California May Pay With IOUs for Second Time Since Depression

B-Line · #1 12-07-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

That's exactly why prop 13 is in effect. People who are living in that house are drawing retirement not on today's money but money from years ago. Get it??

There is not a single other state that I am aware of that has anything similar to prop 13. And somehow, all their retired people seem to get along without it.

California is not the only state that deals with increased home prices. Every state has it and not every state has Prop 13.

And while every Californian, young and old, gets to appreciate low real estate taxes, that doesn't mean it's good for the state. Quite the opposite.

Furthermore, what you are speaking of, price fixing, doesn't take into account the increase in expenses that the state occurs that is well over 2% a year. So what happens is, over time, the state gets progressively worse and worse and worse.. Why? so retired people can get a tax break? At the expense of the children. The children who have bad schools, bad roads, underfunded police and fire departments..

This is a case where the ends don't justify the means. These expenses need to be paid by someone. And it's the vested homeowner who is not paying their share in real estate taxes that is bankrupting the state.

x5GuyInLA · #2 12-07-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

That's exactly why prop 13 is in effect. People who are living in that house are drawing retirement not on today's money but money from years ago. Get it??

retirees in the same profession weren't making the same money we're making, so they shouldn't be forced to pay the price we drove up w/ our crazy creative financing schemes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

There is not a single other state that I am aware of that has anything similar to prop 13. And somehow, all their retired people seem to get along without it.

California is not the only state that deals with increased home prices. Every state has it and not every state has Prop 13.

And while every Californian, young and old, gets to appreciate low real estate taxes, that doesn't mean it's good for the state. Quite the opposite.

Furthermore, what you are speaking of, price fixing, doesn't take into account the increase in expenses that the state occurs that is well over 2% a year. So what happens is, over time, the state gets progressively worse and worse and worse.. Why? so retired people can get a tax break? At the expense of the children. The children who have bad schools, bad roads, underfunded police and fire departments..

This is a case where the ends don't justify the means. These expenses need to be paid by someone. And it's the vested homeowner who is not paying their share in real estate taxes that is bankrupting the state.

I don't think prop 13 is the problem. If you google "pre prop 13 corruption", you'll find some interesting website about the benefits of prop 13. For one, it gets rid of the corruption in the assessor's office and also puts more money into the hands of people for them to spend. As far as education goes, one article states that private and charter school outperform gov't funded schools on much less. IMO, problem with public schools is how the money is used. Just look at the debacle called the Belmont Learning Center. If prop 13 was that bad, other states wouldn't be trying to pass similar legislation. California needs to figure out how to better spend the money they get. If anything, I think they should tax everything, including groceries. In Hawaii, everything is taxed, although tax is only 4.7%. Worse case scenario is that we buy 10% less, which would be good for us anyway. We as a whole need to lose some weight anyway.