- This topic has 92 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by bubba99.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 13, 2007 at 1:33 PM #59106June 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM #59081meadandaleParticipant
@Ash Housewares
Are you actually a homeowner? It seems unlikely.
Even with prop 13, the government has had a WINDFALL of higher property taxes over the last decade and they are STILL IN THE RED!!! Would you like to risk your capital investment in a home if you thought that greedy politicians viewing higher property taxes as a cash cow would raise your taxes to a level that you couldn’t pay potentially pushing you out of your house (and causing you to lose your investment)??
June 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM #59110meadandaleParticipant@Ash Housewares
Are you actually a homeowner? It seems unlikely.
Even with prop 13, the government has had a WINDFALL of higher property taxes over the last decade and they are STILL IN THE RED!!! Would you like to risk your capital investment in a home if you thought that greedy politicians viewing higher property taxes as a cash cow would raise your taxes to a level that you couldn’t pay potentially pushing you out of your house (and causing you to lose your investment)??
June 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM #59085recordsclerkParticipantProp 13 is flawed. There’s just some good points to prop 13. As far as rent control, I totally hate it. It just seems that the Government always taxes people when they buy. They take advantage of the fact that yor are willing to pay higher taxes so you can have your dream home. They also take advantage of people when buying new cars. For example your vehicle registration. You are already taxed (sales tax) for buying the vehicle, but on top of that they want you to pay a higher registration fee based on purchase price. Your new vehicle is probably more eco friendly and safer. You’re not going to use the existing infrastructure any more then when you had your old car. I think you should pay based on vehicle weight and mileage and get reductions for driving eco friendly vehicles/motorcycles. I think the government knows you are willing and able to pay taxes when you buy large ticket items. That’s why they take advantage of the situation.
June 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM #59114recordsclerkParticipantProp 13 is flawed. There’s just some good points to prop 13. As far as rent control, I totally hate it. It just seems that the Government always taxes people when they buy. They take advantage of the fact that yor are willing to pay higher taxes so you can have your dream home. They also take advantage of people when buying new cars. For example your vehicle registration. You are already taxed (sales tax) for buying the vehicle, but on top of that they want you to pay a higher registration fee based on purchase price. Your new vehicle is probably more eco friendly and safer. You’re not going to use the existing infrastructure any more then when you had your old car. I think you should pay based on vehicle weight and mileage and get reductions for driving eco friendly vehicles/motorcycles. I think the government knows you are willing and able to pay taxes when you buy large ticket items. That’s why they take advantage of the situation.
June 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM #59091Bob GParticipantProp 13 Discussion – Why not open a new thread.
I hate Prop 13.
1) It was caused by mismanagement by the State Legislature and Ron Reagan. In 1967 he said, “Taxes should hurt”.
2) Property tax funds many things besides schools. Some of the longest time property owners (LTPO) are also the most needy and demanding of local servcies.
3) The artifically low assesed values of the LTPO’s reduces their liability to pay for new bonds and assesments, yet they have the same voting power to approve those new bonds.
4) Paying the fair share of property tax should be condidered a basic owner’s expense. When the owner cannot afford the expense, they should move. I have observed many, many large homes occupied by LTOP’s empty nesters. These houses should be filled with childeren, not the elerly waiting to die. Why should the rest of us subsidize them to live in a big house they don’t need anymore.
June 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM #59120Bob GParticipantProp 13 Discussion – Why not open a new thread.
I hate Prop 13.
1) It was caused by mismanagement by the State Legislature and Ron Reagan. In 1967 he said, “Taxes should hurt”.
2) Property tax funds many things besides schools. Some of the longest time property owners (LTPO) are also the most needy and demanding of local servcies.
3) The artifically low assesed values of the LTPO’s reduces their liability to pay for new bonds and assesments, yet they have the same voting power to approve those new bonds.
4) Paying the fair share of property tax should be condidered a basic owner’s expense. When the owner cannot afford the expense, they should move. I have observed many, many large homes occupied by LTOP’s empty nesters. These houses should be filled with childeren, not the elerly waiting to die. Why should the rest of us subsidize them to live in a big house they don’t need anymore.
June 13, 2007 at 2:41 PM #59122PerryChaseParticipantGovernment taxes when when we buy. But why are we still buying like there’s no tomorrow? You’d think we’d save more.
——–
On ideals alone, I agree that prop 13 is unfair (I was just arguing the pay-for-use point). But since I benefit from prop 13, I won’t protest too much. π It’s the pocket book issue, you know.
June 13, 2007 at 2:41 PM #59093PerryChaseParticipantGovernment taxes when when we buy. But why are we still buying like there’s no tomorrow? You’d think we’d save more.
——–
On ideals alone, I agree that prop 13 is unfair (I was just arguing the pay-for-use point). But since I benefit from prop 13, I won’t protest too much. π It’s the pocket book issue, you know.
June 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM #59095meadandaleParticipantAll you prop 13 haters should read this:
http://www.hjta.org/content/ARC000024B_Prop13.htm
And, if you feel like paying more taxes, feel free to break out the checkbook and send some extra dollars to Arnie and the boys in Sacramento. If you aren’t willing to do that than you have no credibility with the “taxes aren’t high enough” song and dance.
June 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM #59124meadandaleParticipantAll you prop 13 haters should read this:
http://www.hjta.org/content/ARC000024B_Prop13.htm
And, if you feel like paying more taxes, feel free to break out the checkbook and send some extra dollars to Arnie and the boys in Sacramento. If you aren’t willing to do that than you have no credibility with the “taxes aren’t high enough” song and dance.
June 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM #59097Ash HousewaresParticipantNo meadandale, I don’t own a house (finished college in 2004, too late to catch the ride). But my personal situation doesn’t have anything to do with the impact of Prop 13. I stand by my statement that Prop 13 is a hindrance on the housing market. It slows turnover since people don’t want to lose their low basis.
Just one of the many reasons I am in the long slow decline camp.
June 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM #59126Ash HousewaresParticipantNo meadandale, I don’t own a house (finished college in 2004, too late to catch the ride). But my personal situation doesn’t have anything to do with the impact of Prop 13. I stand by my statement that Prop 13 is a hindrance on the housing market. It slows turnover since people don’t want to lose their low basis.
Just one of the many reasons I am in the long slow decline camp.
June 13, 2007 at 2:55 PM #59101blahblahblahParticipantAll you prop 13 haters should read this
FYI, the correct spelling is now “haterz”. Speaking of which, it looks like the Casey Serin-haterz have driven him into exile!
June 13, 2007 at 2:55 PM #59130blahblahblahParticipantAll you prop 13 haters should read this
FYI, the correct spelling is now “haterz”. Speaking of which, it looks like the Casey Serin-haterz have driven him into exile!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.