Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 9, 2003.
oops. too bad _this_ was hard to predict.
Sounds like California's about to go from bad to worse.
i read this article today and just had to laugh...not a happy laugh but an " i told you so...he's a freakin actor" kinda laugh.
so between this and the grope investigation he's broken two campaign promises in his first month of office.
Yup, it looks like we've been gang groped. The Gov bet it all on his ability to talk the legislature into $15 billion in long-term debt, and lost the gamble. But even if they'd approved sending this proposal along to the voters, and the voters approved, it wouldn't have covered the $4 billion shortfall in local government financing from the vehicle license fee. This is all just so impossibly stupid.
A lot of state have been nailing people with drastic increases in their vehicle and home taxes recently.
Submit the forms for a building permit to add a room or make changes to your home and get a nice $ tax surprise in the mail (ie, your homes valuation just shot up 50/100/150/X00 thousands dollars).
Since there has been alot of remodeling going on, it's big bucks.
Too bad CA doesn't do that... and like the vehicle tax any politician that pushed through allowing property valuations to change when a remodel increases a properties value will get lynched.
Do it to business, and increase the freaquency of the valuation change there -- but homes and vehicles will bring out the pitchforks.
California's tax system is a complete donnybrook. Nearly all local control over taxation was lost in 1978, with the passage of Proposition 13 (and several subsequent bad government initiatives). Property tax assessments do rise when an owner improves a property, but only by the additional value added, and all increases thereafter are limited to a maximum annual inflation rate of 2%. Tax rates are also fixed at 1.25% of assessed value. Reappraisals don't occur until property ownership is transferred, but even that provision features a great many exemptions and loopholes. Consequently a lot of California's property owners are currently paying taxes based on the value of their properties during the Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson administrations. Their services are heavily subsidized by local government. But the biggest problem with the post Prop 13 tax system is the lack of local control over taxation. This is the cornerstone of the mess we find ourselves in today.
Anyway, on the political side, this week the Gov blamed his inability to fulfill his campaign pledges on the legislature. He and his staff are now reduced to awkwardly playing with words in an effort to make it look like he never promised not to hurt local government with the rescinding of the vehicle license fee, or to cut education, which he's also proposing now.
maybe i'm misreading what you're saying but i can say with 100% accuracy that cali will increase you home taxes when you add on to your existing home...and i have the supplemental tax bills to prove it.
Time to "terminate" the legislature huh? Well Arnold can't say he wasn't warned. California is harder to govern than it looks.
What with Arnie's new talk of education cuts and his plan to make our kids pay our bills, it is looking like a second recall might just be in order. I know - it's not going to happen, but it sure would make one believe in karma.
what a short-sighted idiot he turned out to be. and how are the short-sighted idiots who voted for him feeling right about now?
The county I live in, Humboldt, has over the last 2 years, reduced its budget by 30 % and has 17 % fewer employees. If arnie fails to come through with the money, there will be an immediate shutdown of non-essential services, like libraries, parks, etc., with the other services being in grave danger of collapse.
The biggest failure of prop 13 is that it treats business and personal property the same. Many companies have extremely low tax burdens because they continue to occupy the same property and have not seen a tax increase since 13 came into effect. Talk about a massive subsidy to business.
arnie is playing with fire and with jeb's hatchet lady at his side, wants nothing more than to destroy social services in CA and to increase the governor's power to such a degree that the legislature is powerless to stop him. He won't get re elected but the damage he will cause will take years to fix. Is it the way the system is set up or is CA just intent on rushing into the pacific like lemmings.
Governor should have just looked at the budget from prior years and just rolled them back to those budgets. If a program didn't exist a few years ago, then it is temporarilly unfunded until the budget gap is fixed. Easy and equitable solution, IMO.
As to Schwarzenegger's $15 billion bond measure, it sure sounds like more of Davis' scheme of mortgaging the house to pay for today's groceries. Hate to say it but 'I told you so'. The best way to fix the budget is what Tom McClintock was saying all along.
As to fixing the local tax structure, it should be pre-1978, where local municipalities have control over their own tax rates. I still think that Prop 13 is a good idea. The story was of grandma's tax bill was going through the roof even though there was no improvements or reappraisals or transfer of the property. I think thats a good idea. It allows you to plan your life around a fixed set of taxes, instead of worrying that you will be out on the street when you are old.
Some states are reassessing the value of the property to current "market value" much quicker, when remodels and additions are triggering reassessments.
Not simply value added of an addition.
And they're not simply just increasing valation, some of them are doing double digit tax rate increases. With some of the line item rates seeing 50% rate increases.
In other words they're looking to property owners to make up shortfalls, CA can't -- yet.
The local county assessors are under quite a bit of pressure to find money to keep things running.
So let's keep "grandma's" tax rate low so she can plan her life around it, but not allow businesses to take advantage of the same tax breaks. I agree, the idea of your tax bill going through the roof just because you picked a nice place to live sucks. But I don't feel the same level of sympathy for a business who's taxes go up because of their locale.
Perhaps some cooperation between builders and environmentalists would help ease the cost of real estate here. More willingness to build the not-as-profitable multi family starter homes, coupled with a reduced threat of lawsuits over environmental issues would go a long way towards providing us with a mix of housing that would take some of the pressure off the real estate market.
Not only has the tax stayed stable as the business property is "facelifted" several times throughout the years to increase the market value.
While the corporate "ownership" vehicle remained the same, the vehicle owners may have changed hands several times -- while claiming huge asset values on their balance sheets.
Of course several proposals will hurt the "small businessman" who may have recently found that it's less expensive to buy the building they are in, than rent.
And the small warehouse/office condo/business sites have been a hot market as the big leased space market was crashing in CA.
So the "mom & pop" business is going to get shafted if the business properties are backed out of Prop 13.
Yeah I was thinking about that. Maybe we could extend the exemption to businesses that are sole proprieterships who's owners live in the community their business is in.
I don't see why a business should be penalized just because they are doing business. If they comply with the same tax rules as grandma, then it should be the same tax rate. There should be no specialized rates, equal protection, equal treatment.
I think that environmentalists should only be able to file lawsuits if they are the private owner or plaintiff, and not just an interested third party doing so for the 'diversity of the species' or other stuff like that. Make it between the developer and the land owner.
As to not-as-profitable multi-family starter homes... you need to ask yourself. Why are they profitable? Isn't it because that people would rather live in a single family home than in a multi-family dwelling? Sounds like a market preference to me. Why should a developer, who is in business to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders intentionally minimize their profit potential? To forestall the threat of litigation from environmentalists? How is that different from blackmail?
I'm as environmentally conscious as the next guy, but Environmental, Inc with its cadre of lawyers ready to pounce on developers and get horrendous amounts of taxpayer dollars for litigations costs are not my idea of protecting the environment.
Because its better than saying f*** grandma.
I know you have a radical, out-of-the-mainstream view of property rights, but what you just said means if the developer buys the property they can do whatever they want with it. Neighbors have no say under your proposed sceme, even if the developer wants to put a prison, or an ammunition plant, or a pig farm in the neighborhood. Sorry, that's just not reality.
Sorry, I meant less than profitable for the city. Developers can make just as much, if not more, on multi family housing. And the market is most defiinetly there for cheaper housing when it's done right, not just tossing up apartment blocks. Higher density development means developers can use bulk item discounts like Walmart does, and when you build condos or apartments with common walls you are reducing the overall costs of construction. Cities, however, don't like multi-family stuff because the tax revenue from the permit fees and annual taxes on the smaller, cheaper property don't cover the cost of services the city has to provide in terms of fire and police protection, sewer services, etc. etc. So the city has no incentive to put housing rather than say, an auto mall which provides the same tiny property tax revenue, but generates huge amounts of sales tax revenue that the city can collect. Until we reform Prop 13 and other anti-housing laws we are stuck with a biased approach from cities.
And I'm as business-friendly as the next guy, but Big Business Inc. can't come in and suck the life out of a town from it's headquarters in a tax-haven state, or even an offshore island.
I don't think my property rights philosophy is radical at all. If I buy a property, then rights come along with that property. Don't give me the illusion that I have certain rights to do with the property (and its reflected in the price). If zoning and neighborhood compacts say that there are limitations to what I can do with a piece of property, then those should be spelled out prior to price negotiation, and not discovered after the sale was finalized. Now, if my existing land was really unlimited in what I could do, and I find out when I try to sell it that the new owners would be prevented from doing certain things with it, and it subtracts from my selling price, someone, either the zoning authority or the neighborhood would need to compensate me for the lost revenue. Its fair if the circumstances were reversed.
If the tax rates in a town or state is set, then why shouldn't a business not be able to come in and enjoy the same tax rate that was previously set? I know, there are cases where businesses have been lured by cities by giving them tax breaks and such. Thats why I'm against special rates for special constituents. Hence my earlier point about equal treatment and equal protection.
Businesses and grandma are treated differently, we're NOT allowed to sell grandma to new owners and keep her locked in the basement, just so some rich yuppie can get a smoking deal on the house and keep that 30 yr old property valuation.
Property has no rights. Only humans have rights.
Real estate law has become much more stringent as of late in regards to non-disclosure of existing conditions/laws, etc. BUT, the important fact here that you are so willing to ignore is that as the population expands and such things as water and air and noise are impacted by human activity then our "rights" to profit from land will be impacted as well. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction and this law has never been proven wrong.
The "rights" of colonists to rape and pillage the land ignored the rights of native Americans and we are continuing to pay the price. If limits aren't placed on our activities, there will soon be nothing left. By refusing to acknowledge this fact you are stating that your rights supercede all others. That is not, nor ever has been legally viable. It's like saying that you own a small business in a small town and wal mart comes in and your customers go elsewhere even though your prices are competitive. The government nor wal mare is responsible for the failure of your business and nobody has guaranteed that your business will succeed. The rules are constantly changing and adaptation has always been the key to success, not trumpeting some age-old saw that was never true in the first place.
This is an internally contradictory argument. Local control over property tax rates can't be returned while at the same time guaranteeing perpetually low taxes to grandma, or anybody else. If you think that local control over property tax rates is the way to go, then it makes so sense whatsoever to say that "Prop 13 is a good idea," because the ending of local control was is the single most fundamental change introduced by Prop 13 .
If Prop 13 is mutually exclusive of local control over property tax rates, then maybe Prop 13 ought to be repealed... and replaced with individual municipal measures voted on by the residents saying that property tax rates cannot suddenly increase or decrease. Then, the residents can either vote them up or down, and let grandma move to whereever she wants to move to after the vote.
My rights supercede all others, if it has to do with my property. Conversely, I do not have any rights on property that I do not own.
The logical conclusion of your argument is that you have a right to my living room sofa and big screen television.
If I own a small business in a small town, and Walmart comes in and my customers go elsewhere even though my prices are competitive, then the reason for the failure is my own. In order to retain my customers, I would need to offer them a better value than they receive from my competition, be it with service, price, or both.
There is no guarantee that a business will succeed.