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

[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]

JP
Just a quick note about NY and NJ. Those states have aging infrastructure to maintain that is often hundreds of years old. The traffic on those toll roads is multiples of what we have hear and much of it is heavy trucking routes that wear down the roads that are also destroyed by snow and ice. They have issues we dont.

I wont even begin to talk about all the fraud and nepotism that goes on back there or the heavy handed unions that control everything adding incredible layers of costs. If you ever attend a trade show in NYC you would know they wont even let you carry a box into the exhibit hall. You have to pay brutish union members to plug a light into an outlet.

Not disageeing over wther its revenue or expenditures just pointing out how different things can be and how complex any of these issues really are.

[sdrealtor]

JP
Just a quick note about NY and NJ. Those states have aging infrastructure to maintain that is often hundreds of years old. The traffic on those toll roads is multiples of what we have hear and much of it is heavy trucking routes that wear down the roads that are also destroyed by snow and ice. They have issues we dont.

I wont even begin to talk about all the fraud and nepotism that goes on back there or the heavy handed unions that control everything adding incredible layers of costs. If you ever attend a trade show in NYC you would know they wont even let you carry a box into the exhibit hall. You have to pay brutish union members to plug a light into an outlet.

Not disageeing over wther its revenue or expenditures just pointing out how different things can be and how complex any of these issues really are.

[sdrealtor]

JP
Just a quick note about NY and NJ. Those states have aging infrastructure to maintain that is often hundreds of years old. The traffic on those toll roads is multiples of what we have hear and much of it is heavy trucking routes that wear down the roads that are also destroyed by snow and ice. They have issues we dont.

I wont even begin to talk about all the fraud and nepotism that goes on back there or the heavy handed unions that control everything adding incredible layers of costs. If you ever attend a trade show in NYC you would know they wont even let you carry a box into the exhibit hall. You have to pay brutish union members to plug a light into an outlet.

Not disageeing over wther its revenue or expenditures just pointing out how different things can be and how complex any of these issues really are.

[sdrealtor]

JP
Just a quick note about NY and NJ. Those states have aging infrastructure to maintain that is often hundreds of years old. The traffic on those toll roads is multiples of what we have hear and much of it is heavy trucking routes that wear down the roads that are also destroyed by snow and ice. They have issues we dont.

I wont even begin to talk about all the fraud and nepotism that goes on back there or the heavy handed unions that control everything adding incredible layers of costs. If you ever attend a trade show in NYC you would know they wont even let you carry a box into the exhibit hall. You have to pay brutish union members to plug a light into an outlet.

Not disageeing over wther its revenue or expenditures just pointing out how different things can be and how complex any of these issues really are.

[sdrealtor]

JP
Just a quick note about NY and NJ. Those states have aging infrastructure to maintain that is often hundreds of years old. The traffic on those toll roads is multiples of what we have hear and much of it is heavy trucking routes that wear down the roads that are also destroyed by snow and ice. They have issues we dont.

I wont even begin to talk about all the fraud and nepotism that goes on back there or the heavy handed unions that control everything adding incredible layers of costs. If you ever attend a trade show in NYC you would know they wont even let you carry a box into the exhibit hall. You have to pay brutish union members to plug a light into an outlet.

Not disageeing over wther its revenue or expenditures just pointing out how different things can be and how complex any of these issues really are.

[SD Realtor]

UR you are taking a microscopic view while mine is more macro in nature. I take the aggregate taxation policy into account not just the property tax issue because I believe they are intertwined.

I believe that the aggregate of the taxation policy for California is one that should be a focus. That is, if you are a homeowner and a wage earner in California your total taxation is pretty damn hefty.

I think that those who believe that increasing taxes (WHATEVER THEY ARE, property, income, sales) I don’t care you choose it, for a given entity, be it state, local, federal, should be done with some BENEFIT for the taxpayer.

So if you want to raise my state taxes, all I ask is that you show me a benefit. Show me you can balance a budget for a year or two with CURRENT revenues. If that can be done then fantastic, go ahead and increase my taxes after that and show me my benefit.

The big problem here is an assumption by you and any other tax increase advocate. Your assumption is that by raising my taxes our school scores will improve or state services will improve. However we have just HAD AN INCREASE in income taxes and NEITHER happened. In fact, we are continuing to deteriorate.

LOGIC follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that another increase in any state related tax will NOT improve my life, or the schools, or any service that my family enjoys. It is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask that the state govt clean the ledger, balance the budget with what they have, then if they want to add services in a well defined and orderly manner, and can do that with raising taxes but STAYING WITHIN BUDGET then I am okay with it.

However to just agree that implicitly raising more more revenue and more revenue for the state legislature without them showing any improvement in budget keeping is completely ridiculous. Its like going to the doctor and saying ouch my head hurts and the doctor asks you why you keep bumping it against the wall?

[SD Realtor]

UR you are taking a microscopic view while mine is more macro in nature. I take the aggregate taxation policy into account not just the property tax issue because I believe they are intertwined.

I believe that the aggregate of the taxation policy for California is one that should be a focus. That is, if you are a homeowner and a wage earner in California your total taxation is pretty damn hefty.

I think that those who believe that increasing taxes (WHATEVER THEY ARE, property, income, sales) I don’t care you choose it, for a given entity, be it state, local, federal, should be done with some BENEFIT for the taxpayer.

So if you want to raise my state taxes, all I ask is that you show me a benefit. Show me you can balance a budget for a year or two with CURRENT revenues. If that can be done then fantastic, go ahead and increase my taxes after that and show me my benefit.

The big problem here is an assumption by you and any other tax increase advocate. Your assumption is that by raising my taxes our school scores will improve or state services will improve. However we have just HAD AN INCREASE in income taxes and NEITHER happened. In fact, we are continuing to deteriorate.

LOGIC follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that another increase in any state related tax will NOT improve my life, or the schools, or any service that my family enjoys. It is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask that the state govt clean the ledger, balance the budget with what they have, then if they want to add services in a well defined and orderly manner, and can do that with raising taxes but STAYING WITHIN BUDGET then I am okay with it.

However to just agree that implicitly raising more more revenue and more revenue for the state legislature without them showing any improvement in budget keeping is completely ridiculous. Its like going to the doctor and saying ouch my head hurts and the doctor asks you why you keep bumping it against the wall?

[SD Realtor]

UR you are taking a microscopic view while mine is more macro in nature. I take the aggregate taxation policy into account not just the property tax issue because I believe they are intertwined.

I believe that the aggregate of the taxation policy for California is one that should be a focus. That is, if you are a homeowner and a wage earner in California your total taxation is pretty damn hefty.

I think that those who believe that increasing taxes (WHATEVER THEY ARE, property, income, sales) I don’t care you choose it, for a given entity, be it state, local, federal, should be done with some BENEFIT for the taxpayer.

So if you want to raise my state taxes, all I ask is that you show me a benefit. Show me you can balance a budget for a year or two with CURRENT revenues. If that can be done then fantastic, go ahead and increase my taxes after that and show me my benefit.

The big problem here is an assumption by you and any other tax increase advocate. Your assumption is that by raising my taxes our school scores will improve or state services will improve. However we have just HAD AN INCREASE in income taxes and NEITHER happened. In fact, we are continuing to deteriorate.

LOGIC follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that another increase in any state related tax will NOT improve my life, or the schools, or any service that my family enjoys. It is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask that the state govt clean the ledger, balance the budget with what they have, then if they want to add services in a well defined and orderly manner, and can do that with raising taxes but STAYING WITHIN BUDGET then I am okay with it.

However to just agree that implicitly raising more more revenue and more revenue for the state legislature without them showing any improvement in budget keeping is completely ridiculous. Its like going to the doctor and saying ouch my head hurts and the doctor asks you why you keep bumping it against the wall?

[SD Realtor]

UR you are taking a microscopic view while mine is more macro in nature. I take the aggregate taxation policy into account not just the property tax issue because I believe they are intertwined.

I believe that the aggregate of the taxation policy for California is one that should be a focus. That is, if you are a homeowner and a wage earner in California your total taxation is pretty damn hefty.

I think that those who believe that increasing taxes (WHATEVER THEY ARE, property, income, sales) I don’t care you choose it, for a given entity, be it state, local, federal, should be done with some BENEFIT for the taxpayer.

So if you want to raise my state taxes, all I ask is that you show me a benefit. Show me you can balance a budget for a year or two with CURRENT revenues. If that can be done then fantastic, go ahead and increase my taxes after that and show me my benefit.

The big problem here is an assumption by you and any other tax increase advocate. Your assumption is that by raising my taxes our school scores will improve or state services will improve. However we have just HAD AN INCREASE in income taxes and NEITHER happened. In fact, we are continuing to deteriorate.

LOGIC follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that another increase in any state related tax will NOT improve my life, or the schools, or any service that my family enjoys. It is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask that the state govt clean the ledger, balance the budget with what they have, then if they want to add services in a well defined and orderly manner, and can do that with raising taxes but STAYING WITHIN BUDGET then I am okay with it.

However to just agree that implicitly raising more more revenue and more revenue for the state legislature without them showing any improvement in budget keeping is completely ridiculous. Its like going to the doctor and saying ouch my head hurts and the doctor asks you why you keep bumping it against the wall?

[SD Realtor]

UR you are taking a microscopic view while mine is more macro in nature. I take the aggregate taxation policy into account not just the property tax issue because I believe they are intertwined.

I believe that the aggregate of the taxation policy for California is one that should be a focus. That is, if you are a homeowner and a wage earner in California your total taxation is pretty damn hefty.

I think that those who believe that increasing taxes (WHATEVER THEY ARE, property, income, sales) I don’t care you choose it, for a given entity, be it state, local, federal, should be done with some BENEFIT for the taxpayer.

So if you want to raise my state taxes, all I ask is that you show me a benefit. Show me you can balance a budget for a year or two with CURRENT revenues. If that can be done then fantastic, go ahead and increase my taxes after that and show me my benefit.

The big problem here is an assumption by you and any other tax increase advocate. Your assumption is that by raising my taxes our school scores will improve or state services will improve. However we have just HAD AN INCREASE in income taxes and NEITHER happened. In fact, we are continuing to deteriorate.

LOGIC follows that it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that another increase in any state related tax will NOT improve my life, or the schools, or any service that my family enjoys. It is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask that the state govt clean the ledger, balance the budget with what they have, then if they want to add services in a well defined and orderly manner, and can do that with raising taxes but STAYING WITHIN BUDGET then I am okay with it.

However to just agree that implicitly raising more more revenue and more revenue for the state legislature without them showing any improvement in budget keeping is completely ridiculous. Its like going to the doctor and saying ouch my head hurts and the doctor asks you why you keep bumping it against the wall?

[jpinpb]

The reason I mention toll roads is b/c the money they derive from that is to take care of the roads. Hence the monies generated from the high property taxes theoretically is not for highway maintenance/repair. While they have snow and ice, we have sun beating down on our roads all day. One could argue the heat does as much damage. Not to mention the rains we get in the winter. Plenty of flooding causing road damage.

But however the money is generated and spent in NJ, they have managed to use it and still be in the hole. Do people really think that if we give the State of California more money that we will be in the black and fiscally healthy again?

I’m not even a gambler, but I’ll bet that we will eat through any money generated and be in the hole again in no time.

But the talk of the revenue was b/c some arguments are to repeal Prop 13 b/c the state needs more money. Besides property tax and sales tax, we have money from the lottery. We have money from cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc, etc. The list is long. The more we give, the more they use, the more they want.

I just think even though we are paying higher taxes than someone who bought in the ’70’s, at least there is a limit to how high they can raise it. If I bought today, at least I know the taxes won’t keep going up to infinity and beyond.

If hypothetically 10, 20 or 30 years from now property values go up to ridiculous levels in another bubble, I’ll be a senior by then. At least my taxes won’t rise to the next bubble levels.

Without Prop 13, I could see property taxes going through the roof. It will make it extremely difficult for people to afford to maintain a house.

While there are rich people in LJ paying low taxes, Prop 13 really helps any homeowner. Look at the big picture. Many middle class people own homes throughout California.

[jpinpb]

The reason I mention toll roads is b/c the money they derive from that is to take care of the roads. Hence the monies generated from the high property taxes theoretically is not for highway maintenance/repair. While they have snow and ice, we have sun beating down on our roads all day. One could argue the heat does as much damage. Not to mention the rains we get in the winter. Plenty of flooding causing road damage.

But however the money is generated and spent in NJ, they have managed to use it and still be in the hole. Do people really think that if we give the State of California more money that we will be in the black and fiscally healthy again?

I’m not even a gambler, but I’ll bet that we will eat through any money generated and be in the hole again in no time.

But the talk of the revenue was b/c some arguments are to repeal Prop 13 b/c the state needs more money. Besides property tax and sales tax, we have money from the lottery. We have money from cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc, etc. The list is long. The more we give, the more they use, the more they want.

I just think even though we are paying higher taxes than someone who bought in the ’70’s, at least there is a limit to how high they can raise it. If I bought today, at least I know the taxes won’t keep going up to infinity and beyond.

If hypothetically 10, 20 or 30 years from now property values go up to ridiculous levels in another bubble, I’ll be a senior by then. At least my taxes won’t rise to the next bubble levels.

Without Prop 13, I could see property taxes going through the roof. It will make it extremely difficult for people to afford to maintain a house.

While there are rich people in LJ paying low taxes, Prop 13 really helps any homeowner. Look at the big picture. Many middle class people own homes throughout California.

[jpinpb]

The reason I mention toll roads is b/c the money they derive from that is to take care of the roads. Hence the monies generated from the high property taxes theoretically is not for highway maintenance/repair. While they have snow and ice, we have sun beating down on our roads all day. One could argue the heat does as much damage. Not to mention the rains we get in the winter. Plenty of flooding causing road damage.

But however the money is generated and spent in NJ, they have managed to use it and still be in the hole. Do people really think that if we give the State of California more money that we will be in the black and fiscally healthy again?

I’m not even a gambler, but I’ll bet that we will eat through any money generated and be in the hole again in no time.

But the talk of the revenue was b/c some arguments are to repeal Prop 13 b/c the state needs more money. Besides property tax and sales tax, we have money from the lottery. We have money from cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc, etc. The list is long. The more we give, the more they use, the more they want.

I just think even though we are paying higher taxes than someone who bought in the ’70’s, at least there is a limit to how high they can raise it. If I bought today, at least I know the taxes won’t keep going up to infinity and beyond.

If hypothetically 10, 20 or 30 years from now property values go up to ridiculous levels in another bubble, I’ll be a senior by then. At least my taxes won’t rise to the next bubble levels.

Without Prop 13, I could see property taxes going through the roof. It will make it extremely difficult for people to afford to maintain a house.

While there are rich people in LJ paying low taxes, Prop 13 really helps any homeowner. Look at the big picture. Many middle class people own homes throughout California.

[jpinpb]

The reason I mention toll roads is b/c the money they derive from that is to take care of the roads. Hence the monies generated from the high property taxes theoretically is not for highway maintenance/repair. While they have snow and ice, we have sun beating down on our roads all day. One could argue the heat does as much damage. Not to mention the rains we get in the winter. Plenty of flooding causing road damage.

But however the money is generated and spent in NJ, they have managed to use it and still be in the hole. Do people really think that if we give the State of California more money that we will be in the black and fiscally healthy again?

I’m not even a gambler, but I’ll bet that we will eat through any money generated and be in the hole again in no time.

But the talk of the revenue was b/c some arguments are to repeal Prop 13 b/c the state needs more money. Besides property tax and sales tax, we have money from the lottery. We have money from cigarette tax, gasoline tax, etc, etc. The list is long. The more we give, the more they use, the more they want.

I just think even though we are paying higher taxes than someone who bought in the ’70’s, at least there is a limit to how high they can raise it. If I bought today, at least I know the taxes won’t keep going up to infinity and beyond.

If hypothetically 10, 20 or 30 years from now property values go up to ridiculous levels in another bubble, I’ll be a senior by then. At least my taxes won’t rise to the next bubble levels.

Without Prop 13, I could see property taxes going through the roof. It will make it extremely difficult for people to afford to maintain a house.

While there are rich people in LJ paying low taxes, Prop 13 really helps any homeowner. Look at the big picture. Many middle class people own homes throughout California.

[Author]

Posts