In so many ways it helps to focus more deeply on the fundamentals.

For one thing, in the 1970's lots of true "baby boomers" were still too young to vote.

Maybe what you mean is old folks in general, they were the ones in California who were desperate enough to support the proposition which might be able to save their homes.

They should know, lots of them had been through The Great Depression, and were so much older than boomers they could be their grandparents, well they actually were if you do the math.

And they did the math, getting by just by the skin of their teeth while those just a little bit older who had been on a fixed income earlier had already been taxed out beyond recovery before the proposition.

They already ate the pain, I guess it's difficult to remember how up-front it was if you never spent that many years among Depression survivors.

Nobody ever wanted a depression again, and losing your home through no fault of your own was one of the most visible outcomes that ordinary people could do something about before it got out of hand.

This was supposed to be big, and it is bigger than ever, this is by design.

The problem comes from trying to work against it when the entire economic system surrounding "real estate" was supposed to evolve by now to where nobody pays more tax by now than the most proposition-protected properties.

The idea was for it not to end up making any difference as the years went by, nothing could be more fair than that.

The pearl-clutching comes from the failure of following generations to evolve away from taxing properties or wealth, with all levies eventually falling exclusively onto commerce instead so that only those who are actively making big transactions at the time are logically expected to be able to afford anything at all at the time.

Otherwise things are going to stay as medieval as they can, and the torture will continue until the attitude improves.