Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The real question here (Score 1) 185

by mattack2 (#49582517) Attached to: How One Tweet Wiped $8bn Off Twitter's Value

It's good for a long term homeowner, but messed up lots of other things.. As a kid, I remember tons of after school activities and such that _older_ kids had suddenly went away after Prop 13 went in. (Probably more than after school activities, but that's what I remembered at the time...)

(I bought a few years ago, so I have a high purchase price, but will "benefit" from Prop 13 if values go up higher and I thus don't have to pay hugely increased property tax.. But I do think things should be more even across the board.. NOT wealth distribution, but I would do away with subsidies, even ones I benefit from, like mortgage tax deduction -- that would simply get me to pay off my mortgage rather than make more investing the money, like I can do now.)

Comment: Re:The real question here (Score 2) 185

by mattack2 (#49581599) Attached to: How One Tweet Wiped $8bn Off Twitter's Value

She should have been happy. There's typically no reason to want your property to increase in value unless you plan to sell it. It just increases your property taxes.

The post you're replying to was in Silicon Valley, obviously in CA. So the property tax is (mostly) based on the purchase price + some small growth allowed each year. That was due to Prop 13. So just because the value goes up, doesn't make the property tax go up... unless something happens to cause it to get reassessed (I think major improvements to the house can do this). But simply living in it doesn't.

(Some transfers, e.g. between some family members, don't cause reassessed value too..)

Comment: Re:You're not willing to pay (Score 1) 285

Well I agree with that. Doctors are well-paid, and deservedly so.

The national data at gives $185,194 as the median.

For a job requiring SO much education, and them likely having huuuuuge college loans to pay back, that really doesn't seem like a *TON* of money. (Plus, they have to spend a lot on medical insurance, due to sue-happy people.)

Comment: Re:Decent (Score 1) 482

by mattack2 (#49489229) Attached to: Seattle CEO Cuts $1 Million Salary To $70K, Raises Employee Salaries

he's got no excuse for not having his home and cars all paid for

I'd agree about the car, but disagree about the home.

ESPECIALLY with the low rates still available, you can relatively easily (even via dividends, and yes of course dividend paying stocks have risks too) make more than your "effective" mortgage rate, due to deductibility of mortgage interest.

I say this as someone who *hates* debt, and has paid cash for the two new cars I've bought in my life (though as much as I hate leases, some of the lowest end electric cars are now available for lease prices so low that that might have even made more sense).

Comment: Re:I think we just need to get burned. (Score 1) 332

by mattack2 (#49467373) Attached to: California Looks To the Sea For a Drink of Water

No, it's not the same thing.

"Wealth distribution" often is used to describe the "income gap" between the rich and the poor... That is, simply describing the situation as it is now.

"Wealth redistribution" is (mandated) Robin Hood-ing, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Comment: Re:But not to Nestle. (Score 1) 332

by mattack2 (#49466989) Attached to: California Looks To the Sea For a Drink of Water

Pure capitalism optimizes to make money, and thats it. Worse, it tends to only look at what profit can be made in say the next year or so. Doing the kinds of things required to address the water shortage is likely to not be a money maker, at least not that quickly.

(I agree with you a tiny tiny bit regarding needing environmental laws to slightly temper the "pure capitalism" tendencies, if one is to dump their sewage in the river behind the factory.)

Yet Tesla & Space-X are both for profit companies, making big long term gambles on huge industry changing goals.

Also, while it's not the same, recently I've heard of the exact opposite, charity, being done quantitatively. Some people are finally looking at the investment/reward "payback" of various charities.

Comment: Patents to new media (Score 1) 58

by mattack2 (#49466177) Attached to: After EFF Effort, Infamous "Podcasting Patent" Invalidated

I haven't read *today's* news on the subject.

But about the original patent, everybody complains about the patents that someone got for "X _ON THE INTERNET_" when X was already patented. Yeah, that's ridiculous.

Shouldn't it work the other way, though? The originally patented idea DOES seem to me to be analogous to podcasting. I originally thought it sounded dumb when Carolla (whose podcast I listen to and enjoy), described it, but reading about it in more detail made it seem like a reasonably patentable idea *IF ANYTHING IS*.

"Your attitude determines your attitude." -- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus