Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (4707)	9/22/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<OT>> Doug - it isn't as bad as Michelle has depicted it. People trying to buy a house there are affected no matter what their age. What we have there is the law of supply and demand at work in the real estate market. Contrary to what Michelle says, all of the property owners pay taxes; the rate at which they have been allowed to increase has been limited, but they do pay taxes and they do increase every year. The problem came about in a rebellion against California's opportunistic legislature seeing property taxes as the best way to raise funds (i.e., like Willy Horton robbing banks - because that's where the money was). The problem is market cycles and demographics and this ridiculous fascination companies have with being in Silly Valley. The rich executives can afford to live there so they simply expect their employees to muddle through somehow. Then in an effort to appear concerned, they have folks do studies to see why it is supposedly so difficult to get someone to work there. In order not to have to pay differentials or not to geographically diversify their workforce, they have found this essentially convenient target of "older people," who they attempt to hold up as the enemy. One needs to ask if Michelle would be willing to subsidize the falling property values during some years in other parts of the country where the sellers find themselves stuck with mortgages that are larger than the value of their homes. Is that age discrimination. too? If it is, existing 10% mortgage payers should claim reverse age discrimination on the basis that today's low interest rates are an unfair economic advantage to new, supposedly younger buyers. Effective age discrimination? Not quite as black and white as one would think. JMO Mr. K.