What will the repeal of Prop 13 do to the market?

[Coronita]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…
[/quote]

Lame post. This isn’t about an overall tax increase. It’s about whether someone who purchased the exact same property at a later date should be paying the same tax rate as someone who purchased the exact same property at an earlier date.

I say both individuals should pay the same rate. You disagree, and use some retarded logic to support your retarded position.[/quote]

Wahhhhhhhhh.. Wahhhhhhhh … Wahhhhhh..

My feelings are hurt. You called me retarded. Rich, can you ban ILoveRegulation/IForget/BigGovernmentIsGood (Just kidding)…

[quote]I say both individuals should pay the same rate. [/quote]

I’m glad you expressed an opinion in what you “should” do. However, I don’t think most people give a care about your opinion. I know I don’t… And fortunately, you’re not in position to actually effect any change to do it.

So like I said, enjoy wasting your time on wishing/hoping for “change”… Because it ain’t going to happen. CA can’t afford services, reverting prop 13 isn’t going do didly sh!t to solve the problems. And voters aren’t going to go for it frankly. And even if they did, special interests group would sue to keep it from happening anyway.

Heck, if we are going to talk about ridiculous/creative ways to raise revenue, I think CA just add a “renter” fee/surcharge. Call it a surcharge/double taxation/etc, but all people who rent should pay a rental/recovery fee to prop up the state. Considering that there are probably more renters these days than homeowners in CA, it would have a better shot generating revenues….

And any time some of the CA retirees want to give up their pensions to help reduce the budget shortfalls, great.

It’s so funny how hypocritical people are. It seems like everyone is so convinced they have the answer to solving the budget crisis, and their solutions always involves other people to pay more, EXCEPT THEMSELVES…..

[urbanrealtor]

[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]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.

[urbanrealtor]

[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]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.

[urbanrealtor]

[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]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.

[urbanrealtor]

[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]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.

[urbanrealtor]

[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]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.

[jpinpb]

UR – while you look at Texas, I’m looking at NJ and NY. Their property taxes are extremely high. They have toll roads in addition to that. And I know the State of NJ is in trouble financially. Just b/c they get money doesn’t always mean they are able to manage the money.

IMO California over the past decade has generated significant revenues. Hence, I think the problem is managing their finances. Merely giving them more money is not going to fix the problem. Fundamentally, the problem lies in where and how they are spending, not how much money they receive.

[jpinpb]

UR – while you look at Texas, I’m looking at NJ and NY. Their property taxes are extremely high. They have toll roads in addition to that. And I know the State of NJ is in trouble financially. Just b/c they get money doesn’t always mean they are able to manage the money.

IMO California over the past decade has generated significant revenues. Hence, I think the problem is managing their finances. Merely giving them more money is not going to fix the problem. Fundamentally, the problem lies in where and how they are spending, not how much money they receive.

[jpinpb]

UR – while you look at Texas, I’m looking at NJ and NY. Their property taxes are extremely high. They have toll roads in addition to that. And I know the State of NJ is in trouble financially. Just b/c they get money doesn’t always mean they are able to manage the money.

IMO California over the past decade has generated significant revenues. Hence, I think the problem is managing their finances. Merely giving them more money is not going to fix the problem. Fundamentally, the problem lies in where and how they are spending, not how much money they receive.

[jpinpb]

UR – while you look at Texas, I’m looking at NJ and NY. Their property taxes are extremely high. They have toll roads in addition to that. And I know the State of NJ is in trouble financially. Just b/c they get money doesn’t always mean they are able to manage the money.

IMO California over the past decade has generated significant revenues. Hence, I think the problem is managing their finances. Merely giving them more money is not going to fix the problem. Fundamentally, the problem lies in where and how they are spending, not how much money they receive.

[jpinpb]

UR – while you look at Texas, I’m looking at NJ and NY. Their property taxes are extremely high. They have toll roads in addition to that. And I know the State of NJ is in trouble financially. Just b/c they get money doesn’t always mean they are able to manage the money.

IMO California over the past decade has generated significant revenues. Hence, I think the problem is managing their finances. Merely giving them more money is not going to fix the problem. Fundamentally, the problem lies in where and how they are spending, not how much money they receive.

[sdrealtor]

UR
And the two examples Riverside and Texas present an empirical issue also. Both are low property value areas. Any questions or analysis of property taxes should not focus on rates but rather on the actual dollars people are paying.

This all speaks to the complexity of analyzing any economic issues and how anyone can pick or choose how they present their case to be biased toward their position.

[sdrealtor]

UR
And the two examples Riverside and Texas present an empirical issue also. Both are low property value areas. Any questions or analysis of property taxes should not focus on rates but rather on the actual dollars people are paying.

This all speaks to the complexity of analyzing any economic issues and how anyone can pick or choose how they present their case to be biased toward their position.

[sdrealtor]

UR
And the two examples Riverside and Texas present an empirical issue also. Both are low property value areas. Any questions or analysis of property taxes should not focus on rates but rather on the actual dollars people are paying.

This all speaks to the complexity of analyzing any economic issues and how anyone can pick or choose how they present their case to be biased toward their position.

[sdrealtor]

UR
And the two examples Riverside and Texas present an empirical issue also. Both are low property value areas. Any questions or analysis of property taxes should not focus on rates but rather on the actual dollars people are paying.

This all speaks to the complexity of analyzing any economic issues and how anyone can pick or choose how they present their case to be biased toward their position.

[Author]

Posts