- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM #651309January 10, 2011 at 1:08 AM #650203
CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
I’m not “going after” them, CE. Would you like me to ride my elephant into your garage?? Well, get a bag of peanuts ‘cuz we’re on our way :=]
Prime example: No matter what race or nationality “legal” residents of Chula Vista are (or are claiming or “siding” with this month, lol), they ALL KNOW about illegal-immigrant women in labor being “dropped off” at the emergency rooms of both Scripps Memorial Chula Vista and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Centers. Routinely. Who pays these women’s (and their babies’) bills? Or, do they even get paid? How MUCH do these hospitals receive for providing these (intentional) “emergency” services??
Yeah, there are plenty of “legal” deadbeats. All across the nation. SD County is no exception. But there is a major difference between “legal deadbeats” and illegal immigrants. Look at my second list again (above). In addition to the above services provided by the state, “legal deadbeats” are eligible for Federal programs (SSD and SSI) and Federal pass-thru programs administered by states, such as TANF (in CA) and SNAP EBT cards (formerly “food stamps.”) Their children are also eligible for Federal educational grants and loans.
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government. If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
The fault here lies primarily with the Federal government. Their lax policies within the INS and their underfunding of the various agencies of the now Homeland Security Department here in SD which operate our borders and checkpoints is to blame.[/quote]
Great post, BG. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
What so many people don’t seem to understand is that the growth in the number of public employees is largely due to our illegal immigration problem. All those “high” salaries and pensions would NOT be a problem if they would fix our illegal immigration problem, because we would be functioning with about 75%-80% of our current public workforce (quite possibly, even less). Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our economy. If we’re going to have them here, then the employers should have to pay all the costs, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal, etc. for them and all of their dependents. Let’s see how “cheap” illegal labor would be if that were ever enacted!
January 10, 2011 at 1:08 AM #650272Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
I’m not “going after” them, CE. Would you like me to ride my elephant into your garage?? Well, get a bag of peanuts ‘cuz we’re on our way :=]
Prime example: No matter what race or nationality “legal” residents of Chula Vista are (or are claiming or “siding” with this month, lol), they ALL KNOW about illegal-immigrant women in labor being “dropped off” at the emergency rooms of both Scripps Memorial Chula Vista and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Centers. Routinely. Who pays these women’s (and their babies’) bills? Or, do they even get paid? How MUCH do these hospitals receive for providing these (intentional) “emergency” services??
Yeah, there are plenty of “legal” deadbeats. All across the nation. SD County is no exception. But there is a major difference between “legal deadbeats” and illegal immigrants. Look at my second list again (above). In addition to the above services provided by the state, “legal deadbeats” are eligible for Federal programs (SSD and SSI) and Federal pass-thru programs administered by states, such as TANF (in CA) and SNAP EBT cards (formerly “food stamps.”) Their children are also eligible for Federal educational grants and loans.
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government. If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
The fault here lies primarily with the Federal government. Their lax policies within the INS and their underfunding of the various agencies of the now Homeland Security Department here in SD which operate our borders and checkpoints is to blame.[/quote]
Great post, BG. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
What so many people don’t seem to understand is that the growth in the number of public employees is largely due to our illegal immigration problem. All those “high” salaries and pensions would NOT be a problem if they would fix our illegal immigration problem, because we would be functioning with about 75%-80% of our current public workforce (quite possibly, even less). Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our economy. If we’re going to have them here, then the employers should have to pay all the costs, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal, etc. for them and all of their dependents. Let’s see how “cheap” illegal labor would be if that were ever enacted!
January 10, 2011 at 1:08 AM #650852Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
I’m not “going after” them, CE. Would you like me to ride my elephant into your garage?? Well, get a bag of peanuts ‘cuz we’re on our way :=]
Prime example: No matter what race or nationality “legal” residents of Chula Vista are (or are claiming or “siding” with this month, lol), they ALL KNOW about illegal-immigrant women in labor being “dropped off” at the emergency rooms of both Scripps Memorial Chula Vista and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Centers. Routinely. Who pays these women’s (and their babies’) bills? Or, do they even get paid? How MUCH do these hospitals receive for providing these (intentional) “emergency” services??
Yeah, there are plenty of “legal” deadbeats. All across the nation. SD County is no exception. But there is a major difference between “legal deadbeats” and illegal immigrants. Look at my second list again (above). In addition to the above services provided by the state, “legal deadbeats” are eligible for Federal programs (SSD and SSI) and Federal pass-thru programs administered by states, such as TANF (in CA) and SNAP EBT cards (formerly “food stamps.”) Their children are also eligible for Federal educational grants and loans.
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government. If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
The fault here lies primarily with the Federal government. Their lax policies within the INS and their underfunding of the various agencies of the now Homeland Security Department here in SD which operate our borders and checkpoints is to blame.[/quote]
Great post, BG. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
What so many people don’t seem to understand is that the growth in the number of public employees is largely due to our illegal immigration problem. All those “high” salaries and pensions would NOT be a problem if they would fix our illegal immigration problem, because we would be functioning with about 75%-80% of our current public workforce (quite possibly, even less). Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our economy. If we’re going to have them here, then the employers should have to pay all the costs, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal, etc. for them and all of their dependents. Let’s see how “cheap” illegal labor would be if that were ever enacted!
January 10, 2011 at 1:08 AM #650989Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
I’m not “going after” them, CE. Would you like me to ride my elephant into your garage?? Well, get a bag of peanuts ‘cuz we’re on our way :=]
Prime example: No matter what race or nationality “legal” residents of Chula Vista are (or are claiming or “siding” with this month, lol), they ALL KNOW about illegal-immigrant women in labor being “dropped off” at the emergency rooms of both Scripps Memorial Chula Vista and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Centers. Routinely. Who pays these women’s (and their babies’) bills? Or, do they even get paid? How MUCH do these hospitals receive for providing these (intentional) “emergency” services??
Yeah, there are plenty of “legal” deadbeats. All across the nation. SD County is no exception. But there is a major difference between “legal deadbeats” and illegal immigrants. Look at my second list again (above). In addition to the above services provided by the state, “legal deadbeats” are eligible for Federal programs (SSD and SSI) and Federal pass-thru programs administered by states, such as TANF (in CA) and SNAP EBT cards (formerly “food stamps.”) Their children are also eligible for Federal educational grants and loans.
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government. If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
The fault here lies primarily with the Federal government. Their lax policies within the INS and their underfunding of the various agencies of the now Homeland Security Department here in SD which operate our borders and checkpoints is to blame.[/quote]
Great post, BG. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
What so many people don’t seem to understand is that the growth in the number of public employees is largely due to our illegal immigration problem. All those “high” salaries and pensions would NOT be a problem if they would fix our illegal immigration problem, because we would be functioning with about 75%-80% of our current public workforce (quite possibly, even less). Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our economy. If we’re going to have them here, then the employers should have to pay all the costs, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal, etc. for them and all of their dependents. Let’s see how “cheap” illegal labor would be if that were ever enacted!
January 10, 2011 at 1:08 AM #651314Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SD Realtor]In the end the complaint should really be what the hell is happening to the billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue. You are stepping over the dollar to get to the dime.[/quote]
What the hell is happening to CA’s tax revenue is this.
Unfunded mandates, including:
-emergency medical care for illegal immigrants
-public schooling for illegal immigrants
-justice-system costs for illegal immigrants
-CMS and unfunded MediCal payments-Recently “enhanced” pensions of public employees
-Exorbitant salaries for permanent staff/administration in the CU/CSU systems
-Rental assistance programs
-benefits for public employeesetc[/quote]
BG,
You seem to be going after the illegals here… Which I don’t have a problem with… But there is a large portion legal dead beats in this state and they are the far larger problem than the illegal one.
We should be concentrating on that one first!CE[/quote]
I’m not “going after” them, CE. Would you like me to ride my elephant into your garage?? Well, get a bag of peanuts ‘cuz we’re on our way :=]
Prime example: No matter what race or nationality “legal” residents of Chula Vista are (or are claiming or “siding” with this month, lol), they ALL KNOW about illegal-immigrant women in labor being “dropped off” at the emergency rooms of both Scripps Memorial Chula Vista and Sharp Chula Vista Medical Centers. Routinely. Who pays these women’s (and their babies’) bills? Or, do they even get paid? How MUCH do these hospitals receive for providing these (intentional) “emergency” services??
Yeah, there are plenty of “legal” deadbeats. All across the nation. SD County is no exception. But there is a major difference between “legal deadbeats” and illegal immigrants. Look at my second list again (above). In addition to the above services provided by the state, “legal deadbeats” are eligible for Federal programs (SSD and SSI) and Federal pass-thru programs administered by states, such as TANF (in CA) and SNAP EBT cards (formerly “food stamps.”) Their children are also eligible for Federal educational grants and loans.
In other words, “legal deadbeats” are funded. Illegal immigrants aren’t. Therein lies CA’s primary “budget buster.”
Having spent the bulk of my adult life working in local government, I can tell you that Federal (unfunded) mandates to provide illegal immigrants with necessary services is a HUGE part of the SD City/County budgets for which they DO NOT receive ANY compensation or ENOUGH compensation from the Federal government. If we didn’t have this problem, we could reduce state and local government by at least 25% and maybe 33% and still provide needed services to “legal” productive residents, “legal” otherwise “self-sufficient” residents and “legal deadbeats.”
The fault here lies primarily with the Federal government. Their lax policies within the INS and their underfunding of the various agencies of the now Homeland Security Department here in SD which operate our borders and checkpoints is to blame.[/quote]
Great post, BG. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
What so many people don’t seem to understand is that the growth in the number of public employees is largely due to our illegal immigration problem. All those “high” salaries and pensions would NOT be a problem if they would fix our illegal immigration problem, because we would be functioning with about 75%-80% of our current public workforce (quite possibly, even less). Illegal immigration is a HUGE drain on our economy. If we’re going to have them here, then the employers should have to pay all the costs, including healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal, etc. for them and all of their dependents. Let’s see how “cheap” illegal labor would be if that were ever enacted!
January 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM #650208Participant[quote=danielwis][quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=jpinpb]I don’t understand why people are still against Prop 13. There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble. If we get rid of Prop 13, 20 years from now, anyone who has bought a house recently will be praying for today’s taxes IF values go up. IMO Prop 13 is just one more incentive for real estate in California. I always hear about the really high property taxes in NJ and NY. And they still have budget problems! Prop 13 really is a blessing in California, IMO. People should be thankful to have it, not trying to get rid of it.[/quote]
Proposition 13 is a horrible law. It allows for wealthy, old people to pay little tax and then suck like a leech off the income taxes of young workers. It’s really disgusting to me as it benefits the superrich who don’t do anything while penalizing productive young workers.
Those who have large estates should be paying the highest taxes as they are using up all the resources, but instead they are paying the least taxes. Plus, raising property taxes would cause the price of real estate to come down, benefiting young people.
Proposition 13 benefits the old and unproductive and should be abolished. Let’s abolish Proposition 13, raise property taxes, and lower income taxes. This would do nothing but make California more productive.[/quote]
Spot on. Prop 13 severely penalizes the people the state needs most: young adults that work and pay taxes. Prop 13 is a cluster f*** and a disaster.
Now here’s a bone for you tax hawks. I’m all for a readjustment of other taxation to account for the boon in property tax receipts we would see if Prop 13 is abolished. If an amendment were structured in such a way as to account for a rebalancing, then Prop 13 could be defeated.
And yes, Prop 13 is partially to blame for the sky rocketing real-estate prices in the state since it was enacted.[/quote]
No. Prop 13 was enacted **because of** skyrocketing housing prices. People don’t want their property taxes to be based on purchases made by idiot speculators.
As jp has mentioned many times, eliminating Prop 13 will NOT lower your property taxes. Property taxes would simply go up for those who were smart enough to purchase their homes for lower prices (BTW, the buyers control what they pay in property tax, because they determine what price they will pay for a house…if you don’t like the high property tax, don’t pay so much!).
January 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM #650277Participant[quote=danielwis][quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=jpinpb]I don’t understand why people are still against Prop 13. There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble. If we get rid of Prop 13, 20 years from now, anyone who has bought a house recently will be praying for today’s taxes IF values go up. IMO Prop 13 is just one more incentive for real estate in California. I always hear about the really high property taxes in NJ and NY. And they still have budget problems! Prop 13 really is a blessing in California, IMO. People should be thankful to have it, not trying to get rid of it.[/quote]
Proposition 13 is a horrible law. It allows for wealthy, old people to pay little tax and then suck like a leech off the income taxes of young workers. It’s really disgusting to me as it benefits the superrich who don’t do anything while penalizing productive young workers.
Those who have large estates should be paying the highest taxes as they are using up all the resources, but instead they are paying the least taxes. Plus, raising property taxes would cause the price of real estate to come down, benefiting young people.
Proposition 13 benefits the old and unproductive and should be abolished. Let’s abolish Proposition 13, raise property taxes, and lower income taxes. This would do nothing but make California more productive.[/quote]
Spot on. Prop 13 severely penalizes the people the state needs most: young adults that work and pay taxes. Prop 13 is a cluster f*** and a disaster.
Now here’s a bone for you tax hawks. I’m all for a readjustment of other taxation to account for the boon in property tax receipts we would see if Prop 13 is abolished. If an amendment were structured in such a way as to account for a rebalancing, then Prop 13 could be defeated.
And yes, Prop 13 is partially to blame for the sky rocketing real-estate prices in the state since it was enacted.[/quote]
No. Prop 13 was enacted **because of** skyrocketing housing prices. People don’t want their property taxes to be based on purchases made by idiot speculators.
As jp has mentioned many times, eliminating Prop 13 will NOT lower your property taxes. Property taxes would simply go up for those who were smart enough to purchase their homes for lower prices (BTW, the buyers control what they pay in property tax, because they determine what price they will pay for a house…if you don’t like the high property tax, don’t pay so much!).
January 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM #650857Participant[quote=danielwis][quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=jpinpb]I don’t understand why people are still against Prop 13. There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble. If we get rid of Prop 13, 20 years from now, anyone who has bought a house recently will be praying for today’s taxes IF values go up. IMO Prop 13 is just one more incentive for real estate in California. I always hear about the really high property taxes in NJ and NY. And they still have budget problems! Prop 13 really is a blessing in California, IMO. People should be thankful to have it, not trying to get rid of it.[/quote]
Proposition 13 is a horrible law. It allows for wealthy, old people to pay little tax and then suck like a leech off the income taxes of young workers. It’s really disgusting to me as it benefits the superrich who don’t do anything while penalizing productive young workers.
Those who have large estates should be paying the highest taxes as they are using up all the resources, but instead they are paying the least taxes. Plus, raising property taxes would cause the price of real estate to come down, benefiting young people.
Proposition 13 benefits the old and unproductive and should be abolished. Let’s abolish Proposition 13, raise property taxes, and lower income taxes. This would do nothing but make California more productive.[/quote]
Spot on. Prop 13 severely penalizes the people the state needs most: young adults that work and pay taxes. Prop 13 is a cluster f*** and a disaster.
Now here’s a bone for you tax hawks. I’m all for a readjustment of other taxation to account for the boon in property tax receipts we would see if Prop 13 is abolished. If an amendment were structured in such a way as to account for a rebalancing, then Prop 13 could be defeated.
And yes, Prop 13 is partially to blame for the sky rocketing real-estate prices in the state since it was enacted.[/quote]
No. Prop 13 was enacted **because of** skyrocketing housing prices. People don’t want their property taxes to be based on purchases made by idiot speculators.
As jp has mentioned many times, eliminating Prop 13 will NOT lower your property taxes. Property taxes would simply go up for those who were smart enough to purchase their homes for lower prices (BTW, the buyers control what they pay in property tax, because they determine what price they will pay for a house…if you don’t like the high property tax, don’t pay so much!).
January 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM #650994Participant[quote=danielwis][quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=jpinpb]I don’t understand why people are still against Prop 13. There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble. If we get rid of Prop 13, 20 years from now, anyone who has bought a house recently will be praying for today’s taxes IF values go up. IMO Prop 13 is just one more incentive for real estate in California. I always hear about the really high property taxes in NJ and NY. And they still have budget problems! Prop 13 really is a blessing in California, IMO. People should be thankful to have it, not trying to get rid of it.[/quote]
Proposition 13 is a horrible law. It allows for wealthy, old people to pay little tax and then suck like a leech off the income taxes of young workers. It’s really disgusting to me as it benefits the superrich who don’t do anything while penalizing productive young workers.
Those who have large estates should be paying the highest taxes as they are using up all the resources, but instead they are paying the least taxes. Plus, raising property taxes would cause the price of real estate to come down, benefiting young people.
Proposition 13 benefits the old and unproductive and should be abolished. Let’s abolish Proposition 13, raise property taxes, and lower income taxes. This would do nothing but make California more productive.[/quote]
Spot on. Prop 13 severely penalizes the people the state needs most: young adults that work and pay taxes. Prop 13 is a cluster f*** and a disaster.
Now here’s a bone for you tax hawks. I’m all for a readjustment of other taxation to account for the boon in property tax receipts we would see if Prop 13 is abolished. If an amendment were structured in such a way as to account for a rebalancing, then Prop 13 could be defeated.
And yes, Prop 13 is partially to blame for the sky rocketing real-estate prices in the state since it was enacted.[/quote]
No. Prop 13 was enacted **because of** skyrocketing housing prices. People don’t want their property taxes to be based on purchases made by idiot speculators.
As jp has mentioned many times, eliminating Prop 13 will NOT lower your property taxes. Property taxes would simply go up for those who were smart enough to purchase their homes for lower prices (BTW, the buyers control what they pay in property tax, because they determine what price they will pay for a house…if you don’t like the high property tax, don’t pay so much!).
January 10, 2011 at 1:14 AM #651318Participant[quote=danielwis][quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=jpinpb]I don’t understand why people are still against Prop 13. There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble. If we get rid of Prop 13, 20 years from now, anyone who has bought a house recently will be praying for today’s taxes IF values go up. IMO Prop 13 is just one more incentive for real estate in California. I always hear about the really high property taxes in NJ and NY. And they still have budget problems! Prop 13 really is a blessing in California, IMO. People should be thankful to have it, not trying to get rid of it.[/quote]
Proposition 13 is a horrible law. It allows for wealthy, old people to pay little tax and then suck like a leech off the income taxes of young workers. It’s really disgusting to me as it benefits the superrich who don’t do anything while penalizing productive young workers.
Those who have large estates should be paying the highest taxes as they are using up all the resources, but instead they are paying the least taxes. Plus, raising property taxes would cause the price of real estate to come down, benefiting young people.
Proposition 13 benefits the old and unproductive and should be abolished. Let’s abolish Proposition 13, raise property taxes, and lower income taxes. This would do nothing but make California more productive.[/quote]
Spot on. Prop 13 severely penalizes the people the state needs most: young adults that work and pay taxes. Prop 13 is a cluster f*** and a disaster.
Now here’s a bone for you tax hawks. I’m all for a readjustment of other taxation to account for the boon in property tax receipts we would see if Prop 13 is abolished. If an amendment were structured in such a way as to account for a rebalancing, then Prop 13 could be defeated.
And yes, Prop 13 is partially to blame for the sky rocketing real-estate prices in the state since it was enacted.[/quote]
No. Prop 13 was enacted **because of** skyrocketing housing prices. People don’t want their property taxes to be based on purchases made by idiot speculators.
As jp has mentioned many times, eliminating Prop 13 will NOT lower your property taxes. Property taxes would simply go up for those who were smart enough to purchase their homes for lower prices (BTW, the buyers control what they pay in property tax, because they determine what price they will pay for a house…if you don’t like the high property tax, don’t pay so much!).
January 10, 2011 at 1:32 AM #650213Participant[quote=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?[/quote]
One thing people need to keep in mind… Revenues and expenses can vary wildly in the public sector. A wise person would suggest saving through the boom times in order to prepare for the bad times, but in government, if there is “excess” money being put away during the good times (as perceived by taxpayers), they will insist that taxes are too high, and demand lower taxes.
In a way, the govt is damned if they save, and damned if they don’t. IMHO, this is one of the reasons they have to budget the way they do — use it, or lose it. They really can’t do otherwise unless the masses grasp the fact that public entities need to have significant savings in order to get them through the hard times.
If the taxpayers’ advocates don’t get them on the revenue side, the special interests (including large developers/land owners, “special interests,” unions, and private entities who do all kinds of business with the govt) will get them on the spending side.
Right now, they are trying to budget, but it’s a moving target. They keep expecting revenues to increase, or at least remain stable; and expenditures to decrease or remain stable, but the prolonging of the recession (prolonged, because of the bailouts and unwillingness to let things bottom more quickly) is making it very difficult for them to budget.
As I’ve said many times before, it is the duration of the recession/depression that will kill us, not the depth. It would have been far, far better if they would have allowed things to fall more quickly and dramatically. It would have hurt more initially, but we would have gotten to a sustainable foundation from which we could have recovered. As it stands, they have piled trillions of dollars of debt on taxpayers’ shoulders, and we will be ground down for many, many years to come. All because the sheeple were convinced that the world would have somehow fallen apart if we didn’t save the financial industry (and the criminals who control it).
But you already know all this, SDR. I’m preaching to the choir. 😉
January 10, 2011 at 1:32 AM #650282Participant[quote=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?[/quote]
One thing people need to keep in mind… Revenues and expenses can vary wildly in the public sector. A wise person would suggest saving through the boom times in order to prepare for the bad times, but in government, if there is “excess” money being put away during the good times (as perceived by taxpayers), they will insist that taxes are too high, and demand lower taxes.
In a way, the govt is damned if they save, and damned if they don’t. IMHO, this is one of the reasons they have to budget the way they do — use it, or lose it. They really can’t do otherwise unless the masses grasp the fact that public entities need to have significant savings in order to get them through the hard times.
If the taxpayers’ advocates don’t get them on the revenue side, the special interests (including large developers/land owners, “special interests,” unions, and private entities who do all kinds of business with the govt) will get them on the spending side.
Right now, they are trying to budget, but it’s a moving target. They keep expecting revenues to increase, or at least remain stable; and expenditures to decrease or remain stable, but the prolonging of the recession (prolonged, because of the bailouts and unwillingness to let things bottom more quickly) is making it very difficult for them to budget.
As I’ve said many times before, it is the duration of the recession/depression that will kill us, not the depth. It would have been far, far better if they would have allowed things to fall more quickly and dramatically. It would have hurt more initially, but we would have gotten to a sustainable foundation from which we could have recovered. As it stands, they have piled trillions of dollars of debt on taxpayers’ shoulders, and we will be ground down for many, many years to come. All because the sheeple were convinced that the world would have somehow fallen apart if we didn’t save the financial industry (and the criminals who control it).
But you already know all this, SDR. I’m preaching to the choir. 😉
January 10, 2011 at 1:32 AM #650862Participant[quote=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?[/quote]
One thing people need to keep in mind… Revenues and expenses can vary wildly in the public sector. A wise person would suggest saving through the boom times in order to prepare for the bad times, but in government, if there is “excess” money being put away during the good times (as perceived by taxpayers), they will insist that taxes are too high, and demand lower taxes.
In a way, the govt is damned if they save, and damned if they don’t. IMHO, this is one of the reasons they have to budget the way they do — use it, or lose it. They really can’t do otherwise unless the masses grasp the fact that public entities need to have significant savings in order to get them through the hard times.
If the taxpayers’ advocates don’t get them on the revenue side, the special interests (including large developers/land owners, “special interests,” unions, and private entities who do all kinds of business with the govt) will get them on the spending side.
Right now, they are trying to budget, but it’s a moving target. They keep expecting revenues to increase, or at least remain stable; and expenditures to decrease or remain stable, but the prolonging of the recession (prolonged, because of the bailouts and unwillingness to let things bottom more quickly) is making it very difficult for them to budget.
As I’ve said many times before, it is the duration of the recession/depression that will kill us, not the depth. It would have been far, far better if they would have allowed things to fall more quickly and dramatically. It would have hurt more initially, but we would have gotten to a sustainable foundation from which we could have recovered. As it stands, they have piled trillions of dollars of debt on taxpayers’ shoulders, and we will be ground down for many, many years to come. All because the sheeple were convinced that the world would have somehow fallen apart if we didn’t save the financial industry (and the criminals who control it).
But you already know all this, SDR. I’m preaching to the choir. 😉
January 10, 2011 at 1:32 AM #650999Participant[quote=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?[/quote]
One thing people need to keep in mind… Revenues and expenses can vary wildly in the public sector. A wise person would suggest saving through the boom times in order to prepare for the bad times, but in government, if there is “excess” money being put away during the good times (as perceived by taxpayers), they will insist that taxes are too high, and demand lower taxes.
In a way, the govt is damned if they save, and damned if they don’t. IMHO, this is one of the reasons they have to budget the way they do — use it, or lose it. They really can’t do otherwise unless the masses grasp the fact that public entities need to have significant savings in order to get them through the hard times.
If the taxpayers’ advocates don’t get them on the revenue side, the special interests (including large developers/land owners, “special interests,” unions, and private entities who do all kinds of business with the govt) will get them on the spending side.
Right now, they are trying to budget, but it’s a moving target. They keep expecting revenues to increase, or at least remain stable; and expenditures to decrease or remain stable, but the prolonging of the recession (prolonged, because of the bailouts and unwillingness to let things bottom more quickly) is making it very difficult for them to budget.
As I’ve said many times before, it is the duration of the recession/depression that will kill us, not the depth. It would have been far, far better if they would have allowed things to fall more quickly and dramatically. It would have hurt more initially, but we would have gotten to a sustainable foundation from which we could have recovered. As it stands, they have piled trillions of dollars of debt on taxpayers’ shoulders, and we will be ground down for many, many years to come. All because the sheeple were convinced that the world would have somehow fallen apart if we didn’t save the financial industry (and the criminals who control it).
But you already know all this, SDR. I’m preaching to the choir. 😉
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.