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

[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.

[andymajumder]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[jpinpb]

After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?

I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.

I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.

Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.

I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.

While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.

People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.

[jpinpb]

After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?

I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.

I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.

Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.

I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.

While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.

People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.

[jpinpb]

After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?

I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.

I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.

Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.

I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.

While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.

People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.

[jpinpb]

After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?

I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.

I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.

Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.

I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.

While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.

People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.

[jpinpb]

After Prop 13 in the later ’70’s didn’t they come up w/a way to get extra money for schools? Wasn’t some of the money derived from the Lottery supposed to go to schools?

I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds.

I get very upset about discussion of lack of money in this state b/c people over the past decade of this bubble were paying 2 to 3 times the amount of property taxes due to the value of the properties doubling and the flipping going on.

Where did all the money go? I’ve said this before. It’s like being in Vegas at a magic show. The money disappears and the more you give, the more it vanishes into the black hole.

I think if they get rid of Prop 13, it would be the nail in the coffin for real estate in California. JMO.

While I would like prices to come down, I don’t think Prop 13 will help people. I’d like to think it would help the finances of this State, but as already mentioned, that is a bandaid.

People can’t manage their money, and cities and states are equally unable to manage money.

[permabear]

[quote=jpinpb]I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds. [/quote]

This has populist appeal, but all organizations are inefficient. Large corporations are just as bad as governments. I’ve worked at enough to know that misplacing a few million here or there is no biggie. It’s basically purely a matter of size.

At some point you wind up in a cost-cutting death spiral. You can’t keep parks and museums open, which then means you don’t collect money from admission, which then means you have to keep them open even less…

Case in point:

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/45552-state-loses-millions-in-federal-bonus-dollars-more-children-in-poverty.html

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Monday, over $200 million in awards to 15 states that were able to significantly boost children’s enrollment in Medicaid. California will not be receiving any award money.

According to Hardy, cuts in personnel are responsible for the state missing out on federal dollars. “California is missing out of millions of dollars in federal money because it has failed to take the necessary steps to enroll children,” she said. A report by the Children’s Defense Fund cites more than 1 in 5 children are living in poverty, the highest rate in 51 years.

In Los Angeles there is not enough staff to process the applications. “Shortsighted budget cuts are symbolic of a larger problem,” said Hardy.

[permabear]

[quote=jpinpb]I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds. [/quote]

This has populist appeal, but all organizations are inefficient. Large corporations are just as bad as governments. I’ve worked at enough to know that misplacing a few million here or there is no biggie. It’s basically purely a matter of size.

At some point you wind up in a cost-cutting death spiral. You can’t keep parks and museums open, which then means you don’t collect money from admission, which then means you have to keep them open even less…

Case in point:

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/45552-state-loses-millions-in-federal-bonus-dollars-more-children-in-poverty.html

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Monday, over $200 million in awards to 15 states that were able to significantly boost children’s enrollment in Medicaid. California will not be receiving any award money.

According to Hardy, cuts in personnel are responsible for the state missing out on federal dollars. “California is missing out of millions of dollars in federal money because it has failed to take the necessary steps to enroll children,” she said. A report by the Children’s Defense Fund cites more than 1 in 5 children are living in poverty, the highest rate in 51 years.

In Los Angeles there is not enough staff to process the applications. “Shortsighted budget cuts are symbolic of a larger problem,” said Hardy.

[permabear]

[quote=jpinpb]I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds. [/quote]

This has populist appeal, but all organizations are inefficient. Large corporations are just as bad as governments. I’ve worked at enough to know that misplacing a few million here or there is no biggie. It’s basically purely a matter of size.

At some point you wind up in a cost-cutting death spiral. You can’t keep parks and museums open, which then means you don’t collect money from admission, which then means you have to keep them open even less…

Case in point:

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/45552-state-loses-millions-in-federal-bonus-dollars-more-children-in-poverty.html

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Monday, over $200 million in awards to 15 states that were able to significantly boost children’s enrollment in Medicaid. California will not be receiving any award money.

According to Hardy, cuts in personnel are responsible for the state missing out on federal dollars. “California is missing out of millions of dollars in federal money because it has failed to take the necessary steps to enroll children,” she said. A report by the Children’s Defense Fund cites more than 1 in 5 children are living in poverty, the highest rate in 51 years.

In Los Angeles there is not enough staff to process the applications. “Shortsighted budget cuts are symbolic of a larger problem,” said Hardy.

[permabear]

[quote=jpinpb]I understand that money is needed for cities and states to function and operate. However, I think that there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds. [/quote]

This has populist appeal, but all organizations are inefficient. Large corporations are just as bad as governments. I’ve worked at enough to know that misplacing a few million here or there is no biggie. It’s basically purely a matter of size.

At some point you wind up in a cost-cutting death spiral. You can’t keep parks and museums open, which then means you don’t collect money from admission, which then means you have to keep them open even less…

Case in point:

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/news/45552-state-loses-millions-in-federal-bonus-dollars-more-children-in-poverty.html

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Monday, over $200 million in awards to 15 states that were able to significantly boost children’s enrollment in Medicaid. California will not be receiving any award money.

According to Hardy, cuts in personnel are responsible for the state missing out on federal dollars. “California is missing out of millions of dollars in federal money because it has failed to take the necessary steps to enroll children,” she said. A report by the Children’s Defense Fund cites more than 1 in 5 children are living in poverty, the highest rate in 51 years.

In Los Angeles there is not enough staff to process the applications. “Shortsighted budget cuts are symbolic of a larger problem,” said Hardy.

[Author]

Posts