Tax reform could help homeownership gap

Re: “California homeownership gap grows, divides along race lines” (Page A12, Oct. 27).

I read Dan Walters’ op-ed about the difficulty of purchasing a home in California.

The solution to the problem is to increase the supply. It’s not surprising that most people who purchased their homes “a half-century ago” have accrued vast wealth. If they sell, they are penalized because of the capital gains taxes they will owe. For married couples filing a joint return, only $500,000 is excluded from taxes. This tax is not indexed for inflation. It’s also not indexed for geography.

The other problem is property taxes. Purchasing a home at an elevated price results in property taxes that are exorbitant. This also eliminates many from being able to afford a home.

Eliminating capital gains taxes would encourage more individuals to sell, increasing the supply. Reducing property taxes would also help by reducing the total amount of the payments.

— Thomas Baker San Jose

Nuclear power’s return raises safety issues

Re: “Is nuclear power making a comeback? And could it even happen in California?” (Oct. 16).

In Rob Nikolewski’s article, he talks about the rise of nuclear power as a clean energy option. While this sounds good, it misses some important issues like safety and waste.

Reopening the Three Mile Island plant might seem like a good idea, but it brings back fears about nuclear accidents. Past disasters at places like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl still worry many people. We still don’t have a safe way to deal with nuclear waste.

California should continue to focus on renewable energy sources like solar and wind. These options are safer and can help create jobs and new technology without the dangers of nuclear power.

As we consider our energy future, we need to carefully consider the risks of bringing back nuclear power. We should also put more effort into building renewable energy. This way, we can have a safer and more sustainable future for everyone in California.

— Martin Pham, San Jose

In election’s wake, let’s see electoral reform

Equity demands electoral reform. The electoral college was created when only White male property owners could vote. We have a more inclusive election system today.

The 40 least-populous states, including the District of Columbia, have 270 electoral votes, the number needed to elect a president. The 11 largest states have 268 electoral votes. Is that equitable?

The disparity is more shocking when you calculate the number of residents per state per electoral college vote. Wyoming, the smallest state by population, has one electoral vote per 192,284 residents. In California, each of our 54 electoral votes represents 732,189 citizens. Is a California vote less valuable than a Wyoming vote?

American democracy is historically based on the one-person, one-vote ideal. Electoral reform is needed today to re-establish equity among voters. Electing a president by the popular vote is one way to achieve that.

— Dennis Hawkins San Jose