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

[Eugene]

[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).

[enron_by_the_sea]

And (promised land of) Texas also can not budget their budget 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/texas_budget

Neither can Arizona (rest stop on the way to promised land)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/05/20110105arizona-budget-strategy-flawed-brookings-report.html

[enron_by_the_sea]

And (promised land of) Texas also can not budget their budget 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/texas_budget

Neither can Arizona (rest stop on the way to promised land)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/05/20110105arizona-budget-strategy-flawed-brookings-report.html

[enron_by_the_sea]

And (promised land of) Texas also can not budget their budget 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/texas_budget

Neither can Arizona (rest stop on the way to promised land)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/05/20110105arizona-budget-strategy-flawed-brookings-report.html

[enron_by_the_sea]

And (promised land of) Texas also can not budget their budget 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/texas_budget

Neither can Arizona (rest stop on the way to promised land)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/05/20110105arizona-budget-strategy-flawed-brookings-report.html

[enron_by_the_sea]

And (promised land of) Texas also can not budget their budget 🙂

http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/texas_budget

Neither can Arizona (rest stop on the way to promised land)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/01/05/20110105arizona-budget-strategy-flawed-brookings-report.html

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…

20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.

In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%

34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…

20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.

In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%

34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…

20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.

In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%

34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…

20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.

In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%

34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…

20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.

In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%

34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=Eugene][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).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.

[Author]

Posts