Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 15, 2024

For 15 years, VC billionaire Vinod Khosla has been battling to restrict access to a beach near his home in the San Francisco area -- and his fight was just dealt another blow.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I have been following this saga of Privilege for the whole time. He has done some really dirty things and bought the property knowing there was beach access. Personally I think the state should just take it under eminent domain at this point.

#1 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-05-14 08:05 PM | Reply

Sounds like a feriner. Steal his crap and send him to Manzanar.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-15 01:12 AM | Reply

This is no different than people who build next door to a pig farm and then demand the pig farm shut down because it effects their property value.

---- em.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-15 06:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

One of the nice things about the beaches in Naples is:

"Collier County has just over 48 miles of sandy beaches along the Gulf of Mexico... Each beach in the Collier County area is unique and they are all open to the public (up to the high tide line). Many realtors will advertise places with "private beaches". These are just areas along coastline with limited public access points."

collierarea.com

Now, recently the city has started charging parking fees for non-residents at near downtown residential beaches, which is good or not depending if you live there or not.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-15 04:12 PM | Reply

" public access up to the high tide line"

Just like Costa Rica.

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-15 04:23 PM | Reply

The thing is the beaches shift too and fro with the seasons and tides. So High tide line varies as well...

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-05-15 07:16 PM | Reply

Billionaires shouldn't even Exist.

This guy is too big for his Oshkosh'es

Some people think they Own the Earth Itself.

He needs a Humbling.

#7 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-15 08:12 PM | Reply

Billionaires shouldn't even Exist.

Agreed.

It's hoarding and it's detrimental to society.

It's why we're seeing so much poverty and homelessness.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-05-15 08:23 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure all Florida beaches are public up to the mean high water line. The favorite stunt of the Rich and powerful is to provide an access point but no parking.

Another point of contention is docks. In most waterways, the state owns all submerged lands. A fisherman can't tie up to a private dock, or climb onto it, but otherwise has full access to the water beside and under it. This really pisses off the wealthy folks who think they own the water.

#9 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-16 12:53 AM | Reply

What he (and his neighbors) need to do is turn the entire area into another Pebble Beach. Then they can call it a gated community with public access for a fee like Pebble Beach. You can't stop it but you can slow it down, filter out some riff-raff, and make a profit if you're the first ones to do it.

#10 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-05-16 07:43 AM | Reply

VC and PE are giant boils on the taint of society.

Everywhere they go they make a mess.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2024-05-16 10:03 AM | Reply

Each beach in the Collier County area is unique and they are all open to the public (up to the high tide line)

The entire state of Oregon is this way. Their beach bill that passed in the 60s basically says the public owns all the wet sand on the coast, and the coast can never be developed or blocked. Other states should do the same.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2024-05-16 10:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Each beach in the Collier County area is unique and they are all open to the public (up to the high tide line). Many realtors will advertise places with "private beaches". These are just areas along coastline with limited public access points
- corky

This is true in CA as well.

The beach is public, just like a navigable water way and the shoreline upto the median water mark.

It's the access that's the issue.

Not sure how it was disclosed when he purchased the land, what made it an access road?

I know in Malibu they have this issue.

#13 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-16 01:25 PM | Reply

"It's hoarding and it's detrimental to society. It's why we're seeing so much poverty and homelessness."

Really?

You think if the billionaires were to mysteriously disappear from the face of the earth, homelessness and poverty would disappear with it?

Walk me through that logic, please.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-05-16 01:31 PM | Reply

#13

Yeah. You can't own oceans or rivers. I don't see how someone walking on the beach could be considered as a trespasser if their feet were getting a bit wet.

It seems like more of an access thing, where the surfers are pissed because their being inconvenienced by having to find another access point.

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-05-16 01:34 PM | Reply

You think if the billionaires were to mysteriously disappear from the face of the earth, homelessness and poverty would disappear with it?

Walk me through that logic, please.

#14 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The most prosperous time in America was in the late 50s and all of the 60s when the tax rate for the wealthy was 90%.

It was called the Golden Age.

The most vigorous, sustained periods of growth, on the other hand, took place from early 1961 to mid-1969, with an expansion of 53% (5.1% a year), from mid-1991 to late 2000, at 43% (3.8% a year), and from late 1982 to mid-1990, at 37% (4% a year).

The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income. Starting in 1964, a period of income tax rate decline began, ending in 1987.

They wouldn't "mysteriously disappear". They would still be wealthy but just be less wealthy. And the money (that they could never even spend in their own lifetimes anyway ) would be redistributed via taxes to make the world they live in a better place and keep them comfortably wealthy in that world they helped make better.

How is that not "logical"?

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 01:50 PM | Reply

Access is asserting control, which is the essence of ownership.

The billionaire is a ----- and he should be denied control of access to public resources.

#17 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-16 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

16

But if we could do it your way we'd still have the same billionaires and the same people in poverty.

How does your "logic" address that point?

Or do think if we tax the billionaire more.....there's one less person in poverty?

Tax rates and "the Golden age" doesn't really say anything.....

#18 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 01:56 PM | Reply

"But if we could do it your way we'd still have the same billionaires and the same people in poverty."

I was responding to the deflection that billionaires would mysteriously disappear.

And it's not about making them disappear and or take their property. It's about redistributed wealth. And if you did theoretically redistribute that wealth properly there would be less poverty better health care and better infrastructure. Hence a better world for all.

...

Tax rates and "the Golden age" doesn't really say anything.....
#18 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Right. So I give a clear example of when America was economically strong which also coincided with higher tax rates for the wealthy and so of course that means "I didn't say anything" ...

Umm ok.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 02:15 PM | Reply

The most prosperous time in America was in the late 50s and all of the 60s when the tax rate for the wealthy was 90%.
It was called the Golden Age.

#16 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2024-05-16 01:50 PM | FLAG:

The wealthy have never, ever paid 90% taxes. During that time period the effective rate for the top 0.01% of earners was 45% in the 50s and was cut in the 60s.

The "Golden Age" was a hilariously artificial bubble that created the long term problems we face now, and it's not because of taxation rates.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 02:27 PM | Reply

19

I'm not against your suggestion on tax rates.

I'm asking you to specifically demonstrate how poverty is reduced. Not overall wealth distribution....which I believe you did demonstrate that effect....and I have no argument against that.

The poverty rate during this time you're going back to was higher than it is now.

www.statista.com

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:28 PM | Reply

Pretending the 91% was real, and expanding it to the top 10%, still does make a meaningful dent in the $1,000,000,000,000 debt accrued by Congress every 100 days.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 02:29 PM | Reply

And I think you'll find that progressive safety net policies are credited with reducing poverty.

Not billionaire tax rates.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:30 PM | Reply

Does not make, obviously.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 02:31 PM | Reply

-So I give a clear example of when America was economically strong which also coincided with higher tax rates for the wealthy

But how was is going for the poor during that same time? This is my point...and I suspect Madbomber's as well.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:34 PM | Reply

It's an -8% effective difference for the top tier now compared to a post-WW2, near competition-less American industry and war benefits being used to fuel white flight and suburbanism.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 02:38 PM | Reply

And every time these tax rates are brought up I have ask if there is any serious consideration from even the most liberal enclaves of the democratic party to pursue enacting such tax brackets again.

Has Bernie Sanders even brought this to a committee?

#27 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:45 PM | Reply

You can't become a billionaire if you're making sure to pay your employees what they're worth rather than what you can get them for.

But, greed has become a virtue in modern society. Especially amongst conservatives.

Also. Let's not forget moving factories and jobs to other countries in order to exploit their work force and abandon Americans.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-05-16 02:46 PM | Reply

-You can't become a billionaire if you're making sure to pay your employees what they're worth rather than what you can get them for.

You also can't become a billionaire if you pay $8 for gas if you can buy it for $3.

But since you brought it up......is Warren Buffet a billionaire? Charles Koch?

Those guys got there by "underpaying" employees?

#29 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:51 PM | Reply

or this guy.....

www.forbes.com

a self-made billionaire...and you're ragging on him for not paying employees enough?

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 02:53 PM | Reply

The whole IDEA of capital being more important than labor is a problem.

The legal system supports Capital and weakens the bargaining position of Labor. Capital is taxed less than Labor.

Billionaires Buy policy. It creates a legal framework that makes unions weak and unable to resist market forces because Capital is seen and treated as more important and worthy of Cultivating.

Largely because of campaign contributions and bias among lawmakers.

Face it, American Business wants scared pliable Serfs.

Not Equals at the table.

They Pay government to make it so.

Oligarchy not Democracy.

#31 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-16 03:24 PM | Reply

Pretending the 91% was real, and expanding it to the top 10%, still does make a meaningful dent in the $1,000,000,000,000 debt accrued by Congress every 100 days.

#22 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Quibbling over semantics again?

Note: For much of tax history, the top income tax rate is figured by adding a "surtax" rate to a basic rate.

This site has as nice chart of historical top tax rates and surcharges on the wealthy in the 60s.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 03:29 PM | Reply

www.statista.com

#21 | POSTED BY EBERLY

That site just showed us how much poverty blacks faced in the 60s economy.

Other sites show that the overall poverty rate declined during that time period.

The 1960's have witnessed a pronounced decline in the extent of poverty in the United States.

Over the course of the 7-year period from 1959 to 1966, the number of persons below the poverty line was reduced from 39 million to 30 million while the total U.S. population continued to grow, adding an average of 2 million per year. As a result, the poverty rate"that is, the proportion of all persons living in households whose total incomes were judged insufficient to meet minimum U.S. living standards"has fallen even more sharply, from 22 percent in 1959 to 15 percent in 1966.

As a result, the poverty rate"that is, the proportion of all persons living in households whose total incomes were judged insufficient to meet minimum U.S. living standards"has fallen even more sharply, from 22 percent in 1959 to 15 percent in 1966.

www.census.gov

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 03:35 PM | Reply

Quibbling over semantics again?

#32 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2024-05-16 03:29 PM | FLAG:

It's not semantics. There's the high number people quote that nobody paid. There's the effective rate that people really paid. The difference between the 50s and now is only 8%.

Playing along to pretend the effective rate was the marginal rate, and implementing it right now at 91% on everybody over 600k income which is the current top rate iirc, still can't cover current Congressional debt obligations. That can't be resolved with tax rate changes even when you extend them much lower down the income brackets.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 03:46 PM | Reply

It's laughable really because of how absurd the scale of the problem is. Ending annual direct subsidies to Oil & Gas is only $20 billion, 1/3 of 1 percent of just the 2023 extra debt. Cancel all of Build Back Better at once? 60% of just 2023 extra debt, but broken out over the 5 years its designed for it's a 12% annual dent in that additional debt for 5 years. We're still really far in the negative.

If that's not depressing enough, take some guesses at the only government spending type big enough to even be able to make some cuts that could get us back to temporarily breaking even after substantial tax increases.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-05-16 04:04 PM | Reply

War ain't cheap. Nukes are exorbitantly expensive, the current upgrade is costing about 1 trillion dollars.

Big savings possible there. The military budget, 900 billion more or less.

That's two trillion right there. I'm sure there's other Fat in the budget.

It's all a matter of priorities.

Getting cutting.

#36 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-16 04:08 PM | Reply

-Other sites show that the overall poverty rate declined during that time period.

You're actually making the argument (without realizing it) that lowering the tax rates on the wealthiest lowered the poverty rate.

That's how the correlation works. The highest tax rate dropped and then almost right in line with it....the poverty rate dropped along with it.

Perhaps you shouldn't be making that argument.

But you are........

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 04:19 PM | Reply

"The 1960's have witnessed a pronounced decline in the extent of poverty in the United States."

And at the same time, we witnessed a decline in the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.

Now, we're sure you're not trying to make that argument.......

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 04:23 PM | Reply

Playing along to pretend the effective rate was the marginal rate,

Except that I never said the effective rate was the marginal rate. You implied that. So I had to explain that there was a surcharge that brought the marginal rate up on "taxable income" up to 90%. There is a note on the website that I put in hold for you.

Note: For much of tax history, the top income tax rate is figured by adding a "surtax" rate to a basic rate.

We all already know (or should know ) that the effective rate is much lower. Because the wealthy can afford good tax lawyers and accountants and lobbyists to help them work those loopholes.

So you really don't have to keep rubbing our noses into the fact that the wealthy never have really paid their "fair share".

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 04:28 PM | Reply

I put it in hold and in bold ...

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 04:29 PM | Reply

And at the same time, we witnessed a decline in the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.

Now, we're sure you're not trying to make that argument.......

#38 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Apparently you are. But you should know (if you bothered to read the quoted site) that the tax rate peaked in the 40s and started declining in the mid 60s and thereafter up until the late 80s. And AFTER the tax rate started to decline the poverty rate went up again.

The top income tax rate reached above 90% from 1944 through 1963, peaking in 1944, when top taxpayers paid an income tax rate of 94% on their taxable income. Starting in 1964, a period of income tax rate decline began, ending in 1987.

Remember:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-16 04:40 PM | Reply

"And AFTER the tax rate started to decline the poverty rate went up again."

---------.

You're either lying or you just don't know.

Here you go.

www.macrotrends.net

Peaked in 1963 and dropped until 78-79 (presumably due to social programs, not tax cuts on the wealthy) and remained steady until 2019 and dropped a little then.

Poor thing.....

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-16 07:19 PM | Reply

The wealthy have never, ever paid 90% taxes. During that time period the effective rate for the top 0.01% of earners was 45%

Believe it or not, this is not an argument against high tax rates. It just makes me think we need to make the top rate 100%, or 150%, to get the effective rate where it needs to be.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2024-05-17 07:02 AM | Reply

"Rich people can make the effective rate lower by scheming" then let them scheme their way to 90% instead of 45%.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2024-05-17 07:02 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort