|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 1, 2011 11:07:20 GMT -8
He doesn't really debunk it; just the title the Times gave the article. I did find his observation that Prop 13 relies upon ever increasing home values for its political support to be interesting. I do agree with him that a little tinkering is in order given the built in inequities. But jeez, bring up anything, even the most minor of changes, and people start screaming about doing away with it: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0601-lopez-uscprofonprop13-20110531,0,4791011.column =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 1, 2011 11:33:03 GMT -8
Interesting. What he does not mention is the unintended consequence of centralizing funding for schools from districts to Sacramento.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 1, 2011 14:13:35 GMT -8
"Myers isn't naive, but he'd like to believe that if more people understood all this, as well as the fact that commercial property owners have benefited from Prop. 13 even more than homeowners have, there might be more public pressure on legislators to rewrite the state's tax structure in more equitable ways. And if that miracle ever happens, California could become less reliant on sales and income taxes that rise and fall each year based on economic trends."
Whenever there is discussion regarding prop-13, the real winners are always barely mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2011 15:03:38 GMT -8
The Zombie Vampire Tick Leech Army hates it therefore it is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 1, 2011 15:52:35 GMT -8
The older I get, the more acceptable I find it to require the young to subsidize my property taxes at the expense of their own ability to own a home. Screw them. They will get and take their chance to screw the young when they get older.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 1, 2011 17:22:46 GMT -8
The Zombie Vampire Tick Leech Army hates it therefore it is a good thing. Gee, now there's an intelligent response  . Yup, anyone who disagrees with you is a "leach". I'd really hate to be you. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 1, 2011 17:24:25 GMT -8
The older I get, the more acceptable I find it to require the young to subsidize my property taxes at the expense of their own ability to own a home. Screw them. They will get and take their chance to screw the young when they get older. Yoda out.... Well stated sarcasm. The right wing claims to care about their children but in reality they only care about themselves. The Pooh/Dave/'50s generation will always bitch about my generation because it suits their purposes to cloak their greed in bullshiite terms. Their generation is the same as the people who came of age in the mid to late '70s - nothing to fight for, nothing to believe in because their big brothers fought in "real wars" while all they got was Vietnam and they got vilified by the right for "losing the war". It's damn well time that gets put behind us. The people who fought in Vietnam didn't lose anything - they were called by their country and they served just as much as "The Greatest Generation" served and their fathers, who served in WW II, have nothing on them. I'm sorry, but it really pisses me off that Dave, Pooh and any other Vietnam vets on here are generally looked down upon in history because in idiots' minds, they "lost". It's taken this country a longtime to appreciate the sacrifices made by Vietnam vets and we're still not there. I do hope that sooner, rather than later, we recognize their sacrifice. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 2, 2011 7:45:39 GMT -8
About 5 years ago I wrote the Jarvis folks about reducing the 1% tax rate to 1/4% on home purchases due to the rapidly increasing real estate prices. It's a shame that any family should pay over $2,000.00 per year in prop taxes.
Nevertheless, Govt. can tinker all they want, but the answers to our financial problems lie within govt. itself, and not outside of govt. Time for change and accountability.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 2, 2011 9:22:21 GMT -8
About 5 years ago I wrote the Jarvis folks about reducing the 1% tax rate to 1/4% on home purchases due to the rapidly increasing real estate prices. It's a shame that any family should pay over $2,000.00 per year in prop taxes. Nevertheless, Govt. can tinker all they want, but the answers to our financial problems lie within govt. itself, and not outside of govt. Time for change and accountability. I don't think we should pay more than $2,000.00 per year for food either. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 3, 2011 12:49:18 GMT -8
About 5 years ago I wrote the Jarvis folks about reducing the 1% tax rate to 1/4% on home purchases due to the rapidly increasing real estate prices. It's a shame that any family should pay over $2,000.00 per year in prop taxes. Nevertheless, Govt. can tinker all they want, but the answers to our financial problems lie within govt. itself, and not outside of govt. Time for change and accountability. Some families are paying $50,000 a year in property taxes. Should they get a break and pay less than $2,000?
There is a huge inequity in property taxes. Neighbors in similar houses can be paying vastly different amounts in property taxes. But it is a very hard issue to address fairly. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 3, 2011 13:49:34 GMT -8
Maybe property tax on residential real estate that are owner occupied should only be taxed until the mortgage is paid or until the owner reaches a certain age. How many old folks do we want to have to sell the homes they have had for years and struggled to pay for just to fund failed schools?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 15:31:55 GMT -8
Maybe property tax on residential real estate that are owner occupied should only be taxed until the mortgage is paid or until the owner reaches a certain age. How many old folks do we want to have to sell the homes they have had for years and struggled to pay for just to fund failed schools? The troll king strikes again! Our schools are failing because we spend so little on educating our youth. We are probably in the bottom 20 percent in per student funding in the nation. No wonder we have a problem educating. Why do we spend so little? Prop. 13. It gutted our funding for local schools. Once their funding was gutted the local districts had to depend on the state for funding. So much for local control of education. How do you conservatives like that? You brought it on. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 15:56:14 GMT -8
Maybe property tax on residential real estate that are owner occupied should only be taxed until the mortgage is paid or until the owner reaches a certain age. How many old folks do we want to have to sell the homes they have had for years and struggled to pay for just to fund failed schools? The troll king strikes again! Our schools are failing because we spend so little on educating our youth. We are probably in the bottom 20 percent in per student funding in the nation. No wonder we have a problem educating. Why do we spend so little? Prop. 13. It gutted our funding for local schools. Once their funding was gutted the local districts had to depend on the state for funding. So much for local control of education. How do you conservatives like that? You brought it on. Well, let's see here. As a percentage of GF expenditures, education gets 55%... tinyurl.com/62o2wqaThe other 45% goes to the rest of the sponge agencies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_state_agenciesAnd the libtards want to push granny out of her home, and over the cliff, to pay for all this bull$#!+. C'mon punk, let's hear your excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 3, 2011 16:56:40 GMT -8
I really don't think we're getting to the heart of the problem here. In the '70s the government was out of control. Every time a housing price escalated, property taxes escalated. I remember a friend in college who had married a Russian language prof at SDSU. They bought a house in the area just east of the campus. For whatever reason, which means because she was a woman in a department controlled by men, she wasn't offered tenure but took the offer of tenure at LSU.
They sold their house and I remember very well my friend telling me how upset one of his neighbors was because the escalated price meant he would be re-assessed for the 3rd time in less than a year.
The legislature screwed the pooch and at time, in the mid-'70s, Republicants still held a lot of seats (just to note that politicians, no matter who they are, have spending they favor).
So here come Jarvis and Gann - representatives of the apartment owners (don't remember which, but one of them ran the state apartment owners association). Because the idiots in our legislature at the time were quite willing to engage in what amounted to extortion, they left themselves wide open to an initiative that gave apartment owners huge property tax breaks while hammering the next generation with property taxes when they bought their first house.
People can kavetch about the wonderful proceeds of Prop 13 all they want, but the end result has been that our children have paid the price when they've bought their first house while dicks like Jarvis and Gann have seen the cost of their crap apartment complexes lowered while they've laughed all the way to the bank.
The only thing Prop 13 should teach us is legislature arrogance leads to someone taking advantage of popular anger which leads to really bad ballot box laws.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 5:21:17 GMT -8
Maybe property tax on residential real estate that are owner occupied should only be taxed until the mortgage is paid or until the owner reaches a certain age. How many old folks do we want to have to sell the homes they have had for years and struggled to pay for just to fund failed schools? The troll king strikes again! Our schools are failing because we spend so little on educating our youth. We are probably in the bottom 20 percent in per student funding in the nation. No wonder we have a problem educating. Why do we spend so little? Prop. 13. It gutted our funding for local schools. Once their funding was gutted the local districts had to depend on the state for funding. So much for local control of education. How do you conservatives like that? You brought it on. Go here to see some eye opening stats on not only spending, but also how effective that spending is. We spend over 8K per child and don't get much in return. At least we are much better than New York. www.supportingevidence.com/Education/SAT_v_funding_by_state.htmlAgain, just how many old folks do you want taxed out of their homes to support failed schools? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 5:26:31 GMT -8
I really don't think we're getting to the heart of the problem here. In the '70s the government was out of control. Every time a housing price escalated, property taxes escalated. I remember a friend in college who had married a Russian language prof at SDSU. They bought a house in the area just east of the campus. For whatever reason, which means because she was a woman in a department controlled by men, she wasn't offered tenure but took the offer of tenure at LSU. They sold their house and I remember very well my friend telling me how upset one of his neighbors was because the escalated price meant he would be re-assessed for the 3rd time in less than a year. The legislature screwed the pooch and at time, in the mid-'70s, Republicants still held a lot of seats (just to note that politicians, no matter who they are, have spending they favor). So here come Jarvis and Gann - representatives of the apartment owners (don't remember which, but one of them ran the state apartment owners association). Because the idiots in our legislature at the time were quite willing to engage in what amounted to extortion, they left themselves wide open to an initiative that gave apartment owners huge property tax breaks while hammering the next generation with property taxes when they bought their first house. People can kavetch about the wonderful proceeds of Prop 13 all they want, but the end result has been that our children have paid the price when they've bought their first house while dicks like Jarvis and Gann have seen the cost of their crap apartment complexes lowered while they've laughed all the way to the bank. The only thing Prop 13 should teach us is legislature arrogance leads to someone taking advantage of popular anger which leads to really bad ballot box laws. =Bob Maybe we do need some change to the law. Not the Prop 13 law, but in how money is spent. We collect more than enough in taxes, we just spend it very unwisely and for the wrong things. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 4, 2011 9:04:34 GMT -8
The troll king strikes again! Our schools are failing because we spend so little on educating our youth. We are probably in the bottom 20 percent in per student funding in the nation. No wonder we have a problem educating. Why do we spend so little? Prop. 13. It gutted our funding for local schools. Once their funding was gutted the local districts had to depend on the state for funding. So much for local control of education. How do you conservatives like that? You brought it on. Go here to see some eye opening stats on not only spending, but also how effective that spending is. We spend over 8K per child and don't get much in return. At least we are much better than New York. www.supportingevidence.com/Education/SAT_v_funding_by_state.htmlAgain, just how many old folks do you want taxed out of their homes to support failed schools? How many failed children do you want as taxpayers trying to pay for your unfunded government pensions? Poor students make poor workers make poor people. They will not be paying taxes down the road. How many old people tossed out of their house? If they worked for the government they will be none. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 4, 2011 9:10:34 GMT -8
The troll king strikes again! Our schools are failing because we spend so little on educating our youth. We are probably in the bottom 20 percent in per student funding in the nation. No wonder we have a problem educating. Why do we spend so little? Prop. 13. It gutted our funding for local schools. Once their funding was gutted the local districts had to depend on the state for funding. So much for local control of education. How do you conservatives like that? You brought it on. Well, let's see here. As a percentage of GF expenditures, education gets 55%... tinyurl.com/62o2wqaThe other 45% goes to the rest of the sponge agencies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_state_agenciesAnd the libtards want to push granny out of her home, and over the cliff, to pay for all this bull$#!+. C'mon punk, let's hear your excuses. If you think yourself capable of responding to the topics I raise in my post, Prop.13 causing the centralization of school budgets in Sacramento, and our declining of support for public schools, compared to the rest of the nation, please do so. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 9:12:23 GMT -8
Go here to see some eye opening stats on not only spending, but also how effective that spending is. We spend over 8K per child and don't get much in return. At least we are much better than New York. www.supportingevidence.com/Education/SAT_v_funding_by_state.htmlAgain, just how many old folks do you want taxed out of their homes to support failed schools? How many failed children do you want as taxpayers trying to pay for your unfunded government pensions? Poor students make poor workers make poor people. They will not be paying taxes down the road. How many old people tossed out of their house? If they worked for the government they will be none. Diversion Alert! The Green with Envy crew pipes up with a diversion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 9:14:27 GMT -8
If you think yourself capable of responding to the topics I raise in my post, Prop.13 causing the centralization of school budgets in Sacramento, and our declining of support for public schools, compared to the rest of the nation, please do so. Prop 13 did not cause anything. Overspending on the wrong things causes problems and it matters not how much you collect in tax if you spend it poorly. Now go back and start over. |
|
. Yup, anyone who disagrees with you is a "leach". I'd really hate to be you.
