How Proposition 13 destroyed California.

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tax Undocumented workers at a higher rate. Tax the Medical Marijuana at a higher rate.

Just spend less money.

....

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: techs

I just copied and pasted that from my previous response.
Read it. Your gobleydegook about how property taxes collected went up faster than inflation doesn't mean shit. California is getting 3.5 times less on property than New Hampshire and 2.5 times less than Kansas.
Face the FACTS.

Im willing to bet the same house in CA is 5 times the cost in KS. Thus CA is getting more money from property tax than in KS. But of course, stupid liberals cant stop spending money, so taxes must go up.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Dude, Proposition 13 was passed thirty-one years ago. And Prop. 13 notwithstanding, California still has the tenth highest property tax rates in the Country. In addition, with the exception of Hawaii, California has the highest marginal income tax rates in the Country and the highest sales tax rate in the Country.

You can say much about the citizens of the Golden State, but one thing you surely cannot say is that they are undertaxed.

You fail at reading your own table.

CA is ranked 45 in tax rate with a tax of 0.48%

You live up to your name of smack Down with that.
Yeah, people in the 'low tax' state of New Hampshire pay over 3.5 times the property tax as they do in California. Even the people in KANSAS pay over 2.5 times the property tax as they do in California.
Property tax is one of the VERY few taxes the rich can't avoid paying. Which is why some billionaire (warren buffet?) commented he paid LESS tax on his ten million dollar home in California than his secretary paid on her house in New York.
So the rich have saved hundreds of billions of taxes over the years in California.
More than enough to straigten out Californias problems.
Its just the radical right wing conservatives sabotaged California.

Hahahahahahahaha yeah the radical right wing has California under siege.

California has a spending problem, let me type that out slower for you. Spending is their problem, not taxes.

 

[babylon5]

"The governor readily admits that he sees the crisis as a chance to make big changes to government -- to "reform the system," he said Friday -- with proposals he has struggled to advance in the past.

In past years, his plans ran into opposition organized largely by well-funded labor groups and Democrats, who say his proposals are really meant to strangle government. Now he is newly armed with negotiating power over Democratic lawmakers desperate to preserve state programs.

Back on the governor's demand list is a plan to cut the pensions received by state workers, which unions have stymied before but which he thinks may gain traction with a cash-strapped public. Schwarzenegger also views this as an ideal time to once again target growth and fraud in the state's multibillion-dollar in-home healthcare program, which employs 300,000 unionized workers.

His agenda includes anti-fraud efforts and tougher enrollment requirements for the state's food stamp programs, efforts that advocates for the poor say are designed to discourage people from participating. In his radio address, he said the state and counties could get by with a "fraction" of the 27,000 workers now handling eligibility for Medi-Cal and food stamps by using Web-based enrollment.

Schwarzenegger has revived plans to allow local school districts to contract out for services like school bus transportation and lawn maintenance, a proposal favored by the GOP but despised by school employee unions."

 

[theeedude]

Cut spending on the UC system, then see what all these prop 13 supporters who were expecting to get in state tuition but now have to pony up 100K to send their kid to college have to say about it.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Cut spending on the UC system, then see what all these prop 13 supporters who were expecting to get in state tuition but now have to pony up 100K to send their kid to college have to say about it.

It's funny how how this state has spent itself into oblivion and all you guys can say is "Well, It's all because taxes aren't high enough" This train of thought is endemic throughout the Democratic legislature and is a big reason for why we are on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure, raise property taxes and the only thing that will happen is that the legislature will spend those extra taxes causing another deficit that will necessitate even higher taxes. Rinse and repeat.

It's no wonder more citizens are leaving California than are coming in. Same goes for businesses. Nobody wants to do business in California and I can certainly understand why.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

After handing out the biggest tax hike in American history, you are proposing eliminating the only protection we have from the legislators raising our property taxes to outrageous amounts? How's about just reduce spending to 2004 levels?

It's hopeless, the pro-tax posters here either are too rich to care or don't own any property. So for them it's "Bring on the taxes!"

Or maybe anyone with a shred of common sense knows that if you want to control taxes first you need to control spending.

So, you spend less, and then the problems that brings lowers productivity, lowering revenue, so you spend less, and the problems that brings lowers productivity...

And then you rename the state something catchy like "Mississippi" and declare it a capitalist paradise.

How does living within your means reduce productivity?
How does creating a business friendly environment reduce productivity?
Oh that's right, businesses are evil and should all be driven away. That way all you have left are poor people beholden to their Democratic overlords.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Quite a few of us Kahleeforneeyan homeowners are glad Prop 13 is still in place, HOWEVER, many politicians are looking at eliminating the Prop 13 protections for companies and especially corporations...and a LOT of homeowners support this change. It could make a HUGE dent in the state budget problems without pricing homeowners out of their homes.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/...906140309/-1/A_OPINION

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1962187.html

http://www.californiaprogressr...06/schrag_prop_13.html


ONE of the major problems with the Kahleeforneeya budget is the "legislating by proposition" that happens here. Special interest groups convince the voters to support the passage of some idea or another...and it gets passed...with no defined revenue stream to pay for it...OR, they pass "sin taxes" such as cigarette taxes, (always easy to vote for a tax that you don't have to pay) and put the burden on an ever shrinking group...then, when that revenue dries up, the funds get tacked onto the general fund budget...

My impression of the history is this:

Wealthy interests recognized that big property tax cuts on their business taxes would give them more money, and that's a good thing for them.

But how to get it passed? The public was increasingly upset at high resedential property taxes. So, cut them all, and the public will go along.

But that'll trash the income for the government. The wealthy interests' response: who cares? Most of tha state spending goes to the poor and middle classes, tough luck.

And out of that comes Prop 13, marketed to concentrate on the resedential property tax cuts, and passed - with its built-in protections against raising taxes when the problems w it causes become clear. And so that's how we ended up with the big revenue problems and the decline in the state from that.

I think some relief was fine. This was irresponsible. I think it's worth looking at repealing the reductions to the commericial property taxes - and a bit of poetic justice.

You forgot one element of the strategy to pass Prop 13. And this isn't speculation: I was a teenager in CA in 1979 and I remember extremely well how Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann ran the pro-Prop 13 campaign.

Anyway, the one element you forgot was the strategy to convince RENTERS to vote for Prop 13. After all, what was in it for THEM if property taxes fell? Well Jarvis "promised" that landlords would naturally pass on their Prop-13 tax-savings in the form of lower rents.

Wanna guess what happened after Prop 13 passed? Landlords didn't lower their rents at all. Why? Because rents are market driven: Why would a landlord charge (the then-going-rate of) $1000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in, say, Santa Monica when they could find TEN tenants willing to pay $1500/month?

So as a backlash to the failure to lower rents, various rent-control initiatives were proposed in various municipalities (with Santa Monica's being just about the strongest in the entire U.S.).

Now, what do you suppose was Howard Jarvis's position on rent-control laws, given that "his" landlords were making record profits (lower taxes, same or higher rents)? Well, Jarvis was at the forefront of the movement to OPPOSE rent-control laws.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Quite a few of us Kahleeforneeyan homeowners are glad Prop 13 is still in place, HOWEVER, many politicians are looking at eliminating the Prop 13 protections for companies and especially corporations...and a LOT of homeowners support this change. It could make a HUGE dent in the state budget problems without pricing homeowners out of their homes.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/...906140309/-1/A_OPINION

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1962187.html

http://www.californiaprogressr...06/schrag_prop_13.html


ONE of the major problems with the Kahleeforneeya budget is the "legislating by proposition" that happens here. Special interest groups convince the voters to support the passage of some idea or another...and it gets passed...with no defined revenue stream to pay for it...OR, they pass "sin taxes" such as cigarette taxes, (always easy to vote for a tax that you don't have to pay) and put the burden on an ever shrinking group...then, when that revenue dries up, the funds get tacked onto the general fund budget...

My impression of the history is this:

Wealthy interests recognized that big property tax cuts on their business taxes would give them more money, and that's a good thing for them.

But how to get it passed? The public was increasingly upset at high resedential property taxes. So, cut them all, and the public will go along.

But that'll trash the income for the government. The wealthy interests' response: who cares? Most of tha state spending goes to the poor and middle classes, tough luck.

And out of that comes Prop 13, marketed to concentrate on the resedential property tax cuts, and passed - with its built-in protections against raising taxes when the problems w it causes become clear. And so that's how we ended up with the big revenue problems and the decline in the state from that.

I think some relief was fine. This was irresponsible. I think it's worth looking at repealing the reductions to the commericial property taxes - and a bit of poetic justice.

You forgot one element of the strategy to pass Prop 13. And this isn't speculation: I was a teenager in CA in 1979 and I remember extremely well how Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann ran the pro-Prop 13 campaign.

Anyway, the one element you forgot was the strategy to convince RENTERS to vote for Prop 13. After all, what was in it for THEM if property taxes fell? Well Jarvis "promised" that landlords would naturally pass on their Prop-13 tax-savings in the form of lower rents.

Wanna guess what happened after Prop 13 passed? Landlords didn't lower their rents at all. Why? Because rents are market driven: Why would a landlord charge (the then-going-rate of) $1000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in, say, Santa Monica when they could find TEN tenants willing to pay $1500/month?

So as a backlash to the failure to lower rents, various rent-control initiatives were proposed in various municipalities (with Santa Monica's being just about the strongest in the entire U.S.).

Now, what do you suppose was Howard Jarvis's position on rent-control laws, given that "his" landlords were making record profits (lower taxes, same or higher rents)? Well, Jarvis was at the forefront of the movement to OPPOSE rent-control laws.

QFT
AND with Cali not getting revenue on property taxes they end up taxing things that shift the burden to the middle class and poor.
You can't evade a property tax on your 20 million dollar home. But you can on your 20 million dollar income.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: senseamp
Cut spending on the UC system, then see what all these prop 13 supporters who were expecting to get in state tuition but now have to pony up 100K to send their kid to college have to say about it.

It's funny how how this state has spent itself into oblivion and all you guys can say is "Well, It's all because taxes aren't high enough" This train of thought is endemic throughout the Democratic legislature and is a big reason for why we are on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure, raise property taxes and the only thing that will happen is that the legislature will spend those extra taxes causing another deficit that will necessitate even higher taxes. Rinse and repeat.

It's no wonder more citizens are leaving California than are coming in. Same goes for businesses. Nobody wants to do business in California and I can certainly understand why.

Except that property taxes don't rise and fall as much as any other tax. If it wasn't for Prop 13 CA would not be trapped in the cycle you describe.

 

[Double Trouble]

How in the world can you guys not understand the plain reality that spending is the problem? Raising taxes is the answer when there is a fundamental reason why income is insufficient to keep up with spending requirements. It should be an extraordinary last resort. Instead of wasting their time on trying to increase taxes (to which the people have clearly said "F U"), they should be working on lowering spending. Forget the publicity stunt spending reductions like parks and recreations etc, those are just measures to convince the public to allow more wasted spending. They need to tackle fundamental spending levels, take on the big ticket items in the budget.

 

[ZeGermans]

California spends a ton on the prison system, and due to the war on drugs and the unconstitutional three strikes laws, they have the fifth largest prison population in the WORLD

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
California spends a ton on the prison system, and due to the war on drugs and the unconstitutional three strikes laws, they have the fifth largest prison population in the WORLD

No shit?

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Blaming this "crisis" on the republicans is like blaming the sinking of the titanic on a small group of the passengers. The fundamental problem is actually very simple, but everyone wants to try and make it so complex.

In the long run, you can simply not keep spending more than you bring in. Fundamentally, the problem is that the legislative branch of CA government (democrats) fails to understand that simple reality. They bitch and moan about prop 13, but prop 13 only impacts one part of how much they can bring in through property taxes. Cut your spending to match the level of income. If the public wants additional services that can't be paid for within the budget, then their legislators can take steps to fix the issue.

FACT: you can not sustain spending more than you make indefinitely.
FACT: prop 13 puts certain restraints on the ability to raise certain taxes.

Given that reality, any logical person would say "we need to either cut spending, or we need to ask the voters to allow changes in tax levels". The voters have spoken loud and clear: "No way, no more taxes". Doesn't that make it pretty clear as to what should happen next?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! . . . Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner . . .After two factual examinations we have a winner.
Fact 1 : BIOS (Basic Input and Output amount Same). This meets the simple law of economics; When money IN is equal to money OUT there is NO deficit.

Fact 2: Prop 13 cap taxes: It only make sense you can't have open-ended tax laws.

 

[ProfJohn]

The problem is that Cali needed to pass another prop to control spending.

You don't go broke because you aren't raising enough revenue, you go broke because you are spending too much money.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The problem is that Cali needed to pass another prop to control spending.

You don't go broke because you aren't raising enough revenue, you go broke because you are spending too much money.

Actually, you go broke from a combination of both.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The problem is that Cali needed to pass another prop to control spending.

You don't go broke because you aren't raising enough revenue, you go broke because you are spending too much money.

Actually, you go broke from a combination of both.

Nope, if I give you a $100 you will never go broke unless you spend it.

 

[First]

^ You have to have a $100 in the first place to even think about spending it. lmao. :laugh:

 

[her209]

Where did our money go?

The Mercury News analyzed state spending, line by line, from 2003 to 2008. The major conclusions:

[*]California's general fund under Schwarzenegger's tenure has grown 34.9 percent ? from $76.3 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year to $102.9 billion in 2007-08.
[*]But over that same period, population growth and inflation together grew by only 21.5 percent.
[*] If state spending had grown only at that rate, it would have reached $92.7 billion last year. Instead, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature spent $10.2 billion more.

So looking at the past five years, where did that "extra" $10.2 billion of state spending above the rate of inflation and population growth go? The Mercury News found:

[*] The state prison system received the biggest share, about $4.1 billion of it. Corrections spending has increased fivefold since 1994. At $13 billion last year, it now exceeds spending on higher education. Tough laws and voter-approved ballot measures have increased the prison population 82 percent over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, former Gov. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union a 30 percent raise from 2003 to 2008, increasing payroll costs.
[*] Public health spending ? mostly Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor ? received $2.9 billion above the rate of inflation and population growth. Part of that spike is due to an aging population; part is rising national health care costs. But state lawmakers also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility among children and low-income women a decade ago, increasing caseloads.
[*] Schwarzenegger's first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003.
[*] Spending on a few other areas, such as higher education, general government, transportation and environment, also grew faster ? by about $1 billion each ? than inflation and population over the past five years. That was mostly to cover debt payments on bonds that voters approved for parks and highways, along with moves to limit university tuition increases.
[*] Finally, general fund spending on K-12 schools and social services, like welfare, actually grew less than the rate of inflation and population growth.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Evan
^ You have to have a $100 in the first place to even think about spending it. lmao. :laugh:

California is going to raise $80 billion this year.

If it only spent $80 billion it would not go broke, but they want to spend $100 billion.
That is their problem.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The problem is that Cali needed to pass another prop to control spending.

You don't go broke because you aren't raising enough revenue, you go broke because you are spending too much money.

Actually, you go broke from a combination of both.

Nope, if I give you a $100 you will never go broke unless you spend it.

No, see I say it is a combination, because if you could raise enough revenue, you'd be good. Also, if you could stop spending so much you'd be good. It is a combination of not doing either well enough that causes the issue.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan
^ You have to have a $100 in the first place to even think about spending it. lmao. :laugh:

California is going to raise $80 billion this year.

If it only spent $80 billion it would not go broke, but they want to spend $100 billion.
That is their problem.

Right, and you're assuming a state of 37 million people can run on less than $80B. I eagerly await your interpretation of CA's budget shortfall and which programs/people to cut out and your analysis of the legal, moral, and criminal results of said budgeting.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: her209
Where did our money go?

The Mercury News analyzed state spending, line by line, from 2003 to 2008. The major conclusions:

[*]California's general fund under Schwarzenegger's tenure has grown 34.9 percent ? from $76.3 billion in the 2003-04 fiscal year to $102.9 billion in 2007-08.
[*]But over that same period, population growth and inflation together grew by only 21.5 percent.
[*] If state spending had grown only at that rate, it would have reached $92.7 billion last year. Instead, Schwarzenegger and the Legislature spent $10.2 billion more.

So looking at the past five years, where did that "extra" $10.2 billion of state spending above the rate of inflation and population growth go? The Mercury News found:

[*] The state prison system received the biggest share, about $4.1 billion of it. Corrections spending has increased fivefold since 1994. At $13 billion last year, it now exceeds spending on higher education. Tough laws and voter-approved ballot measures have increased the prison population 82 percent over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, former Gov. Gray Davis gave the powerful prison guards union a 30 percent raise from 2003 to 2008, increasing payroll costs.
[*] Public health spending ? mostly Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor ? received $2.9 billion above the rate of inflation and population growth. Part of that spike is due to an aging population; part is rising national health care costs. But state lawmakers also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility among children and low-income women a decade ago, increasing caseloads.
[*] Schwarzenegger's first act as governor, signing an executive order to cut the vehicle license fee by two-thirds, blew a large hole in the state budget. It saved the average motorist about $200 a year but would have devastated the cities and counties that had been receiving the money. So Schwarzenegger agreed to repay them every year with state funds. That promise now costs the state $6 billion a year, or $2 billion more than the rate of inflation and population growth since early 2003.
[*] Spending on a few other areas, such as higher education, general government, transportation and environment, also grew faster ? by about $1 billion each ? than inflation and population over the past five years. That was mostly to cover debt payments on bonds that voters approved for parks and highways, along with moves to limit university tuition increases.
[*] Finally, general fund spending on K-12 schools and social services, like welfare, actually grew less than the rate of inflation and population growth.

Superb post, thanks.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: shira
You forgot one element of the strategy to pass Prop 13. And this isn't speculation: I was a teenager in CA in 1979 and I remember extremely well how Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann ran the pro-Prop 13 campaign.

Anyway, the one element you forgot was the strategy to convince RENTERS to vote for Prop 13. After all, what was in it for THEM if property taxes fell? Well Jarvis "promised" that landlords would naturally pass on their Prop-13 tax-savings in the form of lower rents.

Wanna guess what happened after Prop 13 passed? Landlords didn't lower their rents at all. Why? Because rents are market driven: Why would a landlord charge (the then-going-rate of) $1000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in, say, Santa Monica when they could find TEN tenants willing to pay $1500/month?

So as a backlash to the failure to lower rents, various rent-control initiatives were proposed in various municipalities (with Santa Monica's being just about the strongest in the entire U.S.).

Now, what do you suppose was Howard Jarvis's position on rent-control laws, given that "his" landlords were making record profits (lower taxes, same or higher rents)? Well, Jarvis was at the forefront of the movement to OPPOSE rent-control laws.

I agree with your addition of part of the sell campaign I'd forgotten.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: senseamp
Cut spending on the UC system, then see what all these prop 13 supporters who were expecting to get in state tuition but now have to pony up 100K to send their kid to college have to say about it.

It's funny how how this state has spent itself into oblivion and all you guys can say is "Well, It's all because taxes aren't high enough" This train of thought is endemic throughout the Democratic legislature and is a big reason for why we are on the verge of bankruptcy. Sure, raise property taxes and the only thing that will happen is that the legislature will spend those extra taxes causing another deficit that will necessitate even higher taxes. Rinse and repeat.

It's no wonder more citizens are leaving California than are coming in. Same goes for businesses. Nobody wants to do business in California and I can certainly understand why.

Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why are taxes and spending so high in CA?