I know exactly how it would work. The sooner we repeal it the better.
California as a state has decided on a certain level of taxation for the services it provides, and it shoots for this target. If you aren't paying it in property tax, you're paying it somewhere else. Furthermore, prop 13 has caused a disincentive to ever sell your property (or face higher taxation), unnaturally constraining the housing market by limiting available housing in the area (thus unnaturally increasing prices) along with jacking up taxation for new houses and developments to make up for the shortfall. This means that there are wildly different levels of taxation for properties sitting right next to one another with no appreciable difference in services or property value.
This incredible difference in tax structure combined with the state having to look to other less stable sources of revenue such as sales and capital gains taxes has led to an insanely unstable tax base for California, making effective financial planning for state and local governments nearly impossible. One year they are swimming in cash, the next year they are on the verge of bankruptcy due to the huge reliance on boom/bust taxes.
So I'm sorry to see you leave our fine state, but prop 13 was an enormously bad idea, and I'd bet you that the state has lost far more residents from the budgetary chaos that prop 13 has caused than it would from residents moving out due to property tax increases.
The high taxes are driving businesses to Nevada, Texas and Idaho? BS
Nevada's unemployment rate is even higher than California's. So much for low taxes being the solution. The main reason Texas is still doing well is oil. If Nevada were pumping oil I'm sure they would be doing fine also. Idaho? How many people even live there?
Prop 13 has allowed businesses to escape property taxation and put the burden of taxes on individuals, that is the problem. Also, the excessive pay and benefits of state workers, mainly the police and prison-industrial complex is bankrupting us.
This tax proposal would likely shift even more taxes away from business and onto individuals. I don't give it much chance of passing.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
I refuse to do business in CA because of their personal tax rate and business taxes. NV is much more friendlier to business. Only jobs I will take are those that are not paid by the State (they still owe on the IOU) and do not require CA papers.
Now I am a small business, but there are many like me
Now I am a small business, but there are many like me
I work for a fortune 100 company. A few months ago there were serious discussions about potentially adding a significant presence in CA. In the end, the conclusion at the top was that CA was simply too much of a hostile environment at this point in terms of taxation and employer/employee regulations. I can't imagine that same discussion is not taking place in boardrooms elsewhere.
CA has a LOT to offer in terms of demographics, population, purchasing power, market power, exposure, weather etc etc, but the negatives are starting to increase in weight to the point of outweighing all those positives.
Somebody said that CA is becoming the land of only movie stars and leeches/dead beats. I'd hate to see even half of that for my home state but so many of my friends I went to college with are getting the hell out.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
CA is aware of such concerns. They send trade representatives out to try and either convince for expansion or prevent retraction.
Previously, they would not chase business; business was coming in the 70-90s to them.
It was more a matter of how to spend the money and pluck the golden goose.
When CA starts to run media ads in other states to retain its employers, that indicates that they know something is wrong; but do they have the political will to repair it (and is it to late - the damage may have become irreversible for the next 20-30 years)
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
I tend to agree with this actually. I know it is popular since old people were getting tossed out. But let me ask you this: If your property tax could only go up 2% a year no matter what, would you ever NOT vote for more free government shit? Of course not, 2% a year is nothing and some one else is paying the rest, what do you care?
I'm not interested in more Friedman. If you want to take some recommendations, great, and if you don't, that's ok.
When I recommend a Fox viewer replace at least some of it with something like BBC America News, it's not an offer to watch Fox if they'll watch dome BBC America.
When I recommend someone eat a piece of fruit instead of cheetohs, it's not an offere to eat cheetohs if they do so.
You miss the point that while I would honor the offer above, it was not made for that reason, it was to make the point that his position is baseless and turn the tables on him.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Except your house wouldn't be valued the same had Prop 13 failed so you wouldn't be paying $9000 in property taxes. Home buyers are willing to pay more for a home upfront if it means their their property value goes up 2% annually while their taxes only goes up 1%. Also, homeowners can sell their home after living there for x of y years and pay no capital gains taxes up to a certain amount based on marital status. And finally, handing out loans where people pay interest-only or an introductory rate for x years. All these contribute to the over inflation of home prices. The latter two aren't unique to California, but Prop 13 certainly magnified their effects.
And democrats passing more spending than the state is willing to pay is not a big part of the problem?
Wrong. The California constitution is the problem, along with the proposition system.
I've said it about 100 times on here, but it's plain as day to understand. Any time you set up a system where it takes 50.1% of people to pass new spending, but 66.6% of people to pass the taxes to pay for it, you will have problems. Added on to that you have the retarded proposition system that allows ridiculous mandates to be placed on government spending by citizenry that doesn't understand the issues.
Yep, it would seem that the right answer is to make both requirements the same: 66% to spend, 66% to increase taxes. That will help curb government waste and keep tax increases in check.
I've never liked the idea of property taxes going up because it forces people out of homes. Someone should never be forced out of their home just because someone else predicts their house will fetch a certain price in the marketplace. Just because the value of your house went up does not mean that your income went up, or that you you've realized more wealth. When you actually sell the house and get the money, then you've realized the gain in value and it should be fair game for taxing.
First of all, 50% is the right number, not 66%, which is dysfunctional. Just as our founding fathers set 66% for changing the constitution, but 50% for spending and taxing.
Second, at the end of the day, there is an issue of spreading taxes fairly, and you can get into a situation where people who have very low income are in homes that have skyrocketed in value. While that might seem nice in a vacuum, there is an argument to be made that they are living in homes they 'can't afford', as the state suffers from lower taxes while the wealthier people who can afford both the home and the taxes have to live in low-end housing, instead of the poor person in the expensive house living in a smaller house.
Like I say, it's easy to want eveyone to have a wonderful, high end house beyond what they can afford, but when you have to start making choices, that's not always best.
I'm for a more balanced situation between the extremes. Property taxes *had* risen much too high whenProp 13 was passed and something needed to be done - just not a radical bill writtten by right-wing extremists to gut the commercial property tax base and the ability of the government to get needed taxes passed with the 2/3 requirement.
I'd rather see property taxes at a 'fair' and somewhat modest level, and income taxes more instead.
What we have now is a mess where the market is corrupted by people who would normally move not moving because of the tax hit, where the new homebuyer pays far more.
If more businesses would stay in california they might be able to find a job and pay taxes.
Doh!
So a lower tax rate often means a higher overall sum of money being collected from taxes.
So much for common sense. Of course reapealing some of those stupid laws might help. Cutting off the water to the largest agricultural area in the state did not help much either. Imagine how many immigrants that put out of work?
Also what about all the oil in the bay just sitting there that you already have an oil platform in place that can drill it out and actually make some money? The same oil that is seeping through the ocean floor.
Doh!
So a lower tax rate often means a higher overall sum of money being collected from taxes.
So much for common sense. Of course reapealing some of those stupid laws might help. Cutting off the water to the largest agricultural area in the state did not help much either. Imagine how many immigrants that put out of work?
Also what about all the oil in the bay just sitting there that you already have an oil platform in place that can drill it out and actually make some money? The same oil that is seeping through the ocean floor.
At that time, there wasn't even an income tax in existence yet, they had no way of knowing that runaway waste in government and runaway government expansion would end up gobbling up the whole economy if left unabated. It's pretty clear from what we've seen thus far that it's too easy to raise taxes. Raising taxes is kind of like having an abortion: It should not be done, but there are certain circumstances where it could be warranted. Reducing waste and cutting spending should be #1 and #2.
There's something simply fundamentally wrong with the concept that people are told they can't afford to continue to live in the home they've already bought and paid for. Taxes should be imposed on actual gains, not projected gains based on someone's guess as to how much your house will be worth. The market can establish the actual value.
Let them make the choices, they buy and pay for what they can afford, and we tax them based on what they purchased. When they sell, you can tax them on the gain, and the purchaser will pay taxes based on what he paid for it, and so on. Simple, elegant.
Right-wing radicals? :roll: Yes, I'm sure California politics is just dominated by right wing radicals. The people of CA were sick and tired of runaway property tax rates, and they put a stop to it. The politicians just need to learn to stop spending money they don't have. Taxes don't need to be raised.
Actually California is home to some of the most radical right wing areas in the country, the inland empire is full of the ultra-right.
Prop 13 needs to repealed, and other taxes lowered to compensate.
Prop 13 needs to repealed, and other taxes lowered to compensate.
And those fringe ultra-right people control CA and are numerous enough to get props like 13 passed? That doesn't make sense. Things like prop 13 pass because the general population is frustrated, and they see a way to fix it. If the tax happy government had not jacked up property taxes all the time, the general population would not have put in prop 13.
Every state in the country needs something like prop 13. The only flaw is that they curbed taxation without curbing spending. The two need to go hand in hand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter