6/5     70% tax unfair? My landlord inherited 21 tall rise buildings from
        his dad in Westwood. He does nothing except collecting $ and hiring
        other managers to take care of shit for him. There are plenty of
        apartments in Westwood but they're all overpriced because of the
        few elites who decide to artificially inflate the price. 70% tax
        unfair for the superwealthy people? My ass. The rich is getting
        richer and the poor is getting poorer, and that is a fact from
        having unrestrained capitalism.
        \_ Uhm, excuse me, sorry to interrupt your frothing, what what business
           is it of yours that he is the ceo and owner of his own little real
           estate empire?  What the hell have *you* done to deserve a lower
           rent or free access to this guy's or anyone else's wealth?  The rich
           are no richer than they ever were.  The poor are better off now in
           this country than they ever were in any country at any point in
           history.  If you don't want to make this guy even richer, then go
           invest in owning something, stop paying rent which was always a
           loser's game and take care of your own shit.  How many apartments
           have you or some other trashy renter destroyed because 'hey, it's
           only a rental, fuck the landlord anyway, eh'?  I'll bet you've left
           at least one apartment in much worse shape than you got it and then
           you bitched over every penny they took from your deposit to cover
           the damages.  Hey, I know, let's have super strict rent control. It
           has worked soooo well in SF and Berkeley to make housing affordable
           and available to the little people.  Not.
                \_ That's quite the rant.  Are you saying that markets are perfect
                   and that they never need adjustment?  That we should allow
                   the establishment of family fortunes that perpetuate a con-
                   centration of economic power into the hands of an ever-
                   wealthier elite?
                   \_ The Founders of this nation were in favor of *not*
                      allowing family fortunes to be broken up.  They believed
                      that passing family wealth to a single child was better
                      than splitting it among them and destroying through
                      division.  Modern families have been ignoring their
                      advice and splitting their wealth, thus in a few short
                      generations destroying it so I'm not at all concerned
                      about your Communism 120B Professor's propaganda about
                      "the establishment of family fortunes taht perpetuate a
                      concentration of economic power in the hands of an ever-
                      wealthier elite" because reality shows this to be
                      opposite to what you believe.  Nice way to ignore just
                      about everything I said, btw.  If you're just here to
                      be the new commie-troll, then congrats on your one
                      success.  If you actually believe this crap, then you
                      can respond with more than phrases from the Little Red
                      book and one line, no content blowoffs that the people
                      responding to you are just ranting.  I was talking about
                      rent control and the land lord/renter relationship and
                      all I got back was mindless off-topic propaganda.  The
                      least you could do is provide on-topic mindless
                      propaganda if you want your troll to survive more than
                      the next hour this time or 30 seconds next time.
                      \_ IMHO(I'm not the guy above) the rental problem is
                         partly the fault of assholes who do not participate
                         in the market and so destroy it for everyone else.
                         By this I mean perspective tenants with too much money
                         and too little brains who don't bother to respond to
                         price at all and break the rationality of the market.
                         Just because someone can afford 2500/mo rent doesn't
                         mean an apartment is really *worth* that, and they
                         should keep shopping and spend the money they save on
                         something else.  I do not propose any governement
                         based solution to this, but I believe that smashing
                         the Real Estate cartel would go a long way towards
                         fixing the problem.  Again, I'm not proposing a
                         government solution, just proposing that individuals
                         refuse to use realtors' services when there is
                         *any* alternative, and that people use the Internet
                         as much as possible to replace them.  This is already
                         happening.  I guess the one government based solution
                         I might propose would be adding a course in the public
                         schools that teaches about home ownership and home
                         buying.  It's fine to learn that stuff from your
                         parents if they happen to be responsible and own a home
                         but for the rest of us, learning in the real world
                         is a pain.
           \_ advice #1, take your anti-depressant pill.
              advice #2, get your facts straight:
                http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/writing/newsrls/3-31-04a.htm
                http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/26/pf/taxes/wealth
                http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/richgetricher.html
              \_ *LAUGH*  Read your own links.  I stopped at the first after
                 it agreed with me about half way down page 1.  And here's the
                 key phrase from *your* link,
                 "Why such relatively fast income gains for the rich? In a
                 word: education, one of the biggest income determinants.
                 Workers with more education simply earn more."
                 Which tells us that the only thing holding people back is
                 their own unwillingness to get a better education.  Education
                 in this country is free or nearly so for the poor.  There's
                   \_ Only if you're smart.  Dumbasses like Bush have family
                      money, so they can go to increasingly expensive schools.
                      However, bright, but not genius, poor kids are getting
                      priced out.  And there are a lot of other disadvantages
                      to being born poor, such as crappy public schools which
                      neither prepare you for nor steer you toward good 4-year
                      degree programs.
                 no excuse to not have at least a 4 year degree, yet if you
                 keep digging deeper, you'll find (no big shock) that the bulk
                 of the poorest of the poor didn't graduate highschool.  Is
                 that the fault of the rich?  I'm sure you'll make some
                 argument to that effect.
        \_ So... you just want his money, because he has more than you?
           Got it.
           \_ Actually, what this guy is saying, is that since this rich
              guy already has all these assets, he has an advantage in
              sqeezing more money out of the rest of us.  It's like M$,
              market dominance leads to the ability to force people to pay
              what you want them to pay.  Taxation seems like a reasonable
              way to me to keep wealth from turning into hereditary
              aristocracies dominating all wealth in the US.
              \_ bingo. there's clearly a point at which wealth goes beyond
                 wealth. Billionaire empires would grow faster than the
                 general economy and more and more power gets concentrated
                 into the hands of a few. There's no injustice in putting
                 huge taxes on inheritances and incomes that are beyond the
                 pale. These are huge sums at just the tiniest top fraction
                 of people.
                 \_ So, I ask again, at what point do you put that 100% tax
                    rate?  How much is too much?  How much are we 'allowed' to
                    own in your little communist utopia?
                    \_ What 100%? I merely defend the principle of progressive
                       income tax, inheritance taxes, etc. Call it whatever
                       you want, I don't give a shit.
                       \_ We already have all that.  Now what?  It obviously
                          isn't having the desired effect for you.  When the
                          tax rates were even higher the rich were still, you
                          know, rich.  The only way to make the highly driven
                          and educated *not* be rich is a 100% tax.  All that
                          will do is drive them to another country with a
                          realistic tax rate that allows them to be rewarded
                          for being smarter than the rest of us.
                    \_ So it's either black or white with you?  Either we're
                       free market capitalists or we're pinko commies? Way to
                       use your noodle, dude.
                       \_ I answer this above.  When the tax rates were higher
                          than now the rich were still rich.  If you want them
                          to not be rich the only way is to have a 100% rate.
                          So, yes, I'm not only 'using my noodle' but I have
                          correctly applied it to the communist point and
                          spent the 2 seconds thought required to figure out
                          the necessary tax rate to achieve the desired effect.
           \_ well, no, but I really think I could have better use of money
              than him. For example I could have bought 3 hybrid cars instead
              of his stupid Hummer.
              \_ Not true; the tax credit for rich Hummer owners is far more
                 lucrative than anything you'll get in your battery rocket.
                 \_ I really don't understand how this tax shelter still survives.
              \_ I really think I could have better use of money than you.
                 Gimme all your money!
                 \_ I'll be glad to!  Just forward your bank account information
                    to my business partner in Nigeria and I'll hook you up.
         \_ They are priced fairly. If they were not, then they would go
            unrented.
                \_ ah, and if by raising the Bay Bridge toll to $10 and you
                   still get just as many bridge payers, then it is still
                   priced fairly? Some things are called inelastic supply and
                   and demand, my little cricket.
                   \_ Yes because there are other options to cross the bridge.
                      There is bart, car pooling, going around, or getting a
                      job that doesn't require bridge crossing.  If the bridge
                      toll went to $10 and the same number of people continued
                      to cross it then yes it is still priced fairly.  If
                      bridge use declines, as expected, but only slightly while
                      BART use goes up then yes it is still priced fairly.
                   \_ Housing isn't one of them. Move from Westwood and
                      rents will be cheaper. My gf lived in Westwood
                      because she liked it better than Mar Vista or Palms.
                      She paid more for the privilege. She could've lived
                      somewhere else cheaper.
                      \_ There is inelastic supply and elastic supply.
                         Over the long term, traffic patterns will definately change.
                         I already cringe the few times I have to cross the GGB.
                         I'd never go across it if they raised it to $10.  -rollee
                         \_ You would cross it at $50 if there was something
                            worth more than $50 to you at the other end.
           \_ Also if one or a few landlords own most of the land in an
              area, monopoly or oligopoly effects prevent fair prices.
              \_ This is not true in Westwood. If you think it is
                 overpriced then move to Santa Monica, Bel Air, Brentwood,
                 WeHo, Inglewood, or wherever you think rents are fair.
                 \_ Santa Monica is very very very expensive.
                    Bel Air is mostly houses owned by the rich, and they
                    hate students. Brentwood rarely rents out to students.
                    Marina Del Ray rent is like NYC rent. Actually, Westwood
                    is pretty cheap compared to these places I mentioned. Now,
                    Inglewood, that's a much more affordable place.
                    \_ Brentwood's not expensive if you know where to look.
                       Same with Santa Monica.  -- ilyas
                       \_ Isn't Santa Monica still under rent control? --rollee
                          \_ Don't know.  Santa Monica is like "Berkeley South"
                             in most respects. -- ilyas
                Do you have a car? Have you driven to Santa Monica, say, -/
                near the beach? Have you shopped around? Rent there is
                $100-$200 more than Westwood for studios and 1 bdrms.
                If SM were indeed cheaper, there would be more students
                living there, but the fact of the matter is that SM
                residents are mostly young fresh grad, 20-30 something. A
                better parallel is that SM is more like Emeryville.
                \_ So what you're saying is the Westwood rents are still quite
                   fair since they're cheaper than anything else around.
                   Thanks for clarifying.
        \_ As an aside, one good argument I've heard for high taxes is that
           money corrupts the democratic process.  So keeping people from
           amassing large amounts of wealth is important to provide each
           person an equal voice.  You may argue that the solution to the
           problem of money in government could be solved by anti-corruption
           laws, but history seems to show otherwise.  For example, look at
           all the corporations contributing hundreds of thousands of
           dollars to throw parties for politicians at the convention in
           Boston.  I think Kennedey has a party with a price tag > $100K
           paid for by companies with bills pending before his committee.
           \_ There will always be enough money around to corrupt politics.
              You can't fight human nature with tax laws.  Having a super high
              tax for the purpose of avoid political corruption by sucking the
              life out of people seems silly to me.  It's as if you're saying
              most rich people do nothing with their wealth but buy politicians
              which oh nevermind, it's just silly.
           \_ I respectfully disagree. The few elites know how to allocate
              wealth better than the poor. I'd rather have the rich people
              control money so that they can contribute to the Ghetty Museum,
              Metropolitan Opera, Gates Hall, Rockefeller Funding, Carneghie
              Scholarships, and things. If you had allocated the same amount
              of money to the poor, they'd squander it on alcohol, plasma TV
              and football fields.
              \_ yeah, but who'd build the plasma TV's, the football fields,
                 and the distillerys?
                 \_ You're all a bunch of fucking communists. Go find a time
                    machine and move to the Soviet Union.
        \_ Haven't you guys followed the stock market and financial news?
           Haven't you seen news about Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, LTCM bailout,
           Stern's market timing, etc.?  You don't think those are just
           the tip of the iceberg?  Wake up!  They are raping your arse,
           and you are saying "thank you!  it's lovely!  do it again!"
           And the idiots above are saying, "Hey! don't worry, some day
           you can get rich too and join us in screwing little people."
           \_ It's the great American hesitation:  wait, if I make it hard for
              rich people to screw the little guy, then how will I screw the
              little guy when I win the lottery?  Keep them hoping, and
              they'll do their best to stay out of trouble and maintain the
              status quo.