- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM #650510January 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM #649397
CA renter
Participant[quote=jpinpb]After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?
I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.
I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.
Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.
I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.
While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.
People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.[/quote]
Very well said, jp! Agree 100%.
People **choose** to pay higher property taxes when they **choose** to overpay for property. If they don’t know enough to take full PITI payments into consideration when buying, then they shouldn’t be buying.
January 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM #649468Participant[quote=jpinpb]After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?
I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.
I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.
Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.
I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.
While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.
People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.[/quote]
Very well said, jp! Agree 100%.
People **choose** to pay higher property taxes when they **choose** to overpay for property. If they don’t know enough to take full PITI payments into consideration when buying, then they shouldn’t be buying.
January 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650054Participant[quote=jpinpb]After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?
I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.
I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.
Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.
I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.
While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.
People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.[/quote]
Very well said, jp! Agree 100%.
People **choose** to pay higher property taxes when they **choose** to overpay for property. If they don’t know enough to take full PITI payments into consideration when buying, then they shouldn’t be buying.
January 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650190Participant[quote=jpinpb]After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?
I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.
I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.
Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.
I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.
While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.
People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.[/quote]
Very well said, jp! Agree 100%.
People **choose** to pay higher property taxes when they **choose** to overpay for property. If they don’t know enough to take full PITI payments into consideration when buying, then they shouldn’t be buying.
January 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650515Participant[quote=jpinpb]After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?
I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.
I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.
Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.
I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.
While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.
People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.[/quote]
Very well said, jp! Agree 100%.
People **choose** to pay higher property taxes when they **choose** to overpay for property. If they don’t know enough to take full PITI payments into consideration when buying, then they shouldn’t be buying.
January 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #649402Participant[quote=jpinpb]I do not believe that giving them more money is the answer. Take a look at the state of New Jersey. They pay high property taxes AND have to pay to drive on the highways. They still have budget problems. I don’t know what the solution to this dilemma is. All I know is if you give more money, it will be gone and they will still need/want more.[/quote]
Great post, jp.
IMHO, the only way to fix this would be to have full transparency and an oversight committee (volunteer) that would review income and expenses every 6-12 months, and then hold people accountable for their actions.
I’d also like to see the entire budget process changed. As it stands, you get money based on what you’ve spent, and if you max out your spending, you get more the next year.
I’d like to see incentives for saving. You get X number of dollars this year, and if you have anything left over, you get a bonus (the department, not the individual…too much potential for corruption if there are individual incentives).
It’s not just employee compensation that’s a problem. There is way too much fat in administration, and there are so many “backroom deals” with private contractors, vendors, developers, etc. that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even in some of the smallest municipalities. All of this should be eliminated first.
January 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #649473Participant[quote=jpinpb]I do not believe that giving them more money is the answer. Take a look at the state of New Jersey. They pay high property taxes AND have to pay to drive on the highways. They still have budget problems. I don’t know what the solution to this dilemma is. All I know is if you give more money, it will be gone and they will still need/want more.[/quote]
Great post, jp.
IMHO, the only way to fix this would be to have full transparency and an oversight committee (volunteer) that would review income and expenses every 6-12 months, and then hold people accountable for their actions.
I’d also like to see the entire budget process changed. As it stands, you get money based on what you’ve spent, and if you max out your spending, you get more the next year.
I’d like to see incentives for saving. You get X number of dollars this year, and if you have anything left over, you get a bonus (the department, not the individual…too much potential for corruption if there are individual incentives).
It’s not just employee compensation that’s a problem. There is way too much fat in administration, and there are so many “backroom deals” with private contractors, vendors, developers, etc. that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even in some of the smallest municipalities. All of this should be eliminated first.
January 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #650059Participant[quote=jpinpb]I do not believe that giving them more money is the answer. Take a look at the state of New Jersey. They pay high property taxes AND have to pay to drive on the highways. They still have budget problems. I don’t know what the solution to this dilemma is. All I know is if you give more money, it will be gone and they will still need/want more.[/quote]
Great post, jp.
IMHO, the only way to fix this would be to have full transparency and an oversight committee (volunteer) that would review income and expenses every 6-12 months, and then hold people accountable for their actions.
I’d also like to see the entire budget process changed. As it stands, you get money based on what you’ve spent, and if you max out your spending, you get more the next year.
I’d like to see incentives for saving. You get X number of dollars this year, and if you have anything left over, you get a bonus (the department, not the individual…too much potential for corruption if there are individual incentives).
It’s not just employee compensation that’s a problem. There is way too much fat in administration, and there are so many “backroom deals” with private contractors, vendors, developers, etc. that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even in some of the smallest municipalities. All of this should be eliminated first.
January 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #650195Participant[quote=jpinpb]I do not believe that giving them more money is the answer. Take a look at the state of New Jersey. They pay high property taxes AND have to pay to drive on the highways. They still have budget problems. I don’t know what the solution to this dilemma is. All I know is if you give more money, it will be gone and they will still need/want more.[/quote]
Great post, jp.
IMHO, the only way to fix this would be to have full transparency and an oversight committee (volunteer) that would review income and expenses every 6-12 months, and then hold people accountable for their actions.
I’d also like to see the entire budget process changed. As it stands, you get money based on what you’ve spent, and if you max out your spending, you get more the next year.
I’d like to see incentives for saving. You get X number of dollars this year, and if you have anything left over, you get a bonus (the department, not the individual…too much potential for corruption if there are individual incentives).
It’s not just employee compensation that’s a problem. There is way too much fat in administration, and there are so many “backroom deals” with private contractors, vendors, developers, etc. that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even in some of the smallest municipalities. All of this should be eliminated first.
January 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM #650520Participant[quote=jpinpb]I do not believe that giving them more money is the answer. Take a look at the state of New Jersey. They pay high property taxes AND have to pay to drive on the highways. They still have budget problems. I don’t know what the solution to this dilemma is. All I know is if you give more money, it will be gone and they will still need/want more.[/quote]
Great post, jp.
IMHO, the only way to fix this would be to have full transparency and an oversight committee (volunteer) that would review income and expenses every 6-12 months, and then hold people accountable for their actions.
I’d also like to see the entire budget process changed. As it stands, you get money based on what you’ve spent, and if you max out your spending, you get more the next year.
I’d like to see incentives for saving. You get X number of dollars this year, and if you have anything left over, you get a bonus (the department, not the individual…too much potential for corruption if there are individual incentives).
It’s not just employee compensation that’s a problem. There is way too much fat in administration, and there are so many “backroom deals” with private contractors, vendors, developers, etc. that cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even in some of the smallest municipalities. All of this should be eliminated first.
January 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM #649407bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter]That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.[/quote]
I just said it. It is what it is.
January 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM #649478Participant[quote=CA renter]That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.[/quote]
I just said it. It is what it is.
January 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM #650064Participant[quote=CA renter]That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.[/quote]
I just said it. It is what it is.
January 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM #650200Participant[quote=CA renter]That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.[/quote]
I just said it. It is what it is.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.