Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
meadandale
Participant[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter][quote=captcha][quote=meadandale]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.[/quote]
Your neighbor uses the communal facilities the same way your other neighbor who bought last year does. Yet the new neighbor could be contributing many times more.
If the goal is to lessen the cost for the low income people then the criterion needs to be the income, not the purchase date.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Most of the Prop 13 money goes to schools (53% of it in 2006-2007…don’t have more current info). Unless granny is still sending her kids to school, it’s much more likely the new family is using a greater portion of the Prop 13 money.
———————–
The property tax raised more than $43.2 billion for local government during 2006-07. These funds were allocated as follows: counties 17 percent, cities 11 percent, schools (school districts and community colleges) 53 percent, and special districts 19 percent.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf%5B/quote%5D
The issue of uneven consumption is different issue. There are young people with no kids, older people with aged-out kids, people with kids, but no need for other services, like lifeguards, libraries or dog beaches.
If we want to factor in the consumption the property tax formula should include the number of school-age residents, proximity to the local beach, miles driven and vehicle tonnage and few other things.
It just feels like another instance of group of people offloading the cost onto another group of people just because they can. The first group still has the same level of access to the communal facilities as the second group.[/quote]
I have a small house (1100 sq ft) am single and have no kids and pay north of $4k/year in property taxes. Are you saying that I should be paying even more money in property taxes to educate other peoples kids?
I think that I pay more than my fair share…and this doesn’t even include the tens of thousands I pay in state and federal income taxes.
Participant[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter][quote=captcha][quote=meadandale]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.[/quote]
Your neighbor uses the communal facilities the same way your other neighbor who bought last year does. Yet the new neighbor could be contributing many times more.
If the goal is to lessen the cost for the low income people then the criterion needs to be the income, not the purchase date.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Most of the Prop 13 money goes to schools (53% of it in 2006-2007…don’t have more current info). Unless granny is still sending her kids to school, it’s much more likely the new family is using a greater portion of the Prop 13 money.
———————–
The property tax raised more than $43.2 billion for local government during 2006-07. These funds were allocated as follows: counties 17 percent, cities 11 percent, schools (school districts and community colleges) 53 percent, and special districts 19 percent.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf%5B/quote%5D
The issue of uneven consumption is different issue. There are young people with no kids, older people with aged-out kids, people with kids, but no need for other services, like lifeguards, libraries or dog beaches.
If we want to factor in the consumption the property tax formula should include the number of school-age residents, proximity to the local beach, miles driven and vehicle tonnage and few other things.
It just feels like another instance of group of people offloading the cost onto another group of people just because they can. The first group still has the same level of access to the communal facilities as the second group.[/quote]
I have a small house (1100 sq ft) am single and have no kids and pay north of $4k/year in property taxes. Are you saying that I should be paying even more money in property taxes to educate other peoples kids?
I think that I pay more than my fair share…and this doesn’t even include the tens of thousands I pay in state and federal income taxes.
Participant[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter][quote=captcha][quote=meadandale]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.[/quote]
Your neighbor uses the communal facilities the same way your other neighbor who bought last year does. Yet the new neighbor could be contributing many times more.
If the goal is to lessen the cost for the low income people then the criterion needs to be the income, not the purchase date.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Most of the Prop 13 money goes to schools (53% of it in 2006-2007…don’t have more current info). Unless granny is still sending her kids to school, it’s much more likely the new family is using a greater portion of the Prop 13 money.
———————–
The property tax raised more than $43.2 billion for local government during 2006-07. These funds were allocated as follows: counties 17 percent, cities 11 percent, schools (school districts and community colleges) 53 percent, and special districts 19 percent.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf%5B/quote%5D
The issue of uneven consumption is different issue. There are young people with no kids, older people with aged-out kids, people with kids, but no need for other services, like lifeguards, libraries or dog beaches.
If we want to factor in the consumption the property tax formula should include the number of school-age residents, proximity to the local beach, miles driven and vehicle tonnage and few other things.
It just feels like another instance of group of people offloading the cost onto another group of people just because they can. The first group still has the same level of access to the communal facilities as the second group.[/quote]
I have a small house (1100 sq ft) am single and have no kids and pay north of $4k/year in property taxes. Are you saying that I should be paying even more money in property taxes to educate other peoples kids?
I think that I pay more than my fair share…and this doesn’t even include the tens of thousands I pay in state and federal income taxes.
Participant[quote=hibiscus]How is Prop 13 NOT the source of budget issues? I pay 20 times what my neighbor is paying in property taxes because I bought last year. Is that right? Is that bringing in the right amount of money equitably?
Our schools are being strangled because people refuse to have their taxes raised like happens in nearly every other state.[/quote]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.
Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.
Participant[quote=hibiscus]How is Prop 13 NOT the source of budget issues? I pay 20 times what my neighbor is paying in property taxes because I bought last year. Is that right? Is that bringing in the right amount of money equitably?
Our schools are being strangled because people refuse to have their taxes raised like happens in nearly every other state.[/quote]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.
Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.
Participant[quote=hibiscus]How is Prop 13 NOT the source of budget issues? I pay 20 times what my neighbor is paying in property taxes because I bought last year. Is that right? Is that bringing in the right amount of money equitably?
Our schools are being strangled because people refuse to have their taxes raised like happens in nearly every other state.[/quote]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.
Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.
Participant[quote=hibiscus]How is Prop 13 NOT the source of budget issues? I pay 20 times what my neighbor is paying in property taxes because I bought last year. Is that right? Is that bringing in the right amount of money equitably?
Our schools are being strangled because people refuse to have their taxes raised like happens in nearly every other state.[/quote]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.
Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.
Participant[quote=hibiscus]How is Prop 13 NOT the source of budget issues? I pay 20 times what my neighbor is paying in property taxes because I bought last year. Is that right? Is that bringing in the right amount of money equitably?
Our schools are being strangled because people refuse to have their taxes raised like happens in nearly every other state.[/quote]
My neighbor, who is in his 80’s, bought his house when it was brand new….in 1954. He paid $10k for it.
Would it be fair for him to pay over $4k/year (what I pay)…or almost half the price he paid for the house, every year in property taxes? Does that make sense?
He’s living on a fixed income. I can guarantee that he does not have the money to pay that property tax bill. Should we just kick him out of the house?
Spending in this state has exceeded population growth and inflation in every way imaginable. There is NO revenue problem in CA…there is a SPENDING problem.
Participant[quote=werewolf34]
Bad news
1) Your insurance company will give you ‘fair value’ for your TT. Chances are repairs > value of the car so it will be totalled and written off with you receiving a check. Bad news is a 2001 TT isn’t worth enough to put you into a new car. Check NADA, Edmunds and KBB and be prepared to fight with the insurance company over value of your car.
[/quote]This isn’t always the case. I had the exact same thing happen to me about 10 years ago. Traffic up in LA went from 60 to 0 in about 100 yards. I had stopped and looked in my mirror and the guy behind me was barreling down. Nailed me from behind doing 20+ MPH.
At that time I had 10 year old Acura Vigor and still owed quite a bit of money on it (more than it was worth). I told the insurance company of the guy who hit me “I don’t care what you think my car is worth, your insured caused the accident and you need to make me whole.”. They spent over $10k fixing my car–way more than it was worth.
Participant[quote=werewolf34]
Bad news
1) Your insurance company will give you ‘fair value’ for your TT. Chances are repairs > value of the car so it will be totalled and written off with you receiving a check. Bad news is a 2001 TT isn’t worth enough to put you into a new car. Check NADA, Edmunds and KBB and be prepared to fight with the insurance company over value of your car.
[/quote]This isn’t always the case. I had the exact same thing happen to me about 10 years ago. Traffic up in LA went from 60 to 0 in about 100 yards. I had stopped and looked in my mirror and the guy behind me was barreling down. Nailed me from behind doing 20+ MPH.
At that time I had 10 year old Acura Vigor and still owed quite a bit of money on it (more than it was worth). I told the insurance company of the guy who hit me “I don’t care what you think my car is worth, your insured caused the accident and you need to make me whole.”. They spent over $10k fixing my car–way more than it was worth.
Participant[quote=werewolf34]
Bad news
1) Your insurance company will give you ‘fair value’ for your TT. Chances are repairs > value of the car so it will be totalled and written off with you receiving a check. Bad news is a 2001 TT isn’t worth enough to put you into a new car. Check NADA, Edmunds and KBB and be prepared to fight with the insurance company over value of your car.
[/quote]This isn’t always the case. I had the exact same thing happen to me about 10 years ago. Traffic up in LA went from 60 to 0 in about 100 yards. I had stopped and looked in my mirror and the guy behind me was barreling down. Nailed me from behind doing 20+ MPH.
At that time I had 10 year old Acura Vigor and still owed quite a bit of money on it (more than it was worth). I told the insurance company of the guy who hit me “I don’t care what you think my car is worth, your insured caused the accident and you need to make me whole.”. They spent over $10k fixing my car–way more than it was worth.
Participant[quote=werewolf34]
Bad news
1) Your insurance company will give you ‘fair value’ for your TT. Chances are repairs > value of the car so it will be totalled and written off with you receiving a check. Bad news is a 2001 TT isn’t worth enough to put you into a new car. Check NADA, Edmunds and KBB and be prepared to fight with the insurance company over value of your car.
[/quote]This isn’t always the case. I had the exact same thing happen to me about 10 years ago. Traffic up in LA went from 60 to 0 in about 100 yards. I had stopped and looked in my mirror and the guy behind me was barreling down. Nailed me from behind doing 20+ MPH.
At that time I had 10 year old Acura Vigor and still owed quite a bit of money on it (more than it was worth). I told the insurance company of the guy who hit me “I don’t care what you think my car is worth, your insured caused the accident and you need to make me whole.”. They spent over $10k fixing my car–way more than it was worth.
Participant[quote=werewolf34]
Bad news
1) Your insurance company will give you ‘fair value’ for your TT. Chances are repairs > value of the car so it will be totalled and written off with you receiving a check. Bad news is a 2001 TT isn’t worth enough to put you into a new car. Check NADA, Edmunds and KBB and be prepared to fight with the insurance company over value of your car.
[/quote]This isn’t always the case. I had the exact same thing happen to me about 10 years ago. Traffic up in LA went from 60 to 0 in about 100 yards. I had stopped and looked in my mirror and the guy behind me was barreling down. Nailed me from behind doing 20+ MPH.
At that time I had 10 year old Acura Vigor and still owed quite a bit of money on it (more than it was worth). I told the insurance company of the guy who hit me “I don’t care what you think my car is worth, your insured caused the accident and you need to make me whole.”. They spent over $10k fixing my car–way more than it was worth.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=meadandale]Gotta love this time of year when you are a small business owner and property owner in CA:
1) Mar 15: corp taxes due + first quarter est corp taxes due
2) April 10: property taxes due
3) April 15: personal taxes due + first quarter est taxes dueLet’s just say that I could pay more than one McDonald’s workers salary for a year with the checks I have to write this year.[/quote]
I got you beat. All my insurance premiums for some reason or the other are due around this time too. Why not at the beginning of the year, I have no idea.[/quote]
Yeah, business liability came due a month or so ago, home owners insurance is due and just paid my bimonthly anthem bill.
-
AuthorPosts
