How Proposition 13 destroyed California.

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Ok, try paying 1.25% on a home worth 1.7 million. $21k off your household income.

If you have trouble paying $21k in property taxes while living in a $1.7 million house, something is wrong.

Median home price

1.25% of 1.1 million is over 13k. Median income is $100k. Tough by anyone's standards. Look at how real estate shot up so fast. My point is that Prop 13 is in effect EXACTLY for this purpose. If someone bought a house in 1998 for 600k, 1.25% might not be a killer, but if his property taxes climbed to 13k in 2007, then yes would suck a lot. So to say that we need to repeal prop 13 is irresponsible especially when we know the dollar amount per homeowner is puts CA's taxation in the top 10

So its exactly like someone who makes 30K buying a 330K house and struggling to pay $4K in property taxes.

And your point? The person making 30k should be making plenty more money because that's below average. It's without a doubt someone considered poor is struggling to pay those property taxes.

The cost of living is high in CA and you know it. Given that we are taxed enough relative to other states that have better financial situations, we do NOT need to raise taxes any further, especially property taxes. Prop 13 did NOT screw us over. Maybe without it we would be doing better, but either way this does NOT mean we should overlook our spending problems.

My point is that the person who bought 11X their income overbought.

Uhm, my point was that the housing prices have SKYROCKETED in the past decade in CA that it's now a ridiculous price. Yes, my mom could afford to raise me in this neighborhood, but there's absolutely NO WAY I will be able to afford bringing up my kids in the same neighborhood because there's NO WAY I can afford a house in this area. The prices have skyrocketed such that if you bought a house back in the day, you would get RAPED by property taxes if it weren't for Prop 13.

Yes someone buying a 1.1 million house now with 100k income can be overbuying, but this is also because of CA's ridiculous housing market. You and I both know that. There's no choice but to overbuy whether you are in LA or the Bay. When you want to compare income vs home price in any other area, it's certainly a problem. I could fly over to where my uncle lives, take a 15% pay cut, but my ratio of income to home price would greatly improve. Once again this is just how CA is.

The fact of the matter is if you don't overbuy today in CA, then you either live in the slums OR you have to be filthy rich. We are lucky because responsible homeowners who don't default on our mortgages are protected by prop 13 so we can continue to sustain our lifestyle DESPITE real estate booming like it has. Look at Las Vegas. There were times were real estate DOUBLED in 2 years. I'd say if they had a prop 13 similar thing, a lot of people would've benefitted. Prop 13 is designed to counter with CA's overly hyped real estate market. You can criticize how housing prices are in CA all you want, but I'd say it's quite a tragedy to get screwed over by real estate increasing.

Yes, so the house you said we overbought? We bought when it was 300k. I was in 2nd grade. 300k for a 3BR. You know what stuff was selling down the street for 2 years ago? 900k for a 2BR piece of junk. You're essentially buying the land because that's what people do in our neighborhood. They buy the old houses, tear them down and build a new 5BR house. So even if we didn't tear down our house to build a newer one, we'd get screwed for property taxes without prop 13 just because property values have shot up like no other.

Housing prices vs income

BTW: On the point of overbuying, this is actually a huge thing in the Bay Area. Home prices have gone up so much int he last 10 years, people jump around neighborhoods. You can start with a 400k house, and after that doubles you take your 400k profit and you throw that in a down payment so you can afford to move into a better area with better schools for your kids.

 

[theeedude]

Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Ok, try paying 1.25% on a home worth 1.7 million. $21k off your household income.

If you have trouble paying $21k in property taxes while living in a $1.7 million house, something is wrong.

Median home price

1.25% of 1.1 million is over 13k. Median income is $100k. Tough by anyone's standards. Look at how real estate shot up so fast. My point is that Prop 13 is in effect EXACTLY for this purpose. If someone bought a house in 1998 for 600k, 1.25% might not be a killer, but if his property taxes climbed to 13k in 2007, then yes would suck a lot. So to say that we need to repeal prop 13 is irresponsible especially when we know the dollar amount per homeowner is puts CA's taxation in the top 10

So its exactly like someone who makes 30K buying a 330K house and struggling to pay $4K in property taxes.

And your point? The person making 30k should be making plenty more money because that's below average. It's without a doubt someone considered poor is struggling to pay those property taxes.

The cost of living is high in CA and you know it. Given that we are taxed enough relative to other states that have better financial situations, we do NOT need to raise taxes any further, especially property taxes. Prop 13 did NOT screw us over. Maybe without it we would be doing better, but either way this does NOT mean we should overlook our spending problems.

My point is that the person who bought 11X their income overbought.

Uhm, my point was that the housing prices have SKYROCKETED in the past decade in CA that it's now a ridiculous price. Yes, my mom could afford to raise me in this neighborhood, but there's absolutely NO WAY I will be able to afford bringing up my kids in the same neighborhood because there's NO WAY I can afford a house in this area. The prices have skyrocketed such that if you bought a house back in the day, you would get RAPED by property taxes if it weren't for Prop 13.

Yes someone buying a 1.1 million house now with 100k income can be overbuying, but this is also because of CA's ridiculous housing market. You and I both know that. There's no choice but to overbuy whether you are in LA or the Bay. When you want to compare income vs home price in any other area, it's certainly a problem. I could fly over to where my uncle lives, take a 15% pay cut, but my ratio of income to home price would greatly improve. Once again this is just how CA is.

The fact of the matter is if you don't overbuy today in CA, then you either live in the slums OR you have to be filthy rich. We are lucky because responsible homeowners who don't default on our mortgages are protected by prop 13 so we can continue to sustain our lifestyle DESPITE real estate booming like it has. Look at Las Vegas. There were times were real estate DOUBLED in 2 years. I'd say if they had a prop 13 similar thing, a lot of people would've benefitted. Prop 13 is designed to counter with CA's overly hyped real estate market. You can criticize how housing prices are in CA all you want, but I'd say it's quite a tragedy to get screwed over by real estate increasing.

Yes, so the house you said we overbought? We bought when it was 300k. I was in 2nd grade. 300k for a 3BR. You know what stuff was selling down the street for 2 years ago? 900k for a 2BR piece of junk. You're essentially buying the land because that's what people do in our neighborhood. They buy the old houses, tear them down and build a new 5BR house. So even if we didn't tear down our house to build a newer one, we'd get screwed for property taxes without prop 13 just because property values have shot up like no other.

Housing prices vs income

BTW: On the point of overbuying, this is actually a huge thing in the Bay Area. Home prices have gone up so much int he last 10 years, people jump around neighborhoods. You can start with a 400k house, and after that doubles you take your 400k profit and you throw that in a down payment so you can afford to move into a better area with better schools for your kids.

I see your point. However, I suggest that property values have skyrocketed BECAUSE of prop. 13. Since people can figure a low property tax into what they can afford, they can buy a more expensive house. And that has driven up housing values.

I wonder how many very rich people have muli million dollar second and third homes in Cali since they don't have to pay Cali income tax, and their house tax is low and other residents of Cali are paying things like a higher income tax to keep up the roads etc, that the rich person gets to use when he's in Cali.
Seems like prop.13 is a rich persons dream.

 

[theeedude]

Don't forget that increase in assessed value is capped at 2% per year, so if inflation is over 2%, existing home owners get a lower real property tax every year, even excluding any housing bubbles. Even if house prices tracked CPI, these home owners would be getting an effective inflation adjusted tax cut every year inflation is over 2%, which is most of the time.
Something that cost $1 in 1979 is worth $3 now, but if you only allow for 2% increase every year, the property tax would grow from $1 to $1.80 over that time, so in inflation adjusted terms, someone owning a house for 30 years got a 40% property tax cut over that time. That also means that government has to pay $3 for what cost $1 in 1979, but can only collect $1.80 in taxes, so it has to shift burden elsewhere, in real terms.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: techs
I see your point. However, I suggest that property values have skyrocketed BECAUSE of prop. 13. Since people can figure a low property tax into what they can afford, they can buy a more expensive house. And that has driven up housing values.

I wonder how many very rich people have muli million dollar second and third homes in Cali since they don't have to pay Cali income tax, and their house tax is low and other residents of Cali are paying things like a higher income tax to keep up the roads etc, that the rich person gets to use when he's in Cali.
Seems like prop.13 is a rich persons dream.

Ok, you make a point in that property values skyrockted because of Prop 13. This is something I would like to look into more and maybe some other people here know how to address that. I've heard this argument before, but I'm not so sure about it.

While property prices have gone up, and this might mean it costs more to get land for schools, police stations, etc and all other public services we pay for, how much has the property prices increased our overall cost of the government?

What I believe I have shown is that while Prop 13 limits the revenue the government takes in, that dollar amount per homeowner, CA still ranks top 10. Thus I believe the CA government makes enough per homeowner, and that at least property taxes don't need an increase. Now what Prop 13 does to housing prices (if what you say is true), can be a total different story, and so thus I ask if home prices have shot up so much, does it cost the government that much more to provide basic services? Or is it the spending on programs that we don't need and can cut that is screwing our budget over?

I tend to believe it's the latter.

Originally posted by: senseamp
Don't forget that increase in assessed value is capped at 2% per year, so if inflation is over 2%, existing home owners get a lower real property tax every year, even excluding any housing bubbles. Even if house prices tracked CPI, these home owners would be getting an effective inflation adjusted tax cut every year inflation is over 2%, which is most of the time.
Something that cost $1 in 1979 is worth $3 now, but if you only allow for 2% increase every year, the property tax would grow from $1 to $1.80 over that time, so in inflation adjusted terms, someone owning a house for 30 years got a 40% property tax cut over that time. That also means that government has to pay $3 for what cost $1 in 1979, but can only collect $1.80 in taxes, so it has to shift burden elsewhere, in real terms.

Yes but if DOLLAR per homeowner still puts CA in the top 10, then this means CA makes enough from us from property taxes. If you're saying that this created such shift in our revenue breakdown that it screwed our state over, then I would say that if we depended so heavily on property taxes in the past, yet now that we "supposedly don't make enough from property taxes" and are still in the top 10, then perhaps our revenue model as a state is just broken. HOWEVER, since someone already pointed out sales tax and income tax and where CA ranks, I believe that revenue-wise CA takes plenty. MAYBE there's something I'm missing, but feel free to show me, but it seems to me that for the most part, revenue-wise we're doing fine--at least we're collecting enough from those who pay taxes. So what about the illegals?

 

[theeedude]

Well, it makes "enough" from property taxes by milking the people who have to buy a house now, while at the same time it cuts property taxes in inflation adjusted terms every year to people who bought houses earlier.
You completely don't see a problem with capping property tax increases below the rate of inflation?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, it makes "enough" from property taxes by milking the people who have to buy a house now, while at the same time it cuts property taxes in inflation adjusted terms every year to people who bought houses earlier.
You completely don't see a problem with capping property tax increases below the rate of inflation?

It sounds like a problem. But if we look at the current figures, we make enough. I'm not saying it won't be a problem. You've demonstrated how it could be a problem. Clearly at its current state CA still collects enough property taxes. This is like saying yeah we collect enough SS taxes right now, but one day the system will go broke. We take in more than we pay out right now so even if you scream that we spend too much on SS, we collect more than we pay out so right now the government is making money on a program that's supposed to pay out. Thus, at the very moment, SS is not screwing us over yet. Question: Is the SS system broken right now because we don't collect enough at the moment or because it looks like a bottomless hole we're falling into that will one day mess us up? The latter. Same with property taxes. A quick look shows we make enough from it. However, you pointed out a flaw. Indexing below the rate of inflation. So if we keep going as you have shown this state will one day get screwed.

But to blame the current budget mess on Prop 13 not collecting enough is WRONG because it has already been shown that there is enough money flowing in from property taxes. MAYBE NOT 20 years later but for now its sufficient and more than enough. So Prop 13 is in itself a problem that we need to fix, but for now it's holding its own just like social security.

Thus once again I ask why not cut SPENDING. You can talk about increasing taxes or whatever but as it currently stands, it's NOT the tax rate that has screwed us over. The only thing that might have screwed us because it was too low was the DMV registration fees. There's a reason those went back up. We've already gone through a giant tax increase so to say that this is still insufficient means we need to look elsewhere.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You are not paying tax at the same rate on the actual value of the home.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You are not paying tax at the same rate on the actual value of the home.

For once, I agree with you. Both owners should pay taxes on the assessed value of the homes. However, there needs to be a mechanism put in place to prevent the assesed value of the homes from inflating beyond a reasonable amount -- or, failing that, there needs to be a mechanism in place to prevent property taxes from exceeding a reasonable amount. Otherwise, bubbles will invariably destroy lives when the assessed values go through the roof.

Hence, prop 13... or something, anything, that can prevent these bubbles from destroying lives and markets.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You are not paying tax at the same rate on the actual value of the home.

For once, I agree with you. Both owners should pay taxes on the assessed value of the homes. However, there needs to be a mechanism put in place to prevent the assesed value of the homes from inflating beyond a reasonable amount -- or, failing that, there needs to be a mechanism in place to prevent property taxes from exceeding a reasonable amount. Otherwise, bubbles will invariably destroy lives when the assessed values go through the roof.

Hence, prop 13... or something, anything, that can prevent these bubbles from destroying lives and markets.

Seems to me then that prop 13 failed in preventing the bubble in Cali

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: techs
Seems to me then that prop 13 failed in preventing the bubble in Cali

I don't think he was talking about prop 13 preventing bubbles, it's to prevent getting butt raped by bubbles. lol

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: techs
Seems to me then that prop 13 failed in preventing the bubble in Cali

I don't think he was talking about prop 13 preventing bubbles, it's to prevent getting butt raped by bubbles. lol

In so many words, yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Thank you.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: techs
Seems to me then that prop 13 failed in preventing the bubble in Cali

I don't think he was talking about prop 13 preventing bubbles, it's to prevent getting butt raped by bubbles. lol

Exactly. Before Prop 13, people were losing their houses because they couldn't afford the rampant tax increases...especially older, retired folks.

Now, the maximum tax increase is 2% annually. Our taxes have increased slightly over the past 10 years, but more from school bonds than from property taxes.

Since the bubble has popped here, people are having their homes reappraised in droves. My neighbor who has the same floor plan as I do, (subdivision) paid $300K for his house in 2003. He just had it reappraised for $175K and his taxes dropped by a large amount.
Of course, the counties don't like having to do this...it cuts into their revenue...and many counties are in the same financial straits as the state.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Agreed. The problem is in CA the housing market in the past decade has been insane. I already showed prices vs income and it shot out of control. You can't punish people who bought earlier by taxing them at insane rates. 10 years ago their income level allowed them to purchase such a home. It was also reasonable to pay those property taxes now. Given that property rates have skyrocketed to where they are now (EVEN AFTER THIS 30% DROP) and incomes have not risen as much, it would screw a lot of people over.

People who now invest in $2 million houses KNOW what they're getting into. They KNOW what kind of huge mortgages they need and what kind of insane property taxes they need to pay. The people who bought a similar house worth $300k 15 years ago knew what they were getting themselves into also. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to buy a $300k house and have accept the fact that this may turn into a $2 million house and have to pay property taxes on a $2 million estate. This is exactly why we have Prop 13 in place. So maybe it needs to be changed it matches inflation at least or whatever. We just need to look into a solution. But as it stands, Prop 13 protects people from getting raped by CA's housing market bubble.

And even if it's a terrible solution in the long run, it's still allowed the state of CA to collect plenty of property taxes. You may argue the burden of taxes is on new homeowners or the ones who bought later, but someone earlier argued along the lines of "well too bad you overbought" which seems to suggest that it's fair you get raped for buying into an expensive market. Well whatever the case, we pay enough on average per homeowner that CA should look elsewhere for a source of its budget problems.

 

[Jakeisbest]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp
Well, a family who needs to buy a house now gets double screwed because they are paying an inflated price, and then they are forced to subsidize their neighbors by paying property taxes that are many times greater too. There has to be a more equitable way than just shifting the property tax burden to them.

Look at it this way, if I buy my house for $150K, then several years later, my neighbor buys his house for $300K, and we are both taxed on the value of the house when we bought it, how am I subsidizing him? We are both paying the same percentage, just on different rates.

If I buy a car this year for $20,000 and in two years, my neigbor buys the same car for $30,000, even though we pay the same sales tax rate, he is going to pay more sales taxes than I did.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Agreed. The problem is in CA the housing market in the past decade has been insane. I already showed prices vs income and it shot out of control. You can't punish people who bought earlier by taxing them at insane rates. 10 years ago their income level allowed them to purchase such a home. It was also reasonable to pay those property taxes now. Given that property rates have skyrocketed to where they are now (EVEN AFTER THIS 30% DROP) and incomes have not risen as much, it would screw a lot of people over.

People who now invest in $2 million houses KNOW what they're getting into. They KNOW what kind of huge mortgages they need and what kind of insane property taxes they need to pay. The people who bought a similar house worth $300k 15 years ago knew what they were getting themselves into also. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to buy a $300k house and have accept the fact that this may turn into a $2 million house and have to pay property taxes on a $2 million estate. This is exactly why we have Prop 13 in place. So maybe it needs to be changed it matches inflation at least or whatever. We just need to look into a solution. But as it stands, Prop 13 protects people from getting raped by CA's housing market bubble.

And even if it's a terrible solution in the long run, it's still allowed the state of CA to collect plenty of property taxes. You may argue the burden of taxes is on new homeowners or the ones who bought later, but someone earlier argued along the lines of "well too bad you overbought" which seems to suggest that it's fair you get raped for buying into an expensive market. Well whatever the case, we pay enough on average per homeowner that CA should look elsewhere for a source of its budget problems.

Prop 13 acted as part of the bubble. Some of the value of CA homes has to do with the fabulous infrastructure which California has in place. You get to use all these roads and got cheap water from the North. When prop 13 passed you go to use these things and you didn't have to pay for them! It was great, until the local governments got starved for revenue and couldn't pay to expand and now we are having trouble just maintaining our infrastructure.

Also prop 13 acted as a HUGE tax loophole for business. You can set up a small single member LLC which owns a plot of land and office building. Then the building never has to be sold or the property value reassessed. The member of the LLC can be bought and sold which transfers building ownership, with out ever actually selling the property! So smart!

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
Prop 13 acted as part of the bubble. Some of the value of CA homes has to do with the fabulous infrastructure which California has in place. You get to use all these roads and got cheap water from the North. When prop 13 passed you go to use these things and you didn't have to pay for them! It was great, until the local governments got starved for revenue and couldn't pay to expand and now we are having trouble just maintaining our infrastructure.

Also prop 13 acted as a HUGE tax loophole for business. You can set up a small single member LLC which owns a plot of land and office building. Then the building never has to be sold or the property value reassessed. The member of the LLC can be bought and sold which transfers building ownership, with out ever actually selling the property! So smart!

This is exactly why so many Kahleeforneeyans are in favor of modifying Prop 13 and eliminating the protections for businesses/corporations.

 

[JS80]

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.

I agree with this (and I live in CA too, so I need an excuse to move to TX). I would even go further and extend this request nationally. The faster the Dems are able to adopt costly programs that are unsustainable, the faster you reach fiscal balance by the way of bankruptcy and the inability to BORROW IN THE FUTURE.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JS80

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.

I agree with this (and I live in CA too, so I need an excuse to move to TX). I would even go further and extend this request nationally. The faster the Dems are able to adopt costly programs that are unsustainable, the faster you reach fiscal balance by the way of bankruptcy and the inability to BORROW IN THE FUTURE.

I knew you guys would come around to my argument that majority should be able to implement its agenda and then be thrown out by voters if they overstep. That's why prop 13s 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget needs to be scrapped.