|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 4, 2011 9:21:35 GMT -8
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. Afraid to answer alert! |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 4, 2011 15:13:44 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. That family must be in a $5M home. But even then they shouldn't pay more than $2000.00 Per year IMO. Prop 13 was enacted to slow down arbitrary government increases in taxes by putting in place the simple 1% of sale or change of ownership rule. They could not come in on a whim anymore and pass increases on a homeowner. They have to live by a formula now. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 4, 2011 15:16:56 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? I agree that when someone reaches, say 68 years of age, thet pay no more in prop. taxes. I would rather see them paying a little more into Medicare( or medicare supplemental insurance) since it's broke now. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 15:18:16 GMT -8
Diversion Alert! The Green with Envy crew pipes up with a diversion. Afraid to answer alert! Answer what? A steaming troll used in an attempt to change the subject? Grow up! |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 4, 2011 15:19:29 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 see the documentary "Saving Superman". Our schools aren't failng because of lack of funding. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 4, 2011 21:55:58 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 see the documentary "Saving Superman". Our schools aren't failng because of lack of funding. Perhaps you mean "Waiting for Superman". |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 5, 2011 5:03:21 GMT -8
Go see the documentary "Saving Superman". Our schools aren't failng because of lack of funding. Perhaps you mean "Waiting for Superman". Oops. My bad. You are right. The other title has to do with an article on stem cell research. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 5, 2011 8:46:59 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 see the documentary "Saving Superman". Our schools aren't failng because of lack of funding. That's Waiting for Superman and it's not particularly accurate. One of the featured charter schools accepts around 150 students per year but only graduates around 50 each year while charging some outrageous amount for tuition. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 9:33:15 GMT -8
So lefties, how high do my property taxes have to go to fix this? www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-hphigh-20110510,0,4818567.story By July, officials, spurred by board member Yolie Flores, are expected to replace at least half the teachers at the campus. About 5% of the school's students tested as 'proficient' or better in math last year; about 24% tested as 'proficient' or better in English. Teachers call the measures counterproductiveWell of course they do! Why, if the taxpayers would simply triple their salary, all of the teachers would miraculously become 3 times better and we could get those math scores up to where 15% of the students would be proficient! This is why California is doomed. People like 70 and boob are so fu@king deluded they think that if we just give the incompetent, corrupt, feckless, lazy government drones MORE of our hard earned money, everything will be just fine. You are fools and people who think (and vote) like you have destroyed this state. If you FOOLS think this is an isolated case, you're even bigger fools than I thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 5, 2011 12:23:31 GMT -8
Would somebody please clarify something for me? Why do you folks consider Prop 13 a lefty vs righty issue?
As I recall, it passed overwhelmingly and received support from all parts of the political spectrum. Propositions that ask if you want free money usually do. It was less about political ideology than it was about grandma not being able to afford her home because taxes (which were based on the highest and best use) went up while her income was reasonably flat. It didn't limit taxes, as I recall, it just reassigned them such that long time homeowners paid less while renters paid more (in the form of higher rent) as did younger homeowners (who were likely to move several times before settling into their retirement home.)
Am I wrong about that?
Yoda out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 12:39:01 GMT -8
Would somebody please clarify something for me? Why do you folks consider Prop 13 a lefty vs righty issue? As I recall, it passed overwhelmingly and received support from all parts of the political spectrum. Propositions that ask if you want free money usually do. It was less about political ideology than it was about grandma not being able to afford her home because taxes (which were based on the highest and best use) went up while her income was reasonably flat. It didn't limit taxes, as I recall, it just reassigned them such that long time homeowners paid less while renters paid more (in the form of higher rent) as did younger homeowners (who were likely to move several times before settling into their retirement home.) Am I wrong about that? Yoda out... Pretty simple really. The left views 13 as a PRIMARY impediment to the ability to raise taxes. As a conservative, I believe them. It's more than just property taxes. 13 also requires a 2/3 vote in both chambers to raise any tax. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 5, 2011 14:10:26 GMT -8
Would somebody please clarify something for me? Why do you folks consider Prop 13 a lefty vs righty issue? As I recall, it passed overwhelmingly and received support from all parts of the political spectrum. Propositions that ask if you want free money usually do. It was less about political ideology than it was about grandma not being able to afford her home because taxes (which were based on the highest and best use) went up while her income was reasonably flat. It didn't limit taxes, as I recall, it just reassigned them such that long time homeowners paid less while renters paid more (in the form of higher rent) as did younger homeowners (who were likely to move several times before settling into their retirement home.) Am I wrong about that? Yoda out... Close, but as time goes by it becomes more of a left vs right issue. At the time everyone voted their pocketbook. I was one of them. I still would keep it in place and in addition curtail the fees that are now used in place of taxes going up. At present we are in deep kim chi over our spending, not our tax revenue and our California State Government just sits there and argues rather than trying to figure out a fix. It is hard to get a Democrat to even look at their crazy spending. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 5, 2011 15:14:34 GMT -8
So lefties, how high do my property taxes have to go to fix this? www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-hphigh-20110510,0,4818567.story By July, officials, spurred by board member Yolie Flores, are expected to replace at least half the teachers at the campus. About 5% of the school's students tested as 'proficient' or better in math last year; about 24% tested as 'proficient' or better in English. Teachers call the measures counterproductiveWell of course they do! Why, if the taxpayers would simply triple their salary, all of the teachers would miraculously become 3 times better and we could get those math scores up to where 15% of the students would be proficient! This is why California is doomed. People like 70 and boob are so fu@king deluded they think that if we just give the incompetent, corrupt, feckless, lazy government drones MORE of our hard earned money, everything will be just fine. You are fools and people who think (and vote) like you have destroyed this state. If you FOOLS think this is an isolated case, you're even bigger fools than I thought. I never said, even suggested, that I thought raising a teacher's salary three times would make a teacher three times better. It would be much more useful, for sake of discussion, that you refrain from making up lies. Will that be too hard for you? |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 5, 2011 15:25:01 GMT -8
Close, but as time goes by it becomes more of a left vs right issue. At the time everyone voted their pocketbook. I was one of them. I still would keep it in place and in addition curtail the fees that are now used in place of taxes going up. At present we are in deep kim chi over our spending, not our tax revenue and our California State Government just sits there and argues rather than trying to figure out a fix. It is hard to get a Democrat to even look at their crazy spending. As I recall, I voted against it -- but I'm not sure. To me, it's about generational tax equity. I see no reason that the elderly -- who constitute our richest demographic -- should have their property taxes subsidized by the young -- our poorest demographic. In my view, preferential tax treatment, like entitlement spending, should be means based. Prop 13 is just another way that society transfers wealth from the have nots to the haves. It is possible to keep grandma in her home without giving a tax break to the wealthy. Yoda out... . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 15:37:28 GMT -8
So lefties, how high do my property taxes have to go to fix this? www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-hphigh-20110510,0,4818567.story By July, officials, spurred by board member Yolie Flores, are expected to replace at least half the teachers at the campus. About 5% of the school's students tested as 'proficient' or better in math last year; about 24% tested as 'proficient' or better in English. Teachers call the measures counterproductiveWell of course they do! Why, if the taxpayers would simply triple their salary, all of the teachers would miraculously become 3 times better and we could get those math scores up to where 15% of the students would be proficient! This is why California is doomed. People like 70 and boob are so fu@king deluded they think that if we just give the incompetent, corrupt, feckless, lazy government drones MORE of our hard earned money, everything will be just fine. You are fools and people who think (and vote) like you have destroyed this state. If you FOOLS think this is an isolated case, you're even bigger fools than I thought. I never said, even suggested, that I thought raising a teacher's salary three times would make a teacher three times better. It would be much more useful, for sake of discussion, that you refrain from making up lies. Will that be too hard for you? No! of course you didn't. You only said that 13 is the cause of our school's problems, which translated from Libtard to English means GIVE ME MORE MONEY! I accuse you and those that think like you (Giant Government, never met a "problem" some dipshit government program or policy can't solve given enough money types) of destroying this state. And you have. It's THAT simple. Of course, you'll never own up to it because you're a liberal, which means never having to say you're sorry. Sad really. This used to be a pretty good place to live. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jun 5, 2011 15:43:50 GMT -8
I never said, even suggested, that I thought raising a teacher's salary three times would make a teacher three times better. It would be much more useful, for sake of discussion, that you refrain from making up lies. Will that be too hard for you? No! of course you didn't. You only said that 13 is the cause of our school's problems, which translated from Libtard to English means GIVE ME MORE MONEY! I accuse you and those that think like you (Giant Government, never met a "problem" some dipshit government program or policy can't solve given enough money types) of destroying this state. And you have. It's THAT simple. Of course, you'll never own up to it because you're a liberal, which means never having to say you're sorry. Sad really. This used to be a pretty good place to live. So AFAN what's keeping you from moving to Texas where you can join more of your brethren? Might have to give up your Aztec tickets, curtail fishing trips to Wyoming?... I'm sure you have it really bad here.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2011 15:58:27 GMT -8
Close, but as time goes by it becomes more of a left vs right issue. At the time everyone voted their pocketbook. I was one of them. I still would keep it in place and in addition curtail the fees that are now used in place of taxes going up. At present we are in deep kim chi over our spending, not our tax revenue and our California State Government just sits there and argues rather than trying to figure out a fix. It is hard to get a Democrat to even look at their crazy spending. As I recall, I voted against it -- but I'm not sure. To me, it's about generational tax equity. I see no reason that the elderly -- who constitute our richest demographic -- should have their property taxes subsidized by the young -- our poorest demographic. In my view, preferential tax treatment, like entitlement spending, should be means based. Prop 13 is just another way that society transfers wealth from the have nots to the haves. It is possible to keep grandma in her home without giving a tax break to the wealthy. Yoda out... . Nonsense. "rich" people don't simply buy a home and live in it unimproved for years on end. Most "rich" people move up or improve numerous time throughout their lives and as such are subject to reassessment. But don't let reality encroach on your "moderate" thought process. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 5, 2011 16:24:47 GMT -8
As I recall, I voted against it -- but I'm not sure. To me, it's about generational tax equity. I see no reason that the elderly -- who constitute our richest demographic -- should have their property taxes subsidized by the young -- our poorest demographic. In my view, preferential tax treatment, like entitlement spending, should be means based. Prop 13 is just another way that society transfers wealth from the have nots to the haves. It is possible to keep grandma in her home without giving a tax break to the wealthy. Yoda out... . Nonsense. "rich" people don't simply buy a home and live in it unimproved for years on end. Most "rich" people move up or improve numerous time throughout their lives and as such are subject to reassessment. But don't let reality encroach on your "moderate" thought process. I didn't say that rich people simply buy a home and live there for years on end. Nice bit of recasting there buddy. Let's play this one by the numbers, shall we? I think it is safe to say that: 1. the elderly are far more likely to live in a home they own for many years than young people are -- agreed? 2. the elderly are far more likely to be rich than young people -- agreed? 3. it is inappropriate that a poor young person should pay additional property taxes (in the form of rent) so that a rich, elderly person can get a tax break -- agreed? Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 5, 2011 17:07:59 GMT -8
Close, but as time goes by it becomes more of a left vs right issue. At the time everyone voted their pocketbook. I was one of them. I still would keep it in place and in addition curtail the fees that are now used in place of taxes going up. At present we are in deep kim chi over our spending, not our tax revenue and our California State Government just sits there and argues rather than trying to figure out a fix. It is hard to get a Democrat to even look at their crazy spending. As I recall, I voted against it -- but I'm not sure. To me, it's about generational tax equity. I see no reason that the elderly -- who constitute our richest demographic -- should have their property taxes subsidized by the young -- our poorest demographic. In my view, preferential tax treatment, like entitlement spending, should be means based. Prop 13 is just another way that society transfers wealth from the have nots to the haves. It is possible to keep grandma in her home without giving a tax break to the wealthy. Yoda out... . I would ask a little different question. Maybe we should treat owner owned and occupied real estate differently than commercial or rentals. That might not be looked at favorably by renters, but worth looking at. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 5, 2011 18:46:19 GMT -8
I never said, even suggested, that I thought raising a teacher's salary three times would make a teacher three times better. It would be much more useful, for sake of discussion, that you refrain from making up lies. Will that be too hard for you? No! of course you didn't. You only said that 13 is the cause of our school's problems, which translated from Libtard to English means GIVE ME MORE MONEY! I accuse you and those that think like you (Giant Government, never met a "problem" some dipshit government program or policy can't solve given enough money types) of destroying this state. And you have. It's THAT simple. Of course, you'll never own up to it because you're a liberal, which means never having to say you're sorry. Sad really. This used to be a pretty good place to live. Nice to see you admit that you lie. That puts the rest of your post, all your posts really, in proper context. |
|
