CASummit wrote:

Guyzo wrote:

Steve Larson wrote:

Tom Kenney wrote:Er...how about...REPEALING PROP. 13!!!

That and a few other bone-headed propositions the voters have passed...

I guess you two don't own homes.

Do youall get a paycheck from the state??

The state of California, flushes dollars down the drain.

They need to stop this.

Just my .02

/signed

Guy Keesee......

and

Good one Kris.

This is a local example of waste: The last fires (2005) around Moorpark, burned a section of the freeway wall, about 100 yards worth so when the caltrans crew got out there to repair it, somehow our state crews found enuf $$$$$$$$$ to remove and replace 22 miles of it. They worked on this deal for like 9 mo. I could not believe it!

Repealing Prop 13 would have forced my parents ( and other retired folks ) out of their home due to ridiculously inflated housing prices.

Repealing Prop 13 - the Third Rail of politics - touch it and DIE !!

doofus wrote:

Guyzo wrote:

Steve Larson wrote:

Tom Kenney wrote:Er...how about...REPEALING PROP. 13!!!

That and a few other bone-headed propositions the voters have passed...

I guess you two don't own homes.

Do youall get a paycheck from the state??

The state of California, flushes dollars down the drain.

They need to stop this.

Just my .02

Geez dude, you sure like to jump to these conclusions about folks who see prop 13's legacy a little differently than you. Not all of it's opponents are state employed fat-cats waiting to cash in a huge pension. Sounds like you may have a pretty insular social circle where you don't rub elbows with folks from different walks. THAT is the dark side to our beautiful California culture.

once again....

Protecting home owners sounds good to say, feels good to think about and sure gets people's attention. However, Prop 13 is not that simple. To represent it as such is a disservice (pun fully intended).

-Commercial properties are given the same protection as residential.
-2/3 cluster f@ck requirement for new taxes.
-California relies upon sales and income tax to generate revenues(can you see how that screws us right now?)
-California ranks 38th in property taxes.

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

Doofus...your name says it all. .....your another coward who won't use real name.

If the ca government had it's way with us..... they would wish us to become Slaves to the government..... They would take every cent so they could pay for all the BS they wish for.

I find it unbelievable that we pay like 50-70% in taxes and still the government needs more.

And I hang around with lots of state workers, and they agree with me.

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.