- This topic has 95 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2011 at 9:05 AM #666418February 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM #666428
pencilneck
ParticipantMy assumption is that the goal of the state is to maximize tax revenue.
Total California real estate is worth about $4.4 trillion*. A 1% drop in real estate tax revenue “costs” the state about $440 million annually. If this $2 billion “investment” can make a 1% difference it would pay for itself in about 5 years.
* I believe this is the taxable value of California property in 2010, not the fair market value. I might be mistaken. If it is the fair market value these figures won’t add up due to prop 13.
Or, more succinctly, ditto Rustico’s post.
February 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM #665958ParticipantMy assumption is that the goal of the state is to maximize tax revenue.
Total California real estate is worth about $4.4 trillion*. A 1% drop in real estate tax revenue “costs” the state about $440 million annually. If this $2 billion “investment” can make a 1% difference it would pay for itself in about 5 years.
* I believe this is the taxable value of California property in 2010, not the fair market value. I might be mistaken. If it is the fair market value these figures won’t add up due to prop 13.
Or, more succinctly, ditto Rustico’s post.
February 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM #666092ParticipantMy assumption is that the goal of the state is to maximize tax revenue.
Total California real estate is worth about $4.4 trillion*. A 1% drop in real estate tax revenue “costs” the state about $440 million annually. If this $2 billion “investment” can make a 1% difference it would pay for itself in about 5 years.
* I believe this is the taxable value of California property in 2010, not the fair market value. I might be mistaken. If it is the fair market value these figures won’t add up due to prop 13.
Or, more succinctly, ditto Rustico’s post.
February 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM #665357ParticipantMy assumption is that the goal of the state is to maximize tax revenue.
Total California real estate is worth about $4.4 trillion*. A 1% drop in real estate tax revenue “costs” the state about $440 million annually. If this $2 billion “investment” can make a 1% difference it would pay for itself in about 5 years.
* I believe this is the taxable value of California property in 2010, not the fair market value. I might be mistaken. If it is the fair market value these figures won’t add up due to prop 13.
Or, more succinctly, ditto Rustico’s post.
February 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM #665294ParticipantMy assumption is that the goal of the state is to maximize tax revenue.
Total California real estate is worth about $4.4 trillion*. A 1% drop in real estate tax revenue “costs” the state about $440 million annually. If this $2 billion “investment” can make a 1% difference it would pay for itself in about 5 years.
* I believe this is the taxable value of California property in 2010, not the fair market value. I might be mistaken. If it is the fair market value these figures won’t add up due to prop 13.
Or, more succinctly, ditto Rustico’s post.
February 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM #666443Arraya
ParticipantWell, that’s very nice of california to help prop up asset prices. They should fire some more teachers and make it 4 billion, non-homeowners of course.
February 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM #666107ParticipantWell, that’s very nice of california to help prop up asset prices. They should fire some more teachers and make it 4 billion, non-homeowners of course.
February 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM #665973ParticipantWell, that’s very nice of california to help prop up asset prices. They should fire some more teachers and make it 4 billion, non-homeowners of course.
February 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM #665309ParticipantWell, that’s very nice of california to help prop up asset prices. They should fire some more teachers and make it 4 billion, non-homeowners of course.
February 12, 2011 at 9:51 AM #665372ParticipantWell, that’s very nice of california to help prop up asset prices. They should fire some more teachers and make it 4 billion, non-homeowners of course.
February 12, 2011 at 10:26 AM #665978jpinpb
ParticipantFiring teachers serves two purposes. Free up money for more bailouts and have more future stupid people. Win-win for government/banks. More losses for the people.
February 12, 2011 at 10:26 AM #666112ParticipantFiring teachers serves two purposes. Free up money for more bailouts and have more future stupid people. Win-win for government/banks. More losses for the people.
February 12, 2011 at 10:26 AM #665315ParticipantFiring teachers serves two purposes. Free up money for more bailouts and have more future stupid people. Win-win for government/banks. More losses for the people.
February 12, 2011 at 10:26 AM #665376ParticipantFiring teachers serves two purposes. Free up money for more bailouts and have more future stupid people. Win-win for government/banks. More losses for the people.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.