SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mrknowitall who wrote (4095)9/21/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: j_b  Read Replies (2) of 67261
 
<<Do you see how ridiculous that is? >>

Now you have ME confused. Although I agree with Proposition 13 (at least in concept, because the politicians were getting to a point where business were being taxed out of CA), I also agree with Michelle. For example, if you are on a fixed income and are retired, and your property taxes (and therefore the value of your property) have increased drastically, why do you have some sort of right to stay in that property? If you can't afford the upkeep or the taxes, you should sell the property and move to someplace cheaper. For example, in most of the midwest, you could by an estate with the proceeds from the sale of your house in Silicon Valley, have enough to pay the professional movers, and still put $300 or $400k in the bank to increase the amount of income you receive every month.

What makes you think anyone has an inherent right to live anywhere they want, even if they can't afford it?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News