[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Agree with Brian on this one. The impetus behind tinkering with or abolishing Prop 13 is to get more revenue by eliminating the tax subsidies for those who don’t need or deserve them.[/quote]

I’m not sure there is any significant impetus behind abolishing it. And I think the reason for that is those supporting a repeal are making the wrong argument. The problem with it is not that it mandates too much or too little tax, but rather that it mandates a tax that is unfairly distributed. And the only fix that’s been proposed is one that increases total revenues. It doesn’t have to do that. If the limits were set at the revenue end, instead of the assessment end, the state and municipalities wouldn’t have huge swings in revenues as they’ve seen over the last decade. No huge increases when property values skyrocket, or huge decreases when property values plummet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredyclassic]perhaps an early failure is good.[/quote]

I think it’s an essential part of growing up. I remember when my kids were little, there were a lot of parents that wouldn’t let their kids do anything they weren’t good at, or where success wasn’t guaranteed.

I took the opposite view. Learning how to deal with failure is essential. And my kids handled it very differently. It made my son fearless. He isn’t afraid to try anything. (He’s headed to Gaza this summer. Which is kinda worrisome. He looks like a punk orthodox rabbi.)

And with my daughter, it just increased her always present drive for perfection. She’s always hated to fail, for her, a 99 on a test was a failure. But when she gets 100, she finds a harder test. She’s been a bit of a workout freak for awhile, but for some reason couldn’t do pull-ups. She texted me this morning with a picture of her blistered hand. After doing 60 pull-ups.

[SK in CV]

I think there’s some broad misconceptions on what a repeal of prop 13 has to look like. Most seem to assume that it would keep property taxes (at very least) at their current level for those with properties currently assessed at market value, and raise property taxes for those properties with assessed values below current market values. That isn’t the way it has to happen.

I don’t know what the stats look like for percentage of properties currently assessed below market value. I’m guessing the total actual dollars below market value is more impressive than the percentage of properties below value. But if prop 13 were repealed or changed, with the provision that total property taxes collected don’t increase (or with limited annual increases), the net effect would be to decrease property taxes for current buyers, as the tax on legacy property tax properties increase.

This would DECREASE the cost to new buyers (i.e., young people), not increase it.

Some would argue that it can never happen this way. That legislators won’t ever pass up a chance to collect more taxes. Arguably true, but demonstrably false. It happened when prop 13 was originally voted in. Except that revenues were capped in the wrong place, at the assessment level, rather than at the collection level. The net result was exactly the opposite of what Howard Jarvis claimed he wanted. Property tax revenues skyrocketed as values increased. In the last 30 years, total property taxes collected have increased at a rate 3 times that of total population growth and inflation combined. As measured by Jarvis’ original platform, Prop 13 has been a total failure. It can and should be fixed. I have no idea whether or not it will be.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]

I’ve changed my mind. Sorry folks. I’m out today @$.73…

I found a spare engine for my miata I think I want to get…. And I think this will about cover it…(No really, the miata engine is cheap :))

The rest of you folks can now enjoy a over $1 gain now that I’m out )

You are welcome.[/quote]

Pretty good call. I’m out of 1/2 now, at .70 and .715. Order in to sell the rest at .65. I hope it doesn’t fill. But if it does, a pretty nice trade. $10K, 75 days. It’ll pay some bills.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]If anybody is actually curious about the real value of this company read this.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2094693-dazed-and-confused-by-growlife-shares-are-worth-a-small-fraction-of-their-current-price?source=yahoo

If you’re just hoping that some idiot is going to buy this stock from you at higher prices because it’s related to canibus, carry on.[/quote]

Leave it to seekingalpha to rain on my parade (as they’ve done a gazillion times in the past). I just put in a stop order to sell about 1/3 of my shares at .70. If it fills, I get my money out, and it’s all house money. Which is a very odd kind of reference for me to make. I don’t gamble on the market, I can’t afford to, it’s my job. Which makes this particular stock more of a party. Go figure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
I’m getting killed absolutely at taxable income… Ever since companies switched over from stock options to RSU’s, I’m absolutely getting reamed. Shares that vest that I don’t sell end up getting counted as taxable income.. [/quote]

Any logical reason that RSU’s shouldn’t be treated this way? It’s yours. It can’t be taken back. It has value. You have to pay tax on it just like everyone else who gets cash in their paycheck.[/quote]

(Waiting at the airport.)

How is that different from in-the-money vested stock options?

Suppose I had 1000 shares of ISO stock options that with strike price of $50/share that vested today when the FMV of QCOM stock is $77/share, for which I exercise but don’t sell.

How is this any different than if I had 350 shares of RSU’s that vested today @ $77/share, but don’t sell?[/quote]

If you’re paying AMT, then it wouldn’t be much different at all. The difference between option strike price and value at date of vesting is subject to AMT. So you’d have to pay tax on the ISO value almost the same way you pay on the RSU’s.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
I’m getting killed absolutely at taxable income… Ever since companies switched over from stock options to RSU’s, I’m absolutely getting reamed. Shares that vest that I don’t sell end up getting counted as taxable income.. [/quote]

Any logical reason that RSU’s shouldn’t be treated this way? It’s yours. It can’t be taken back. It has value. You have to pay tax on it just like everyone else who gets cash in their paycheck.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]52 week high… Anyone getting out?

I think I’ll hold until it either goes to $0, or goes to whatever…

[/quote]

It traded a few times over $.70 this morning. I’m in at an average cost of about $.225. I thought about selling half. But made the same decision you did. Originally I had a GTC order into sell at $.420, but now I’m waiting for it to hit $4.20. Or at least until they offer free samples. Just like the ’70’s. Smoke away all my profits.

[SK in CV]

[quote=moneymaker]If looking at the 14 year chart for gold/silver http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx it looks like a bubble, if looking at stock price vs. earnings (real, not manipulated) it looks like a bubble, looking at house prices it looks like a bubble, bonds and treasuries don’t yield much, so either we are in japan mode or poised for a depression, neither of which makes me feel good, or hopefully I’m wrong or missed something. One could probably make some money based on market volatility although riskier than is was a few years ago.[/quote]

Using what metric does looking at stock price v. earnings look like a bubble? Particularly in the context of prevailing interest rates, I don’t see it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I used to believe that what I believed had some connection to reality. Now I believe that any connection is merely accidental. Investment wise. There’s still a very high probability my legal advice will be acvurate.[/quote]

I just lectured my daughter on using the words “I believe”. She used the words in an application for a supplemental grad school program. I told her “believe” is a religious word. It’s a word to use when you think something irrespective of the evidence.

Your legal advice is sound because you KNOW your shit. You don’t just believe it to be accurate. It isn’t based on speculation or feelings. I think you’re right. Any connections between “beliefs” and reality are merely accidental.

[SK in CV]

[quote=svelte][quote=scaredyclassic]Biggoldbear, are you a gold bear?[/quote]

I wasn’t sure if it meant he was a large, hairy, lustrously yellow man in the gay community or pessimistic on the price of precious metals and decided not to ask. :-)[/quote]

this is spit my coffee through my nose funny.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]Hey, what’s wrong with owning a Miata? The pre-2006 cars were one of the best light sports cars ever built, bulletproof engines, and highly modifiable.[/quote]

they are pretty cute. I kinda wish they came in a men’s model.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltsdd]
Don’t know exactly when they had this policy. It’s not quite “guaranteed” but it’s as close to a guarantee as you’ll get. I always thought it was top 5%, so somewhat surprised to find out that it’s the top 9%. The 9% is “fixed”, the GPAs and sat scores are not. The numbers I used above is just one possible example to achieve the so-called UC score to be eligible. The link below is where you could find more info:

http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/index.html%5B/quote%5D

Thanks for the link. I think the “statewide path” is new. Or at least it wasn’t as easy to find 8 years ago. The local path did exist, though it used to be the top 10% instead of 9%. When my daughter graduated from TP in ’06, a 4.45 gpa and 1400 on the SAT (that was before the 3 part test was mandatory) wasn’t good enough to rank in the top 10% of her class. Putting that 4.45 gpa in perspective, it’s straight A’s for 4 years and 1 fewer than the maximum possible honors classes at the time. It didn’t make the top 10%.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltsdd]BTW., if you’re a California HS senior, a 3.5 gpa and a combined 1800 on the SAT will guarantee you a spot at one of the UC Schools.[/quote]

since when, and under what program? I’m reasonably sure that was not true 8 years ago. My daughter had significantly higher grades than that, and she didn’t have any kind of guaranteed admission.

[SK in CV]

As a non-Asian that had 2 kids attend UC, I entirely agree with you. Petition signed.

[Author]

Posts