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

[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.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=jpinpb]There are few people who are paying low property taxes, especially after this last bubble.[/quote]

Not true. Here in La Jolla there are lots of people with tax basis that is a tenth of what their neighbors is. Several people on our street are original owners who paid 8-12k for their places. Their neighbors are paying taxes on a basis of 1.5 to 2.5 mil. I find that hardly a fair distribution of the tax burden.

[Eugene]

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

Depends on what you mean by “enough”. Not enough to close the budget hole. Enough that there are no easy solutions left.

[quote]Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. [/quote]

Yes, it does. States with high K-12 spending per capita, (MA/NJ/CT/VT/…) tend to have high test scores and high apple-to-apple (race-adjusted) graduation rates. We spend 40% of the state budget on K-12, but that 40% is quite low by national standards. (Which is further proof that the state budget is bare bones, without much meat left to cut.) Last year California ranked 43rd out of 50 states by spending per student. NJ or VT spend twice as much as we do. Cutting the spending any further does not strike me as a wise experiment.

[quote]Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose.[/quote]

I don’t want to get into a full scale healthcare debate here, but I’ll just say that an average individual family health plan costs $6,500/year and comes with a $5,000/year deductible. And it does not cover sex changes. (Not that sex changes would account for more than 0.001% of the total premium, even if they were covered.)

Accusing people with 20-30k/year incomes of buying cell phones over health insurance seems silly.

[Eugene]

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

Depends on what you mean by “enough”. Not enough to close the budget hole. Enough that there are no easy solutions left.

[quote]Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. [/quote]

Yes, it does. States with high K-12 spending per capita, (MA/NJ/CT/VT/…) tend to have high test scores and high apple-to-apple (race-adjusted) graduation rates. We spend 40% of the state budget on K-12, but that 40% is quite low by national standards. (Which is further proof that the state budget is bare bones, without much meat left to cut.) Last year California ranked 43rd out of 50 states by spending per student. NJ or VT spend twice as much as we do. Cutting the spending any further does not strike me as a wise experiment.

[quote]Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose.[/quote]

I don’t want to get into a full scale healthcare debate here, but I’ll just say that an average individual family health plan costs $6,500/year and comes with a $5,000/year deductible. And it does not cover sex changes. (Not that sex changes would account for more than 0.001% of the total premium, even if they were covered.)

Accusing people with 20-30k/year incomes of buying cell phones over health insurance seems silly.

[Eugene]

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

Depends on what you mean by “enough”. Not enough to close the budget hole. Enough that there are no easy solutions left.

[quote]Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. [/quote]

Yes, it does. States with high K-12 spending per capita, (MA/NJ/CT/VT/…) tend to have high test scores and high apple-to-apple (race-adjusted) graduation rates. We spend 40% of the state budget on K-12, but that 40% is quite low by national standards. (Which is further proof that the state budget is bare bones, without much meat left to cut.) Last year California ranked 43rd out of 50 states by spending per student. NJ or VT spend twice as much as we do. Cutting the spending any further does not strike me as a wise experiment.

[quote]Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose.[/quote]

I don’t want to get into a full scale healthcare debate here, but I’ll just say that an average individual family health plan costs $6,500/year and comes with a $5,000/year deductible. And it does not cover sex changes. (Not that sex changes would account for more than 0.001% of the total premium, even if they were covered.)

Accusing people with 20-30k/year incomes of buying cell phones over health insurance seems silly.

[Eugene]

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

Depends on what you mean by “enough”. Not enough to close the budget hole. Enough that there are no easy solutions left.

[quote]Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. [/quote]

Yes, it does. States with high K-12 spending per capita, (MA/NJ/CT/VT/…) tend to have high test scores and high apple-to-apple (race-adjusted) graduation rates. We spend 40% of the state budget on K-12, but that 40% is quite low by national standards. (Which is further proof that the state budget is bare bones, without much meat left to cut.) Last year California ranked 43rd out of 50 states by spending per student. NJ or VT spend twice as much as we do. Cutting the spending any further does not strike me as a wise experiment.

[quote]Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose.[/quote]

I don’t want to get into a full scale healthcare debate here, but I’ll just say that an average individual family health plan costs $6,500/year and comes with a $5,000/year deductible. And it does not cover sex changes. (Not that sex changes would account for more than 0.001% of the total premium, even if they were covered.)

Accusing people with 20-30k/year incomes of buying cell phones over health insurance seems silly.

[Eugene]

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

Depends on what you mean by “enough”. Not enough to close the budget hole. Enough that there are no easy solutions left.

[quote]Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. [/quote]

Yes, it does. States with high K-12 spending per capita, (MA/NJ/CT/VT/…) tend to have high test scores and high apple-to-apple (race-adjusted) graduation rates. We spend 40% of the state budget on K-12, but that 40% is quite low by national standards. (Which is further proof that the state budget is bare bones, without much meat left to cut.) Last year California ranked 43rd out of 50 states by spending per student. NJ or VT spend twice as much as we do. Cutting the spending any further does not strike me as a wise experiment.

[quote]Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose.[/quote]

I don’t want to get into a full scale healthcare debate here, but I’ll just say that an average individual family health plan costs $6,500/year and comes with a $5,000/year deductible. And it does not cover sex changes. (Not that sex changes would account for more than 0.001% of the total premium, even if they were covered.)

Accusing people with 20-30k/year incomes of buying cell phones over health insurance seems silly.

[SD Realtor]

Well Eugene, it is obvious by your logic that the only solution is to continue to raise taxes. Clearly you have pointed out that we have slashed spending enough or perhaps to much. It is evident to me that the state legislature is doing a fantastic job and that this tax hike, whether it is wiping out prop 13 or simply piling more on top of the already high state income tax we pay will surely solve our budget problems and we will never have to raise taxes again after that. Surely you can point out several cases when California taxes were increased and then were lowered again after shortfalls were met.

[SD Realtor]

Well Eugene, it is obvious by your logic that the only solution is to continue to raise taxes. Clearly you have pointed out that we have slashed spending enough or perhaps to much. It is evident to me that the state legislature is doing a fantastic job and that this tax hike, whether it is wiping out prop 13 or simply piling more on top of the already high state income tax we pay will surely solve our budget problems and we will never have to raise taxes again after that. Surely you can point out several cases when California taxes were increased and then were lowered again after shortfalls were met.

[SD Realtor]

Well Eugene, it is obvious by your logic that the only solution is to continue to raise taxes. Clearly you have pointed out that we have slashed spending enough or perhaps to much. It is evident to me that the state legislature is doing a fantastic job and that this tax hike, whether it is wiping out prop 13 or simply piling more on top of the already high state income tax we pay will surely solve our budget problems and we will never have to raise taxes again after that. Surely you can point out several cases when California taxes were increased and then were lowered again after shortfalls were met.

[SD Realtor]

Well Eugene, it is obvious by your logic that the only solution is to continue to raise taxes. Clearly you have pointed out that we have slashed spending enough or perhaps to much. It is evident to me that the state legislature is doing a fantastic job and that this tax hike, whether it is wiping out prop 13 or simply piling more on top of the already high state income tax we pay will surely solve our budget problems and we will never have to raise taxes again after that. Surely you can point out several cases when California taxes were increased and then were lowered again after shortfalls were met.

[Author]

Posts