagine that even considering what passes for the Democratic Party these days, she would get much momentum behind her. She's not the quickest on her feet with ripostes or anything else unless extensively prepped with thoroughly rehearsed talking points in front of her. Moreover, her likability quotient is probably only a little better than Hillary's -- but such a standard. And, apart from being a poseur in Senate confirmation hearings, what has she accomplished as a senator? That's right, zip.

    However, anything's possible. As the Democrats are determined to "right the wrong" of Hillary being denied the Oval Office as the first female president, she might have a chance. Who else? Kirsten Gillibrand? Equally cerebrally challenged, but can check off only being female, not all the rest of boxes in the identity politics schema the Democrats hold to. Tulsi Gabbard would seem a natural, but she hasn't shone in the PC stakes up to this point, and so she'll automatically be dismissed. What a wreck of a party (not the Republics are any better).

  • HillTown Trader||

    Subsidies raise costs. always. (Bennett Hypothisis)

    This money allows landlord to raise rents endlessly, becuase the higher the rent, the more federal money flows to the rent payer.

    Wrong headed.

  • Robert Crim||

    You know a State's in trouble when its former attorney general (and gun-grabber in chief) turns out to be a thief.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online