But hey, consider this: we (California tax payers) are subsidizing your low property taxes. That's got to feel good.

There might be some validity to your argument if those of us who pay property taxes were exempt from all the other state taxes. Of course we’re not, so your idea that somehow people who don’t pay property taxes are subsidizing those who do is bizarre. I would be willing to bet that the average home owner in California pays more of all taxes across the board than the average renter.

You should direct your outrage at Government waste and corruption, and the incredible nerve of politicians to try shakedown tactics on the voters, not at your fellow citizens.

doofus wrote:Agreed, it is not as simple as repeal or not. But we can remove some components that have put us where we are today; assess commercial property at market rates and remove the two-thirds component.

Guyzo
"your another coward who won't use real name. "
I guess I hit a nerve there...bitter much? By the way, your reply is non-responsive. State waste and people's greed are not sufficient defense against repealing these unfair laws. Indeed, they have no connection whatever. Prop 13 and it's components, clearly, do not prevent waste and greed. To draw a cause and effect relationship between the two is foolish and divisive.

Doofus..... the state will not stop wasting $$$$ intill we turn off the tap.

Prop 13 is not perfect but it's all we (people who pay the bills) have to defend ourselves from more robbery.

And yes I don't really like people who have something to hide about who they really are. ....

makes me wonder about what their motivation really is.

Don't put all the blame for the California fiscal crisis on the legislators; they do put some whacky programs in place (libs), or give some questionable 'tax credits' to special interests (conservatives), but look at all the "feel good" ballot initiatives that have been passed over the years by the voters since 1978 (when Prop 13 was on the ballot). These have ranged over every special interest from environmental to agriculture to "really, really tough" on non-violent crime to programs for kids, the poor, the elderly, etc. All those programs had to be paid for, and the intiatives usually did that by either mandating an apportionment of the general fund budget to fund the new program (either a percent or fixed amount with inflationary adjustments), or through the sale of bonds. Its all resulted in a state budget that's already apportioned by the time the budget process occurs each year to pay for those programs, and leaves no 'wiggle room' to manuplate the funds to account for economic downturns. The result is cutting small, non-essential stuff like state park funding. I'm a local government employee right now, and I'd be open to looking at retirement funding changes, too - increase the minimum retirement age to 62, 65 or ? with a maximum payout percentage cap.

Prop 13 was a meat-axe approach and was initiated due to lack of legislative backbone to resolve the manic year-to-year variations in property tax levels. Maybe it should be looked at (maybe modify the increase to match the cost of living or something other economic index rather than the 2% limit?), but all us California residents should take a hard look at any future ballot initiative that involves spending money and stop voting ourselves into a deeper fiscal hole.

doofus wrote:

ksolem wrote:

But hey, consider this: we (California tax payers) are subsidizing your low property taxes. That's got to feel good.

There might be some validity to your argument if those of us who pay property taxes were exempt from all the other state taxes. Of course we’re not, so your idea that somehow people who don’t pay property taxes are subsidizing those who do is bizarre. I would be willing to bet that the average home owner in California pays more of all taxes across the board than the average renter.

You should direct your outrage at Government waste and corruption, and the incredible nerve of politicians to try shakedown tactics on the voters, not at your fellow citizens.

I do have outrage regarding waste and corruption and I express it with my vote, most importantly, and with letters, phone calls and public protest. My suggestion that we (all California taxpayers) are subsidizing low property taxes is simple. If you bought your home before 1976, you are given preferential treatment in the form of a tax shelter. For those of us that are younger homeowners, we have no such protection. Groups with high payments and below average tax savings necessarily subsidize the groups with low payments and above average savings.
My parents and many older friends benefit from prop 13, I simply don't agree it is worth gutting schools, closing state parks and slashing social services.

Doof.....

Your property taxes are based on what you paid for your home. One can get this amount lowered if you go in and prove to your local county tax assessor that your property has declined in value.

I can't figgure the fairness of assigning a value to my home or farm based on what some idiot who will over pay for one nearby.

I don't think it's right to gut schools, close state parks, and slash social services ether. But saying PROP 13 is the cause is laughable.

doofus wrote:

Guyzo wrote: But saying PROP 13 is the cause is laughable.

Never said it and to pretend it has nothing to do with our budget crisis is delusional.

Californians are already overtaxed. To believe that raising taxes is the solution to the budget crisis is delusional. A repeal of prop 13 will kill countless small businesses and drive a huge number of people out of their homes. What is left of our economy will slow even more and the State will end up broker than it is now.

Sounds like a plan to me.

You even agree that our government is riddled with waste and fraud, yet still you would raise taxes and continue to feed the beast.

doofus wrote:

Guyzo wrote: But saying PROP 13 is the cause is laughable.

Never said it and to pretend it has nothing to do with our budget crisis is delusional.

Tom Kennedy said that. At least he will put his "real name" out there.

I respect that.

Geez squishy, where do you come off, posting such a divisive topic? Just kidding!

Now back to the parks...

phydeux wrote:Don't put all the blame for the California fiscal crisis on the legislators; they do put some whacky programs in place (libs), or give some questionable 'tax credits' to special interests (conservatives), but look at all the "feel good" ballot initiatives that have been passed over the years by the voters since 1978 (when Prop 13 was on the ballot). These have ranged over every special interest from environmental to agriculture to "really, really tough" on non-violent crime to programs for kids, the poor, the elderly, etc. All those programs had to be paid for, and the intiatives usually did that by either mandating an apportionment of the general fund budget to fund the new program (either a percent or fixed amount with inflationary adjustments), or through the sale of bonds. Its all resulted in a state budget that's already apportioned by the time the budget process occurs each year to pay for those programs, and leaves no 'wiggle room' to manuplate the funds to account for economic downturns. The result is cutting small, non-essential stuff like state park funding. I'm a local government employee right now, and I'd be open to looking at retirement funding changes, too - increase the minimum retirement age to 62, 65 or ? with a maximum payout percentage cap.

Prop 13 was a meat-axe approach and was initiated due to lack of legislative backbone to resolve the manic year-to-year variations in property tax levels. Maybe it should be looked at (maybe modify the increase to match the cost of living or something other economic index rather than the 2% limit?), but all us California residents should take a hard look at any future ballot initiative that involves spending money and stop voting ourselves into a deeper fiscal hole.

I do blame the Legislators and the Governor and the Court System .... they run the show, it's their job.



Just because we needed a meat ax to defend ourselves from rape doesn't make prop 13 wrong.

and so how does the vehicle license fee sound to you guys?- 10 dollars a year increase in vehicle registration equals free day use (and consistently funded st. parks). or so i hear.
is this just more of the same from sac: make more spend more.
a misguided view toward resource mgmt. (that more money is a solution)
or a decent idea.
(or maybe we could keep things as is.)

I don't think the extra $10 license fee will make any significant difference. Most of the State Parks I've been to over the last few years seemed to have quite a few volunteers, with very few full-time staff members. What could happen is local communities might be asked to take over some of the parks , either permenantly or on a management basis. I think the state beaches in Southern California might be done this way, although they might become more commecialized (advertising, sponsered concessions and/or equipment) as a way to attract more $$$$ without raising fees for visitors.

I thought the Federal Government promised to take ownership of any state park if California closed it.

Guyzo wrote:I thought the Federal Government promised to take ownership of any state park if California closed it.

This is partially correct. Ownership of certain State Parks that were transfered to the State by the Feds utilizing land transfers include stipulations that the Parks be kept open for public use OR in the case they are closed to the public, the ownership would revert to the Feds.

I am sure that where that stipulation pertained the State re-evaluated their plans but I do not know how extensive the list of parks are that fall under that type of land transfer.

Thank you for clarification.

gk