- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM #649991January 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM #648892
faterikcartman
ParticipantWTF?
Obviously I missed something in the news. What happened/is happening regarding Prop 13?
January 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM #648963faterikcartman
ParticipantWTF?
Obviously I missed something in the news. What happened/is happening regarding Prop 13?
January 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM #649549faterikcartman
ParticipantWTF?
Obviously I missed something in the news. What happened/is happening regarding Prop 13?
January 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM #649685faterikcartman
ParticipantWTF?
Obviously I missed something in the news. What happened/is happening regarding Prop 13?
January 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM #650011faterikcartman
ParticipantWTF?
Obviously I missed something in the news. What happened/is happening regarding Prop 13?
January 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM #648897permabear
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).[/quote]LOL am I missing something or are you mistaking Prop 13 for Prop 8?
January 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM #648968permabear
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).[/quote]LOL am I missing something or are you mistaking Prop 13 for Prop 8?
January 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM #649554permabear
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).[/quote]LOL am I missing something or are you mistaking Prop 13 for Prop 8?
January 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM #649690permabear
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).[/quote]LOL am I missing something or are you mistaking Prop 13 for Prop 8?
January 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM #650016permabear
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]Gay and Lesbian couples already buy property together all the time (so do unmarried heterosexual couples).[/quote]LOL am I missing something or are you mistaking Prop 13 for Prop 8?
January 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM #648907Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).
January 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM #648978Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).
January 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM #649564Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).
January 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM #649700Eugene
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.