[quote=phaster]
there’s nothing illegal or unethical about inheriting property and prop 13 IMHO is a spurious and tangential topic, but what the hell i’ll play along
i’ll be the first to admit i’m lucky to have a legacy which allows me some financial breathing room, and because of that i’m a pretty chill landlord who has never raised a tenant’s rent once they are in (kind of keeping with my parents management tradition), and appreciate prop 13 making costs predictable with respect to property taxes
as for how the market values RE (like an apt rental) I have no control over that, since it’s a global marketplace that is influenced by among other things the feds dual mandate to keep unemployment low and keep inflation in check @ around 2% (as explained in a planet-money podcast)
as I see things, prop 13 is an economic moderator to keep TPTB in check and seems to have come about because TPTB were unable to moderate things in the first place
BTW seems your rants/proposals about “reforming” prop 13 are kinda like the rest of your economic analysis,… WORTHLESS DELUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (took me all of two minutes of googling to find a study, with simple statement in the summary section that disproves a belief I’ll bet you’ve held for decades)
[/quote]
Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).
3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.
The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.
It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.
Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.
[/quote]
god help us, because your admitted “talent” of teaching reading comprehension is yet more one sided idiotic bravado
its true “the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion” BUT YOU’RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING ADVERSE EFFECTS (note to all the report states as a result),… “Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lostover the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year.”
[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu] The Economic and Employment Effects of the Split Roll
The economic and employment effects of the split roll are significant and, because of the removal of the Proposition 13 cap on growth in assessments, the impacts would likely continue to grow over time. The baseline scenario presented in this section represents the mid‐range estimate of these economic and employment effects. It assumes that the split roll is instituted in 2013 and that the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion. Note that this is a significant increase in a tax stream that only totaled approximately $50 billion in 2009‐10.
The following table summarizes the five‐year estimated impacts of splitting the property tax roll on employment in California. Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lost over the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year. Five years later, in 2021‐22, the annual estimated impact would total almost 112,000 additional jobs lost annually.
let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself
FWIW you do have a talent that’s consistent and actually harmful, sadly some share your BS delusion
your posts YET AGAIN demonstrate an inability to integrate middle school math and basic reading comprehension skills
this only reinforces my prognostication that the lack of “talents” by custodians and beneficiaries of the various portfolios will cause of the inevitable economic public pension debt bomb crisis few in government want to ponder (perhaps because of past “sins” like the three decade practice of a 13th pension payment, which the SDCERS board approved yet again, despite a recent $380 million “debt” spike)
[quote] SDCERS Board Approves 13th Check and Corbett Benefits for 2016
November 4, 2016
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration approved the payment of the “13th Check” supplemental benefit and the Corbett settlement benefit for eligible retirees. Eligible retirees will receive the payment as part of their November 2016 monthly retirement benefit.
The “13th Check” and Corbett settlement benefits are paid in years when the realized investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to pay them.
[quote] San Diego facing new pension debt
September 8, 2016
A recent $380 million spike in San Diego’s pension debt is forcing city officials to debate whether to begin paying that bill now or take the controversial step of pushing the financial pain several years down the road.
…The spike, which is the result of a new actuarial study showing that city employees and retirees are living significantly longer, would increase the city’s annual pension payment — $261 million this year — by $35 million, or more than 13 percent.
That increase would help the city continue to cover annual pension benefits for retired employees and continue steadily paying down its unfunded, long-term pension liability, which the new study increased from $2 billion to nearly $2.4 billion.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council created the city’s first pension stabilization fund last spring with a $16 million initial contribution, but they didn’t expect the money to get wiped out in one year.
[quote] Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership (edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie)
Though SDCERS investments were earning well above the 8 percent rate of return estimated by the system actuaries, under normal conditions investments surpluses are required to make up for below-average returns in other years to achieve the average rate of return. Therefore, unless the actuaries’ estimates are grossly incorrect, in the long run true “surplus earnings” are impossible. The use of surplus earnings for the purposes other than maintaining the pension system, such as to expand existing benefits should be viewed as a loan from the system THAT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT IN THE FUTURE.
I’m apprehensive what the next four years will bring in the economic and political realm, but agree with a statement president elect Trump made,… “We will never fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place.”
[quote=CA renter]
October 1, 2014 – 9:23pm
Yes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have), and I have also worked with negotiating committees and have done research for public employee unions.
The “study” that you’ve mentioned got two things wrong. They modeled it based on their being no cap at all on commercial/industrial buildings, when a modified cap is just as likely to be an option. The fact is that commercial/industrial properties don’t appreciate like housing because the value is always based on revenue potential, as opposed to housing which is priced according to more subjective, emotional criteria. If new commercial/industrial owners can break even or clear a profit while paying market rate taxes, so can the legacy owners. Businesses might change, but prices and rents would reach an equilibrium rather quickly.
This “study” also left out all residential buildings, including rental homes, apartment buildings, etc. And they’ve also excluded raw land (think Pardee, for instance). They’ve left out people like yourself — people who’ve inherited valuable property, but pay only a fraction of the market-rate property taxes on it.
So this study both understates the revenue, and overstates the costs. It’s also important to note that they’ve based this study on economic models/theories (and we’ve seen how well that’s worked out in the past), not actual numbers, for obvious reasons.
As for your quote here: “let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself[.]”
You could have done a little more Googling to find that this “study” was issued by the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Before it was merged with Pepperdine, it was called “Common Sense California,” and it was founded by Peter G. Peterson. Who is Peter Peterson?
…………
Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite numerous organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over “unsustainable” federal budget deficits. In 2007, he made a fortune from the public offering of the private equity firm he co-founded, Blackstone Group, and pledged to spend $1 billion of this money to “fix America’s key fiscal-sustainability problems.” He endowed this money to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he launched in 2008 (see below for more).[1] His son, Michael A. Peterson, is the President and Chief Operating Officer of the foundation.
Move over, George Soros and the Koch brothers. The Los Angeles Times has dubbed Peterson “the most influential billionaire business figure in national politics. . . . He isn’t content merely to express concern about the federal deficit. His particular targets are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which he calls ‘entitlement’ programs and which he wants to cut back in a manner that would strike deeply at the middle class.”[2]
From 1963 to 1971, Peterson was the Chairman and CEO of Bell and Howell Corporation. He also worked briefly in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs (1971) and as Secretary of Commerce (1972). He also served as a chairman of Nixon’s National Commission on Productivity and as the U.S. chairman of the “U.S.-Soviet Commercial Commission.”[3]
Peterson was later the Chairman and CEO of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers (1973-1977) and its successor firm, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb (1977-1984). He is also the former Chairman and co-founder of the private equity firm, Blackstone Group, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He was also Chairman for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the founding Chairman of the Institute for International Economics (IIE), and the co-founder of the Concord Coalition.[4]”
And the study was sponsored by the Small Business Action Committee. Here’s what they do:
The Small Business Action Committee (SBAC) is a California organization which, according to its website, is focused on fighting for small business interests. The SBAC focuses on issues of workers compensation reform, taxes, regulatory harassment, tort reform and health care; which they believe burden small businesses making it difficult to stay in business.[1] They say, “SBAC plans to attack problems of regulations on small business growth; and the organization is committed to an advocacy campaign to convince policymakers the importance of a healthy business environment.”[2]
One of the authors of this “study” has been opposing any reforms to Prop 13 for decades, as well.
Nope, no conflicts of interest there, phaster! Reading comprehension (and research) problems, indeed!
And I can assure you that you’re far less clever than you think you are, phaster. Who pays you to troll? You keep posting these same rambling, delusional posts with goofy pictures and nonsensical rants about your supposed greatness and wisdom. You never respond to any of the pointed comments and questions asked of you.
Answer the question, phaster.
[quote=CA renter]
Wow. You win the award for delusional, rambling posts; and your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. You were lucky enough to have parents who were in the right place at the right time, and it sounds like they made some good decisions. That’s great, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor with you inheriting what your parents worked for. The problem is with taxpayers subsidizing your profits to the tune of thousands of dollars each and every year. You did NOTHING to earn this subsidy, and the only reason you’re getting it is because other equally-situated people with generally more economic and political power than the average citizen changed the law so that you could obtain this subsidy by inheriting property from your parents. Just based on your posts, I’d guess this subsidy is in the $7,000-$15,000 range, every single year.
Of course, I’m not even counting the subsidy you received when you didn’t have to pay cap gains taxes on the assets you’ve inherited since you got to step-up the costs basis at the time of inheritance.
Again, how in the world do you think you should be more entitled to this Prop 13 subsidy (not to mention the cap gains subsidy) — that you didn’t do a single thing to earn — than the people who have worked for many decades for their pensions (and whose pension income is taxed at the standard “earned income” rate, even if their money comes from long-term gains and qualified dividends)?
Just answer that — and leave the ridiculous cartoons, memes, and other junk out of your response.[/quote]
