California in a Constitutional crisis?

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
It'd be pretty sweet if property taxes weren't set at less than 1% and re-assessing value is illegal unless the property changes hands.

Heh, California's property tax is sky high compared to states like mine. However, the re-assesment issue probably should be looked at. Property may rise astronomically in value but not change hands for decades.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
It'd be pretty sweet if property taxes weren't set at less than 1% and re-assessing value is illegal unless the property changes hands.

Heh, California's property tax is sky high compared to states like mine. However, the re-assesment issue probably should be looked at. Property may rise astronomically in value but not change hands for decades.

Even if the property doesn't change hands, if the owner decides to refinance, the tax rate will go up.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I can't wait for California to fail. IT will show the rest of the nation that the massive entitlement programs can't work and it will shut the Obama adiministration up in trying to force health care.

Hoping for the nations most populous state with a gigantic economy to fail = pathetically unamerican.

America became the world's super power with capitalism. To get rid of this modern failed socialism experiment is entirely American.

Negative.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Ever been to the Northeast? That is Union city.

Actually, this is Union City, CA.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
It'd be pretty sweet if property taxes weren't set at less than 1% and re-assessing value is illegal unless the property changes hands.

Heh, California's property tax is sky high compared to states like mine. However, the re-assesment issue probably should be looked at. Property may rise astronomically in value but not change hands for decades.

Consider those who have lived (or plan to) in said homes for decades. After such time has elapsed, its very likely that they will be on a fixed income. How would homeowners save for retirement or be able to afford retirement if the state is constantly raising property taxes? Who in their right mind would want to be a property owner with that wildcard liability hanging out there?
As many have said in here, its a matter of managing a budget within its means. One page back, PokerGuy put it nicely:
"When you work, you get a certain salary. Just like the legislature, you can't easily increase your income on a whim, you have to take another job, get promoted etc -- in other words, it can be done, but it's hard. So, is the logical answer to:
A) overspend wildly, waste your money on all sorts of things, then claim that your hands are tied because you can't easily increase your income, or
B) adjust your spending to match your actual income, and/or take those difficult steps to increase your income if needed."

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
It'd be pretty sweet if property taxes weren't set at less than 1% and re-assessing value is illegal unless the property changes hands.

Heh, California's property tax is sky high compared to states like mine. However, the re-assesment issue probably should be looked at. Property may rise astronomically in value but not change hands for decades.

Consider those who have lived (or plan to) in said homes for decades. After such time has elapsed, its very likely that they will be on a fixed income. How would homeowners save for retirement or be able to afford retirement if the state is constantly raising property taxes? Who in their right mind would want to be a property owner with that wildcard liability hanging out there?
As many have said in here, its a matter of managing a budget within its means. One page back, PokerGuy put it nicely:
"When you work, you get a certain salary. Just like the legislature, you can't easily increase your income on a whim, you have to take another job, get promoted etc -- in other words, it can be done, but it's hard. So, is the logical answer to:
A) overspend wildly, waste your money on all sorts of things, then claim that your hands are tied because you can't easily increase your income, or
B) adjust your spending to match your actual income, and/or take those difficult steps to increase your income if needed."

For one, even with periodic reappraisals, home ownership is far superior to renting over the long term despite taxes. A once-per decade reappraisal schedule isn't that unreasonable. In AL, we recently had our citizens fuming mad when Riley (A Republican - heh) reinterpreted the current statutes to change from reappraisal every 4 years to an annual reappraisal. This was an effective tax increase on the exact same people you describe. Besides, there are other legislative remedies for those who are on fixed incomes or are retired. These types of exemptions are quite common across many states, IIRC.

I also think that PokerGuy's question doesn't quite fit here. It is apples and oranges when it comes to legislatures and workers. A worker alone can't change the system in which he can get a raise in income, but a legislature can. Besides, option B is what happened to California when income was high...they adjusted spending to match, but weren't allowed to save. Workers are. California is in a mess of its own making. It is up to the legislature to change this.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I also think that PokerGuy's question doesn't quite fit here. It is apples and oranges when it comes to legislatures and workers. A worker alone can't change the system in which he can get a raise in income, but a legislature can. Besides, option B is what happened to California when income was high...they adjusted spending to match, but weren't allowed to save. Workers are. California is in a mess of its own making. It is up to the legislature to change this.

Actually, the question/analogy fits very well. A worker CAN change his income, he can get another job, learn new skills, move, work overtime etc. It's not easy, and there are choices and tradeoffs involved. How much free time do I want to give up to work a second job so I can afford that plasma TV?

Besides, option B is what happened to California when income was high...they adjusted spending to match, but weren't allowed to save.

And there, in a nutshell you have the problem. Income going up does NOT mean spending needs to go up "to match". Spending should be done based on need. I don't understand why CA constitution doesn't allow for a rainy day fund, that seems dumb to me. Still, that means excess collected should be returned to the citizens, it's not a reason to increase spending "to match" what is collected.

What you have in CA is the same thing irresponsible people all over the country have been doing. When faced with tough choices, they've gone with 'option A' from my previous post. They overspent and overspent, and they paid for that with ever-increasing debt. At some point, sooner or later, you have to pay the piper. CA is no different. Instead of dealing with the spending and taking difficult steps to make spending match income, they've simply whipped out the credit card over the years and charged it up. Now they are getting close to their credit card limit, and they go whining to dad (the fed) that they need help, that it's all because of those pesky laws preventing them from raising taxes even more.

Wake up folks, what you're seeing in CA is the same as what we've seen among millions of individual consumers racking up debt, and it's the same as what we're seeing from the federal government. It's irresponsible spending that needs reigned in, plain and simple.