How Proposition 13 destroyed California.

[Jaskalas]

My message to Republicans in CA:

Let the Democrats raise taxes. They will only drive the exodus faster and their entire campaign against you will be obliterated the moment they both get what they want and wholly own this failed state.

You might argue that?d leave your state defenseless to the ruin socialism brings, but you?ve already lost the fight. You?re doing nothing but delaying the inevitable. You need to position yourself better, you need to move the arguments forward. Don?t get stuck in the mud over whether Democrats control the state or not.

You need to stop propping them up, take a step back, and let them fail. This is the ONLY means by which you can move forward. The only means by which the people will have enough of third world status. You might be afraid of what is coming, but you?re in no position to change the outcome. You need to position yourselves better to win in the future.

You need to lose the battle today to win the war tomorrow. Let them raise taxes. Let them hang themselves. The destruction of California is the only means by which the Democratic majority there will be thrown out. It is the only play you have. Use it, or continue to be a permanent minority.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

And why is that? Could it be because it's almost impossible to determine how to pay for all the things that CA voters want to spend money on with a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget that Prop 13 created?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Can I ask, and I am honestly ignorant and would love a real answer, what are some of the most fiscally prudent states? What do they do differently? Is there any reason California (and Washington, where I currently am, which is nearly as bad a state) couldn't emulate their tax/spend methods?

Liberals ruin states.

See NY, IL, CA, ... the list goes on.

Do you REALLY want to go there?
Or have you REALLY forgotten the hundreds of threads that show how the 'liberal' policies have created FAR more wealth in the states you mentioned than in the 'conservative's states? Not to mention higher education, greater productivity, better health, etc, etc? Or how conservative states have failed? So much so that the "liberal" states you mention have to pour billions of dollars every year into the 'conservative' states to keep them afloat? Or that if those liberal states would only receive back from the Federal government what they pay those states would have HUGE surpluses?

Really, you don't want to go there.

Techs, CA and NY will always generate more wealth than midwestern states due to their resources, no matter who is in power there. Production of wealth is very different from wise fiscal management though.

NY "resources"????????

Yeah, being the financial capital of the world really counts for nothing. Sheesh...

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
My message to Republicans in CA:

Let the Democrats raise taxes. They will only drive the exodus faster and their entire campaign against you will be obliterated the moment they both get what they want and wholly own this failed state.

You might argue that?d leave your state defenseless to the ruin socialism brings, but you?ve already lost the fight. You?re doing nothing but delaying the inevitable. You need to position yourself better, you need to move the arguments forward. Don?t get stuck in the mud over whether Democrats control the state or not.

You need to stop propping them up, take a step back, and let them fail. This is the ONLY means by which you can move forward. The only means by which the people will have enough of third world status. You might be afraid of what is coming, but you?re in no position to change the outcome. You need to position yourselves better to win in the future.

You need to lose the battle today to win the war tomorrow. Let them raise taxes. Let them hang themselves. The destruction of California is the only means by which the Democratic majority there will be thrown out. It is the only play you have. Use it, or continue to be a permanent minority.

The problem is, not everyone wants to exodus. My friends who own a 100 acre vineyard and sell grapes; that's their living. It can't be easily picked up and moved. I'm attempted to move back to California from Washington; I could move elsewhere but I love the place I grew up and can't see myself spending my life anywhere else.

Apparently nobody has an answer for the question I asked earlier. Should I presume there are NO fiscally functional states that California could use as successful a model for their taxing and spending? I'd love to see the delta between CA programs and that state's programs.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

LOL @ $40 billion high speed rail. How much of our budget is thrown at repaying bonds? No new taxes my ass.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

And why is that? Could it be because it's almost impossible to determine how to pay for all the things that CA voters want to spend money on with a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget that Prop 13 created?

If the voters want to spend money on a project; they need to also authorize the funding for the project.

Presently; the voters do not have to identify where the funds are.

Therefore, they can authorize expenses without having to worry about paying for them.

This has gotten them to this point.
They lived with Prop 13 previously - now they want their cake and eat it to. Can not happen.

They either have to cut the spending or authorize new taxes.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

And why is that? Could it be because it's almost impossible to determine how to pay for all the things that CA voters want to spend money on with a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget that Prop 13 created?

If the voters want to spend money on a project; they need to also authorize the funding for the project.

Presently; the voters do not have to identify where the funds are.

Therefore, they can authorize expenses without having to worry about paying for them.

This has gotten them to this point.
They lived with Prop 13 previously - now they want their cake and eat it to. Can not happen.

They either have to cut the spending or authorize new taxes.

That is exactly right, we should cut spending or authorize now taxes, but prop 13 did not require that voters approve ways to pay for expenses. So it essentially capped revenue without capping expenses, hence the current budget crisis. Voters in CA simply are passing propositions authorizing huge spending, and then telling the politicians, you figure out how to pay for it, but you can't raise our taxes without a 2/3 majority, so good luck. Of course that's not something that is going to be sustainable in the long term.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

And why is that? Could it be because it's almost impossible to determine how to pay for all the things that CA voters want to spend money on with a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget that Prop 13 created?

If the voters want to spend money on a project; they need to also authorize the funding for the project.

Presently; the voters do not have to identify where the funds are.

Therefore, they can authorize expenses without having to worry about paying for them.

This has gotten them to this point.
They lived with Prop 13 previously - now they want their cake and eat it to. Can not happen.

They either have to cut the spending or authorize new taxes.

That is exactly right, we should cut spending or authorize now taxes, but prop 13 did not require that voters approve ways to pay for expenses. So it essentially capped revenue without capping expenses, hence the current budget crisis. Voters in CA simply are passing propositions authorizing huge spending, and then telling the politicians, you figure out how to pay for it, but you can't raise our taxes without a 2/3 majority, so good luck. Of course that's not something that is going to be sustainable in the long term.

SO CUT THE SPENDING. Or stop making it so easy for ballot measures to go through. Most of our ballot measures are bonds no? They're not line items in the budget. Prop 98 certainly was a line item though. I'm saying that Prop 13 for many people is a lifesaver. It certainly is for my family. To blame it would be irresponsible when CA residents already are in the top 10 for property taxes.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

Well, OK, so what's the answer? How come "starve the beast" failed as miserably to contain spending in CA as it failed in Washington with Reaganomics.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

Well, OK, so what's the answer? How come "starve the beast" failed as miserably to contain spending in CA as it failed in Washington with Reaganomics.

So the answer is to increase taxes and let "the beast" grow as much as it desires?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

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?

Possibly because CA voters want to spend money on things without determining how to pay for them.

And why is that? Could it be because it's almost impossible to determine how to pay for all the things that CA voters want to spend money on with a 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget that Prop 13 created?

If the voters want to spend money on a project; they need to also authorize the funding for the project.

Presently; the voters do not have to identify where the funds are.

Therefore, they can authorize expenses without having to worry about paying for them.

This has gotten them to this point.
They lived with Prop 13 previously - now they want their cake and eat it to. Can not happen.

They either have to cut the spending or authorize new taxes.

That is exactly right, we should cut spending or authorize now taxes, but prop 13 did not require that voters approve ways to pay for expenses. So it essentially capped revenue without capping expenses, hence the current budget crisis. Voters in CA simply are passing propositions authorizing huge spending, and then telling the politicians, you figure out how to pay for it, but you can't raise our taxes without a 2/3 majority, so good luck. Of course that's not something that is going to be sustainable in the long term.

SO CUT THE SPENDING. Or stop making it so easy for ballot measures to go through. Most of our ballot measures are bonds no? They're not line items in the budget. Prop 98 certainly was a line item though. I'm saying that Prop 13 for many people is a lifesaver. It certainly is for my family. To blame it would be irresponsible when CA residents already are in the top 10 for property taxes.

It takes 2/3rds majority to pass a budget in CA, thanks to prop 13, so you have to get 2/3rds to agree to cut spending too. Good luck with that. Plus bonds are paid for, in case you haven't guessed it, taxes.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

Well, OK, so what's the answer? How come "starve the beast" failed as miserably to contain spending in CA as it failed in Washington with Reaganomics.

So the answer is to increase taxes and let "the beast" grow as much as it desires?

That assumes the voters will not vote out politicians who increase taxes.
The beast grows because voters feel free to grow it without the negative feedback of higher taxes to discourage them from passing more spending measures.
The fear of high taxes is the only effective way to control spending. Remove that fear by capping taxes, and voters don't care how much you spend, and if voters don't care, neither do the politicians.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

It takes 2/3rds majority to pass a budget in CA, thanks to prop 13, so you have to get 2/3rds to agree to cut spending too. Good luck with that. Plus bonds are paid for, in case you haven't guessed it, taxes.

Like I said, do what it takes to cut spending. I think it's pretty obvious already that we've cut spending in the past years. Look at the hard hits education has taken. Our chancellor sent out some 10 page memo detailing what UC Berkeley has to cut for the next year.

What I'm saying regarding bonds is that yes it IS paid by taxes but the voters are too STUPID to realize this. Thus, we keep voting crap in thinking it won't raise taxes. The stupid people who pushed through a $10 billion HSR bill that will cost us $20 billion to repay told us that we don't need new taxes. It's a $650 million a year deal geniuses. So maybe we need to make it harder and not throw everything out to the voters like these new spending measures. TOO MANY THINGS out there sound great in principle, but when you deal with the reality of fiscal matters, it's a whole different story.

What I disagree with you is that you think that raising taxes is the solution. It's almost like saying yeah, let the fatass eat more until he gets a heart attack. Then he'll cut back. There's a chance he dies, a chance he lives. Well why don't we just cut the feasting back now so our state doesn't have to suffer anymore.

 

[EagleKeeper]

To balance a budget there is going to be pain.

Apparently the politicians are not willing to generate realistic pain, but rather use smoke and mirrors.

They nibble around the edges to scare the voters without make the critical decisions.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

man, both parties are at fault why cant political party sheep like you get it through your thick skull

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

Well, OK, so what's the answer? How come "starve the beast" failed as miserably to contain spending in CA as it failed in Washington with Reaganomics.

California has the highest income and sales taxes. And a raw dollar amount they sit close to the top in property taxes. Where is this starving of the beast coming from?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, if Prop 13 is so effective why is the spending so high in CA?

fixed.

THAT is the question of the hour.

Well, OK, so what's the answer? How come "starve the beast" failed as miserably to contain spending in CA as it failed in Washington with Reaganomics.

California has the highest income and sales taxes. And a raw dollar amount they sit close to the top in property taxes. Where is this starving of the beast coming from?

Starve the beast is the intent of prop 13, of course results are just the opposite.
Putting artificial caps on taxes does not work to contain spending, it works to encourage it.
Taxes should be 100% tied to spending, not some artificial limit by a proposition.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Starve the beast is the intent of prop 13, of course results are just the opposite.
Putting artificial caps on taxes does not work to contain spending, it works to encourage it.
Taxes should be 100% tied to spending, not some artificial limit by a proposition.

That makes NO sense at all. Not one bit!

Controlling taxes results in more spending??

But allowing more taxes will result in less spending???

WTF are you thinking?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Starve the beast is the intent of prop 13, of course results are just the opposite.
Putting artificial caps on taxes does not work to contain spending, it works to encourage it.
Taxes should be 100% tied to spending, not some artificial limit by a proposition.

I dont see how constraining taxation encourages spending. In what way? If you get fired or have a pay cut do you immediately spend more?

I say spending should be tied to taxation. That means you need to cut billions from the budget to match your tax intake. It is difference that appears small but is very significant.

I still dont buy starving the beast one bit. California's tax situation is bigger than any other state in the Union. They spend too much is the problem.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
It certainly is for my family. To blame it would be irresponsible when CA residents already are in the top 10 for property taxes.

It's in the bottom 5, as mentioned earlier.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: DLeRium
It certainly is for my family. To blame it would be irresponsible when CA residents already are in the top 10 for property taxes.

It's in the bottom 5, as mentioned earlier.

I think he is talking raw dollar amount. As a % of the value it is bottom 5. But property valuation is so high the raw dollar amount collected puts Cali in the top 10.

 

[IGBT]

there's talk of another prop.13 like ballot initiative. tax payers are fed up with the endless fiscal reckllessness and greatly inflated property taxes.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Starve the beast is the intent of prop 13, of course results are just the opposite.
Putting artificial caps on taxes does not work to contain spending, it works to encourage it.
Taxes should be 100% tied to spending, not some artificial limit by a proposition.

I dont see how constraining taxation encourages spending. In what way?

Aside from fear of higher taxes, what incentive is there for people to demand that politicians cut spending?

If you get fired or have a pay cut do you immediately spend more?

This has what to do with what?

I say spending should be tied to taxation. That means you need to cut billions from the budget to match your tax intake. It is difference that appears small but is very significant.

Well, we tried that since prop 13, and we are where we are. Simply saying spending is tied to taxation is not enough. You have to create incentives for people to demand lower spending, and the only one that works is fear of higher taxes.

I still dont buy starving the beast one bit. California's tax situation is bigger than any other state in the Union. They spend too much is the problem.

We spend too much because the people are free to pass any spending measure they want without having to think about paying for them. If they knew that a few months after they vote for a spending measure, politicians will pass a tax to make them pay for it, they'd think twice about passing more spending. If you offer people ability to vote for spending, but cap what they can be charged for it, they'll just keep spending more.