Hands off our property rights
I watched with a chuckle the other night about a story on the
news about Measure A in Santa Cruz county. One side was claiming
this was a tax increase. The other said it was not; it was a way of
making rich people with big homes pay their fair share for
affordable housing. Now unless I’m wrong, according to Econ 101,
housing is affordable, because we are making it and people are
buying it, even in these times when probably only 10 percent of
realtors are making a living while the other 90 percent are used to
rationalize how tough it is to be a realtor.
The reason Measure A is not a tax increase is because it is
socialism, at least according to the spokesperson on the news.
Socialism espouses paying as you are able. What is even more
incredible is that the news doesn’t even ask the question.
If there was a demand for
”
affordable
”
housing, which to me translates into subsidized home ownership
for people who should be renting, then why don’t the people
espousing government redistribution of wealth through
”
fees
”
pony up some capital and see if they can make a profit?
They won’t, because there isn’t a market for it. To make matters
worse, the socialists claim there is a shortage of low skilled
labor. If this were the case, why are wages going down, and wages
for rich people going up?
 This further reinforces a consolidation of wealth, which is
reinforced by national chains and leapfrog development. It falsely
misappropriates our national energy into growth for growth’s sake
and doesn’t allow diversification of assets, which coupled with
property rights, is America’s greatest st
rengths.
All the while, we have selective enforcement of property rights,
an unbalanced tax approach which is balanced too far towards asset
taxation and not consumption. This reinforces even less
participation in government, and therefore more infringement on
property rights. Soon, it will be against the law to own property.
Bye Bye Republic.
Mark Dickson
Hollister
Hands off our property rights
I watched with a chuckle the other night about a story on the news about Measure A in Santa Cruz county. One side was claiming this was a tax increase. The other said it was not; it was a way of making rich people with big homes pay their fair share for affordable housing. Now unless I’m wrong, according to Econ 101, housing is affordable, because we are making it and people are buying it, even in these times when probably only 10 percent of realtors are making a living while the other 90 percent are used to rationalize how tough it is to be a realtor.
The reason Measure A is not a tax increase is because it is socialism, at least according to the spokesperson on the news. Socialism espouses paying as you are able. What is even more incredible is that the news doesn’t even ask the question.
If there was a demand for “affordable” housing, which to me translates into subsidized home ownership for people who should be renting, then why don’t the people espousing government redistribution of wealth through “fees” pony up some capital and see if they can make a profit?
They won’t, because there isn’t a market for it. To make matters worse, the socialists claim there is a shortage of low skilled labor. If this were the case, why are wages going down, and wages for rich people going up? This further reinforces a consolidation of wealth, which is reinforced by national chains and leapfrog development. It falsely misappropriates our national energy into growth for growth’s sake and doesn’t allow diversification of assets, which coupled with property rights, is America’s greatest strengths.
All the while, we have selective enforcement of property rights, an unbalanced tax approach which is balanced too far towards asset taxation and not consumption. This reinforces even less participation in government, and therefore more infringement on property rights. Soon, it will be against the law to own property. Bye Bye Republic.
Mark Dickson
Hollister
