| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2012/12/19-2013/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:54563 Activity:nil |
12/19 Tea Party Patriots have been with us for a long time:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bso455m |
| 2010/8/23-9/7 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53934 Activity:nil |
9/19 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/bell/la-me-city-property-tax-table,0,5895218.htmlstory Poor cities pay more % of prop tax than wealthy cities. Compton pays 1.5% prop tax. \_ poor people also pay more for groceries. and taxes and in general everything. It's why rich people stay rich. I love $2 country club burgers! \_ Maybe it's because the average property value in poor cities are lower than those in rich cities, such that a higher prop tax % rate doesn't translate to higher proper tax dollar? And maybe it's also because poor cities need to provide more service per capita than rich cities? \_ it's ok to make fun of the poor again. Just call them The Offline. remember you're at the top of Digital Darwinism, you're online with your iphone because the Digital God gave you the best genes. |
| 2010/2/8-3/9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53694 Activity:nil |
2/7 Is Mello-Roos common in new homes in the Bay Area?
\_ In SF, yes.
\_ Why? All the pipes are laid out in SF. School districts
are well established. It's not like it's in the middle
of nowhere like Riverside. I would expect Mello-Roos
to be more common in say, Gilroy or southern parts of
of San Jose. It is certainly common in San Ramon.
\_ While there are no true CFD's in SF, the voters have approved
a few extra bonds that appear on your property tax bill. For
example, I see "SFUSD Facilities District" and "SF - Teacher
Support" on my property tax bill. They add up to .03% of
my assessed value.
\_ This is not true, SF homes in general are not subject to
any kind of Mello-Roos assessments. I think it is possible
to join one to help pay for your own Solar energy installation,
but you are not required to do this. -sf homeowner |
| 2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate |
8/12 Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University!
http://tinyurl.com/kr92ob (The Economist)
\_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate
revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has
been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time
to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the
institution. Good privates are charging $50K/year. UC would be
a bargain at 1/3 that amount. Stop trying to go back to the
taxpayer well.
\_ 35% of the undergrads at Berkeley are Pell Grant
recipients (which means they're amongst the poorest in
the country). Berkeley leads all universities in that
regard; UCLA has a similar number. The purpose of a
public university is to provide educational
opportunities to the public, including those who do not
have the money to attend a private institution. There
is a clear public benefit to giving access to higher
education to this population, measurable in terms of
reduced need for social services by the individual and
his or her family, increased worker productivity,
reduced incarceration rates, reduced population growth,
etc. All these things benefit the state. California is
the center for industry that it is in large part because
of the historical success of the California public
education system. Turn it into Stanford-lite and you'll
find the next boom happening in North Carolina, or Texas,
or Michigan. -tom
\_ Interesting you mention these, because UC tuition and
fees are less than those for Texas and Michigan. UNC's fees
are cheaper. The education-for-all universities are CSUs.
With the existence of CSU there is no need to keep fees
at UC low. Further, Pell Grants are *federal* funds
and federal aid (likely loans) is likely to rise in response.
Chancellor Birgeneau:
"Ironically, it appears that the group that will be most
disadvantaged by our funding challenges are not those who
are truly low income people but rather the State's
middle-income families. Specifically, current federal,
state and university financial aid plans protect the
poor; however, the middle class - that is, those
whose family incomes fall in the $60,000 to $120,000
range - receive limited aid and the current
disinvestment in higher education by the State of
California will only exacerbate their plight."
In this instance, I am not overly concerned about the
plight of the middle class if fees rise. A family that
makes $90K per year, while not rich, will figure it out.
\_ UC is education for the top students in the state,
whether they come from rich, poor, or middle-class
backgrounds. That's its mission, and it's been a
runaway success as an institution and as a benefit
to the state. -tom
\_ You ignored two of my points:
1. Even the chancellor isn't too worried about your
Pell Grant recipients being able to attend UC.
2. There is good reason to believe the at-risk middle
class students will be able to afford an increase in
fees given increased federal aid.
So even with fee increases the best students will
still be able to attend UC. However, without the
fee increases then why would they want to? I want
to protect this institution, but if you want it to
fall to the level of CSU then keep hoping for
government handouts which aren't going to happen.
I prefer to be proactive and if a was a UC Regent
I'd raise the funds we needed outside of government
by partnering with industry, creating a larger
endowment in flush times (UC's is pathetically low),
and raising fees on students. Hoping taxes go up or
down leaves the issue to the whims of others.
\_ Guess what happens when UC raises more money
from industry, grants, and endowments: the
anti-govermnent ideologues use that as an excuse
to further cut state funding. Endowment for UC, in
particular, is at best neutral and at worse negative
in terms of ongoing funding. (Universities with
large endowments are also getting pummelled right
now. Harvard had 9% of the combined endowment for
all US universities, and they just did 300
mandatory retirements and 270 layoffs).
The question is, how can you fund a great state
university? The question isn't how to turn a
great state university into a private university.
We know how to do that, and it's a bad idea. -tom
\_ Why is it a bad idea? I think UC should look
to the privates for an idea of how to run a
great university. Paying more attention to
your students, but charging them for the
privilege, is a great business model. I
reiterate that UC views its students like an
expense and they should view them like a
source of revenue. UC has a lot of students
who wish to attend - more than it has spots.
If it cannot survive in that environment it
has a problem. Believe me, the students won't
miss that extra $5K/year a decade after graduation
but they will appreciate what it gets them.
Don't you find it odd that the schools that
charge higher fees have more satisfied students
that donate more back to the school rather
than being angry at paying a higher tuition?
I know I had mediocre experiences at both UCB
and UCLA. I would've bitched a lot about fee
increases while in school, but now I realize it's
necessary and I'd pay a few $K more per year
for my kid to have a better education (or
even to preserve what we have). Otherwise,
send my kid to JC or CSU and save a lot of $$$
and just send my kid to UC for grad school.
\_ As I said, it's not like the privates are
any paragon of virtue; they're mostly in
financial straits just as dire as UC. You
can assert that you don't believe in public
education; that's your opinion and you're
entitled to it. But to suggest that,
essentially, California "should" give up
on public education, because of Harold Jarvis,
begs a whole lot of questions, the primary
one being, would California and its citizens
be better off if UC were privatized? It
seems highly unlikely to me. -tom
\_ Let's say for sake of argument that UC
was privatized and tuition was the same
as it is now. Would that be a problem?
Is it the cost you have a problem with
or with privatization? I never argued that
UC should be privatized - only that fees
need to be raised to help defray costs. I
think this is true whether UC is public or
private, because there isn't anywhere else
to get money from. Howard Jarvis has nothing
to do with it and has been a favorite
target of the liberal community for
some time now, but is mostly a red
herring because California's tax
revenues are about the same as they
were pre-Prop 13. You'd better find
another target to pick on, because Prop
13 will *NEVER* be repealed. Ever.
Property owners vote and there will be
a revolution before Prop 13 is repealed,
so better start working on Plan B,
which is to increase income tax rates.
\_ If UC were privatized, its fees would
be like Stanford's. -tom
\_ Please answer the question:
Are you opposed to privatization
or to high fees? If it was public
but expensive, would that be
acceptable? What about private,
but cheap?
\_ You'll have to find someone else
to beat that straw man for you.
-tom
\_ I'm sorry, but privatization
was *your* straw man. I
never mentioned it.
\_ The part of Prop 13 that applies to
commercial owners will be modified or
overturned in the next five years. You\
can take that to the bank.
\_ Possibly, but it's all the same pool
of money. If commercial owners
pay higher taxes they will sell
properties and property values
may fall, which results in less
tax. Tenants will pay more for
leases and will have to raise
prices or close some businesses.
This is what people don't
realize. You can't abolish Prop 13
and have 25% income tax and 10%
sales tax and full employment and
expect to keep as much business
here as exists now. Something has
got to give and it will find a
new equilibrium at around the old
one. There are no secrets here.
Tax revenues are going to be
about what they always have been.
We need to live within that stream
of revenue or grow it by growing
the economy faster than inflation.
\_ You like to use a lot of words
without actually attempting to
prove your point. You're just
reciting. -tom
\_ It is simple economics. You
don't just raise taxes and
expect the status quo to
continue.
\_ And you don't just cut
services and expect the
status quo to continue.
California's success has
been much more a result
of investment in public
education than it has
been a result of ridiculous
ideas about low taxes. -tom
\_ Depends on what the
services you cut are.
That's up for debate.
So don't cut education and
cut something else.
\_ The CA budget is
basically education,
health, and prison.
Only prison can be
reasonably cut. -tom
\_ They can *all*
be reasonably cut.
You just have
to decide where
and how.
\_ Per capita real revenues are down since
Prop 13 and have been trending down for
a long time.
\_ Down 16% but higher now than in 1981
according to at least one study.
However you want to frame it, they
haven't changed drastically. Per
capita revenue is down because we
have a huge influx of people who
don't contribute much to the
economy but take more than their
share from it.
\_ Down 16% is huge. The entire higher
education system is less than 16%
of the overall state budget. First
you claim that per capita is not
down, then you admit that it is.
Which one is it?
\_ Down 16% AT THE MOMENT, but
overall up since 1981. In
flush years (like <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD>
height) it was up. Right
now, in one of the worst
years in a long time, it is
down. Overall, it's about
the same, which is amazing
when you consider the huge
influx of low income and
paid-under-the-table
workers flooding into
California over the last 3
decade which drags down any
per-capita figures.
\_ I agree with you in general, but it isn't like fees haven't
increased. They have increased dramatically since I was
a student in the early 90s. Has spending really outpaced
it by so much? I'd be interested to see a breakdown of
where UC money has come from and gone to over the last 15 years
or so. (anyone know if/where this might be available?)
\_ The UC used to be free, before Reagan decided to punish the UC
for not supporting his policies. The question goes to the heart
\_ If you can't blame Bush, blame Reagan...
\_ Facts are such bitter things.
\_ They sure are. The only reason CA is in its current
budget mess is because of Gray Davis and the Dem
majority state legislature has done jack squat for the
past two decades. Oh yeah, and the unions getting
Arnold's budget props defeated.
\_ In the last 25 years, the governor has been
Republican for all except 4 years. Gray Davis
(from Stanford, by the way) wasn't a great
governor, but it is the ideological position of
Wilson, Schwarzenegger, and the Republicans in the
legislature which has whittled away at UC's funding.
The budget requires a 2/3rds majority to pass, which
is why the Republican minority can hold up the
process as long as they do. -tom
\_ Maybe the Democrats should be more bi-partisan
in their thinking.
\_ That is pretty funny coming from a Republican.
\_ I'm not a Republican. However, consider
this:
The minority party doesn't have the
votes to institute any major changes.
All they can do, politically, is dig in.
It is up to the party in power to reach
out to the minority party to pick up
the few votes it needs for a compromise.
If the Democrats cannot appeal to *any*
Republicans then they are taking the
wrong stance and are just being stubborn.
You can't blame the Republicans for
anything, because they don't have
enough votes to do anything even with
fairly broad Democratic support.
\_ "If you are not with us, then you are
with the terrorists." Does that ring a
bell with you at all? In CA, the GOP
has been able to screw up state finances
with a small minority, because passing
a budget requires a 2/3 majority. What
the Democrats should be trying to do is
over turn this law.
\_ Democrats need 6 votes in the Assembly
and 2 votes in the Senate to have
this supermajority. If they cannot
convince even that few opponents to
see their point of view then they
aren't trying very hard to find a
compromise. I know you'd like to
see a tyrrany of the majority,
but I rather like this current
system because it represents the
interests of more Californians.
\_ Did Reagan institute the first tuition at the UC
or didn't he?
of what public education is for. Is it intended to be a chance
for everyone to have an opportunity to better themselves, or
is it just for the wealthy to entrench their children's position
in society? Californias wealth was founded on the former, btw,
since a lot of talent goes to waste if you just don't educate
well the bottom 80%.
\_ This is when you have to decide what your goal is. If it's
to educate everyone cheaply, then UC can do that with the
cuts. If the goal is to be a world-class institution, then
tuition will have to rise. I think that since Cal State
exists to educate the masses at *very* affordable tuition,
then it's okay to raise fees at UC to something like 1/2
of a comparable private school. I realize fees have gone
up a lot, but it's apparently not enough if cuts have
to be made. The cost of education has gotten very expensive.
I agree that it's too expensive in many instances. However,
that's the econimic reality. If you graduate from a school
like Boston College you will have over $150K in debt. UC
will cost $50K. The State cannot afford to make up the
difference any longer.
\_ Sure we can. The difference today is that we have decided
to spend a whole bunch on putting people in jail, so we
have no money left over for college. As Clark Kerr put it:
The universities are "bait to be dangled in front
of industry, with drawing power greater than low
taxes or cheap labour." It is this vision that has given
California an educated workforce and high standard of
living and we are at risk of losing it. Your point about
the CSU system is well noted, but we are also making it
harder and harder to afford as well.
\_ I agree that the prison system is too expensive, but
not all of that is a choice. If people wouldn't
commit so many crimes we wouldn't need so many
prisons. California is not the white middle-class
paradise it was in the 1950s and as the demographic
has shifted and gangs have grown in prominence more
prisons are necessary. My point was that education
costs have increased faster than inflation for
whatever reason. Privates have responded by jacking
up their tuitions to beyond-reasonable levels and
therefore if UC wishes to compete it must do the same.
A lot of people blame Prop 98 for taking money from
UC, but Prop 98 allocates money to education for all!
If UC is to be an elite university for only the
best (as it was envisioned) then it has to raise tuition
or cut enrollment. Spending on entitlements is only
going to grow to a larger share of the budget
short-term. Raising taxes is not an option. Increasing
tuition is most fair, because it places the burden
on those getting the advantage instead of on everyone.
By "taxing" students via tuition increases, that is
effectively a middle-to-upper class tax increase
since those students will be middle-to-upper class
taxpayers as they pay their loans back (or their
parents already are if daddy is footing the bill).
An added benefit is that the UC has to be more
accountable to students and parents paying the
bills than it does to the anonymous taxpayer and I
believe the quality of education will increase.
This goes back to the idea of considering students
to be sources of revenue (as privates do) versus
annoying expenses (as UC does).
\_ Why is raising taxes not an option? Is there any
sane reason California does not have an oil excise
tax, for example? -tom
\_ Raising income taxes is not an option because the
voters are opposed and would rather see
expenditures cut. We can debate an oil excise
tax, but it's moot because it won't solve the
budget problem anyway.
\_ No single thing will solve the budget crisis.
The ridiculous stand against all conceivable
taxes is the primary cause of the budget
crisis. -tom
\_ It's not a stand against taxes so much
as it is a stand against current levels
of spending. We've already increased
some taxes (like the sales tax) and now
it's time to make some cuts. That
the legislature screwed around on the
budget for so long and didn't do anything
in a time of crisis highlights the need to
cut government. No one is eager to give
more money to those people to spend given
what they've done with what they have
and raising taxes at a time when so
many are already living with layoffs and
pay cuts will create resentment. Most
of us are already squeezed and giving
our last few pennies to the legislature
isn't high on our list of priorities.
However, anyone so inclined can feel free
to mail in a check to help out.
\_ It absolutely is a stand against taxes.
When people are asked which services
they want to cut, the only service
which people want to cut is prisons.
The only reason the legislature screwed
around for so long on the budget is
that Arnold and the Republicans refused
to even consider proposals which
raised taxes, and we have a budget
situation which cannot be solved
without raising taxes. (Despite
there now being a "balanced" budget,
it's only through accounting tricks
such as paying this year's final
paycheck on July 1 next fiscal year;
we're going to be in the same
position figuring out the 10-11
budget). -tom
\_ Not true. People want to cut lots
of things, including more
furloughs for State employees,
less healthcare for illegal
immigrants, and cutting
enrollment at UC. Arnold gave the
voters a chance to avoid cuts and
the public said they want cuts!
So make the cuts! I think cuts
are overdue and if they are
really hurt then we know we cut
deep enough. There hasn't been a
good housecleaning in a while.
\_ Horseshit. Arnold's initiatives
were complete garbage, and
they wouldn't have stopped a
single furlough. They generated
almost zero money! The initiatives
were just a way to further
handicap the legislature's
ability to do anything about
the budget (by shackling them
with more and more rules). -tom
\_ "Cutting enrollment at UC"?
Are you serious here or just
trolling? Show me the polls where
CA voters want to cut UC enrollment.
\_ I'm a CA voter and I'm in
favor.
\_ The Legislature "screwed around" because
of the obstructionist minority GOP.
\_ You mean the party who actually
listened to the voters instead of
their own agenda?
\_ Really, there was an oil excise
tax and a tobacco tax on the
ballot? I must have missed
that proposition. -tom
\_ Hmmm. The legislature put
the initiatives on the
ballot. The legislature is
comprised mainly of...?
Prop 1A was a tax hike and
was voted down. Maybe you
missed that.
\_ Prop 1A was not a tax hike.
It included continuing an
existing tax in a future
year (would have had no
impact on 09-10 finances),
and a whole bunch of stupid
shit about the rainy day fund.
-tom
\_ If it doesn't pass, then
taxes will go down. Of
course it's a tax hike.
It was voted down.
\_ You're an idiot. -tom
\_ Nice retort. I
expected better
from you, but I
guess this is
all you have in
the face of the
facts.
\_ The next time
I'm at the top
of a hill, I'll
remember that
not going down
can be considered
a hike. -tom
\_ Oh come on.
The proposition
was to raise
taxes in future
years. Without
it, taxes will
decline. So it
is a tax hike.
What's even
more damning is
that voters
didn't even
want to vote
for the status
quo, let alone
new higher
taxes. In
effect, they
voted for a tax
*decrease*.
\_ If the prop
were only
about the
tax, you
might have
a point.
It wasn't
and you
don't. I
would have
voted for
continuing
the tax; I
voted
against
the rainy
day shit.
-tom
\_ People are actually not committing any more crime,
we are just locking them up longer for the crime
that they committ. Crime rates are way down from
the 70s and 80s. This is true even in states that
did not get tough on crime, so maybe it is time to
rethink our sentencing policies. I can sort of see
your argument as long as we are willing to lend
even poor students enough money to fund their
education.
\_ The crime rate is back down to the level of
the early 1970s, which is still above that of
the 1950s and 1960s. Do you really want to
return to the crime rate of the late 1980s
and early 1990s? That is what will happen if
we rethink our sentencing. It seems to me that
our sentencing is working very well as the tough
on crime stance coincides with a reduction
in crime. The problem isn't the number of
people locked up. It's how much we are paying
to incarcerate them. California pays almost
60% more per prisoner than other large states.
That cost has to come down.
\_ We should ship them to prisons in India.
Outsourcing something like this isn't
rocket science like R&D, and Indians
are super cheap.
\_ I actually agree with outsourcing. Maybe
not India (too far for visitation) but
to states that do this more cheaply
(and better) than we can.
\_ Maybe you missed the part where I said that
even states that have lower incarceration rates
than CA saw a similar drop in crime. Correlation
does not imply causation. It is almost certain
that there are other factors which lead to all
or most of the drop in the crime rate.
\_ Maybe, maybe not. I can tell you that
releasing a lot of inmates isn't going to be
*good* for the crime rate. Most of them
end up back in jail when released anyway.
\_ We wil find out pretty soon, won't we?
The murder rate is down, even though
we are in a recession. I don't think that
violent crime is going to go up, though
perhaps the amount of drug use will.
\_ Murder rate is down b/c so much of the
riff-raff is in jail! (possibly)
\_ The incarceration rate has not
increased from 2008-2009, but the
murder rate went down.
\_ Welcome to the reality that not everyone should go to college.
if they did, our standard of living would go down, nobody to
run the services well.
\_ Yes I agree! We should also legalize illegal immigrants who
are the backbone of Los Angeles. The Angelinos have it good,
everything is so cheap there and gourmet tacos like Lolo,
Mercedes Hair of the Dog Cantina are everywhere and they're
just called... tacos!
\_ Wtf? Dude the czech woman who cuts my hair is an Ex Model
from EU, Think I want her to go to college so I can get
some ugly fat woman cutting my hair?
\_ What are they called elsewhere?
\_ In Northern Cal, Mexican food is gourmet food. In LA,
it's just called food.
\_ We have gourmet Mexican and Mission Burritos, we go
the whole gamut. I think LA does too.
\_ I get 'mexican food' from the little holes in the wall.
what is this 'gourmet' you speak of? |
| 2009/8/10-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53259 Activity:high |
8/10 College ranking
http://shine.yahoo.com/event/backtoschool/americas-best-college-497708
#10: StanfUrd
#73: Cal
Even if ranking public colleges separately, Cal still ranks only #8.
(Though The top 3 are all military academies.)
\_ Yeah, Cal isn't what it used to be anymore. Increasing bureaucracy
and long lines really made it go downhill in the past decade and
a half. That, and pissed off alum don't want to donate...
\_ What the FUCK is Williams College? WTF?
|_ Short for Williams and Sonoma College.
\_ There is no such college. There is Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
\_ We have now identified Mr. Pedant!
\_ If you had gotten a better education, you would have heard of
Williams College.
\_ Conservatives in California have finally achieved their long desired
dream of destroying public higer education.
\_ Because conservatives have controlled the California state
legislature for the past 4 decades, right? Or was it Bush's
fault?
\_ It's Pete Wilson's fault. Don't hide it. I know it.
You know it. And the American People know it.
\_ bullshit
\_ It is the combo of Prop 13, "Three Strikes" and Prop 98
that has massacred higher ed funding in CA. These are
all Conservative initiatives. The legistlature has very
little control over the budget anymore, it is almost all
set by Constitutional initiative.
\_ I agree that Prop 13 and 3 strikes (I'm not that familiar
with prop 98) are largely responsible for budget problems,
but if you think those are the only major contributions to
the budget problems, you have anti-conservative blinders
on. And the state legislature does have control over the
budget. That's their job. The fact that they've not done
anything significant the past few decades because they're
horribly deadlocked doesn't let them off the hook.
\_ Prop 98 is 40% of the budget, corrections is now
15%. Interest on bond issues approved by voters is
another 10%. Just those alone are 2/3 of the budget
and all of that is out of the legislatures hands.
\_ Prop 98 might be 40% of the budget, but that
40% is going to educate people for free. To
steal money from K-12 kids with no other options
to educate kids at UC seems disingenous.
\_ It is still money that the Legislature does
not have at its disposal, no matter how noble
what it is being spent for.
\_ Do you want to cut K-12 spending? I don't.
Not even for UC.
\_ These rankings are bogus. Nothing more to say than that. Mills
College is ahead of Cal, Brown, Penn, *and* Dartmouth. Not.
\_ Just like it is unreasonable to keep tweaking your ranking
criteria and weights until it produces an ordering you like,
it seems bogus to not feedback patently bogus orderings into
refining your process. Perhaps the answer isnt more tweaking
but just to limit what results to share ... for example a
system which seeks a lot of resolving power at the top end
may not do much in the middle of the pack ... like say in
a sport tournament, you may not waste resources to separate
#30 from number #31. |
| 12/24 |
| 2009/5/19-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53015 Activity:nil |
5/18 How did you vote? I voted: No on 1A-C, and Yes on 1D-F
\_ I voted yes on 1A because I want tax to be as high as possible
to increase our standard of living, and to get rid of people
who are otherwise unfit to live in California-- they should
move back to Arizona or other anti-tax states. Viva
La California de Republica para Socialism!
\_ I actually don't mind a small tax increase and I think a spending
cap is a good idea, but I didn't like that the governor can
override it whenever he wants and that we have to contribute
to this "rainy day fund" even when we are having "rainy days".
12.5% also seems like an awfully large amount of the budget
to set aside. With some changes I would have voted Yes on it.
\_ I'm hoping for 15%, on top of much higher property tax,
as well as 45-50% tax for the wealthiest Americans. Will
that ever happen in America? Hell no. But somebody's
gotta try. -pp
\_ California and Arizona have the same overall tax burden:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
\_ I voted no on 1C and yes on the rest. Pretty funny that you would
ask how people voted and then censor their responses.
\_ I'm the original poster and I didn't censor any responses.
Must be someone else. I didn't even see any responses other
than the very first, which I responded to.
\_ I haven't voted yet, I'm still trying to decide on a couple.
1A: Not sure, the write-up seemed good, but the argument against
was much stronger than the argument for. Very complex.
\_ You do know that the arguments for/against were written by
the same people, right?
1B: No. Schools never seem to have trouble getting money in good
year. If the years are good, they'll get money, if not we
years. If the years are good, they'll get money, if not we
can't afford it.
1C: No. I hate the lotto.
1D: Not sure, transfer money from 1 child service to another?
1E: Not sure, transfer money from metal services for adults to kids?
1D: Yes, the yes argument is better.
1E: Yes, "" ""
1F: Sure, why not? Screw those guys.
\_ No on everything. That should be the default position, and there's
nothing compelling in this slate. -tom
\_ Not sure that follows here. Props can only be adjustd by props,
and that's basically what 1D and 1E are.
\_ Agreed. 1D and 1E try and undo damage that previous props
did.
\_ Tom agrees with the Bay Guardian.
\_ We may hold the same position on this; that doesn't mean
I agree with them. -tom
\_ Surprised he isn't pro-tax and pro-schools.
\_ You got what you wanted. The cuts at the UC are going to be
severe.
\_ What I want is to get rid of the 2/3rds majority bullshit
that we have right now.
\_ I like it.
\_ GO GALT!!!!!! |
| 2009/5/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52938 Activity:high |
5/4 Why does The Netherlands have such a sustained lower unemployment
\_ Why is it The Netherlands? Is it like an LA Freeway?
rate and higher growth than the US? Maybe we can replicate their
success here.
\_ Start by not spending all your money on military and prisons.
\_ They don't have as large a population of illegal immigrants -jblack
\_Lots of Euro countries don't have this problem, they still mostly
have double digit unemployment.
\_ Timely Question:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html
\_ jeesh, They really should not be paying this guy by the word.
\_ So the government taxes you to death and then gives some of
the money back if you have kids, for vacations, and so on.
This "Big Brother" sort of society in which the government
claims to know what you need more than you do is very
anti-American to me, although staunch Democrats must love it
because they could tell people what to do with their money.
\_ My mother is Dutch and I still have family there. It's a wealthy
nation, but very small. I don't see many opportunities to
parallel their policies here successfully.
\_ Why not? We should have economies of scale that they do not.
\_ Because we are much larger and more diverse. I'm not sure
that economies of scale play a large part in this. For
instance, are there economies of scale for educating 1 million
kids versus 100 kids? I'd argue not. In fact, I'd argue it
would be cheaper (per kid) to educate the smaller number.
\_ It is certainly cheaper to build 100 miles of road, than
10 roads, each 10 miles long. Why do you think that it is
cheaper to educate smaller numbers of children? You can
get some kinds of economy of scale even in education,
with things like standard tests, school books, etc.
\_ Examples of why it might cost more to educate more:
higher administrative overhead
higher probability of kids with special/unique needs
more disparate learning abilities and backgrounds
harder to find/recruit so many well-trained teachers.
\_ Why would there be a higher percentage of kids with
special needs? And why harder to find teachers? It
should be the same percentage of population in both
cases.
\_ Because you don't judge these by percentage.
Imagine there is a special need which occurs
1/10000th of the time. The school with 100
kids probably doesn't have to deal with it at
all (or rarely), whereas the school with 1
million kids probably needs a whole program
created to address it. For an example of this
consider bilingual education. The Japanese kids
at my public school did not have a class
dedicated to them, but the South American kids
did even though both were small percentage-wise.
did. A single Spanish-speaking kid isn't a
burden to instruct, but 1,000 is.
\_ There is a lot of evidence (and probably literature) on the
diseconomies of scale in education. Anecdotally, it explains
why property values are significantly lower in parts of LA that
are part of LAUSD, one of the largest and most inefficient
school districts in the nation. (e.g. San Pedro vs. PV, Culver
City vs. Palms, etc). Another way to look at the diseconomies
of scale problem is to think of all the complaints against big
government (gubment = BAD) or big companies (startups = rewl).
\_ If there are diseconomies of scale, why are small private
schools so much more expensive than public schools? -tom
\_ It's not linear. There can be economies of scale which then
translate into diseconomies. Do you really think that LAUSD
is more efficient than, say, Berkeley USD? Tangentially
related is the whole cherry-picking, charter school and/or
voucher concept. Voucher/Charter folks like to really
against large districts, but they get to cherry pick
students. That said, I think http://greendot.org is pretty awesome
and there is a lot to learn from these guys. They fix a
lot of standard inner city problems just by "caring". I
think it's hard to scale caring.
\_ 1. They often provide a better product.
2. It varies by state and district, but many times
private schools aren't more expensive for a similar
product. California spent $8496 per student in
2005-2006, which was 29th in the nation. The US
average was $9100. This figure excludes capital
outlay, interest on school debt, and other subsidies.
(Source: link:tinyurl.com/cyg468
I believe for example that most private schools (unless
they are religious) pay property tax on their land while
public schools do not. For this price you can find
plenty of private schools for your kids to attend and
this discounts scholarships that are often offered. I
could not find the average cost of a private school in
California, but nationwide in 2003-2004 (latest
year I could find) it was $6400 for elementary schools
and $13300 for high schools.
(Source: http://tinyurl.com/cog8wj
Clearly, this figure is not too different from the
$9100 average for public schools.
\_ You can't compare private schools in Des Moines to
public schools in San Francisco. For example:
Head-Royce school in Oakland is $19k/year for
K-5, $21k/year for 6-8, $27k/year for high school.
-tom
\_ I am comparing the average national public
expenditures to the average national private
expenditures. I am not comparing Des Moines
to SF. However, I assure you that you can
find plenty of private schools even in urban
California for less than $10K/year. The schools
charging $20-30K per year are elite schools
providing much more to their students than
public schools do and that's why they cost more.
My neighbor's son goes to Saint Francis High
School in La Canada. It's a pretty good school.
Tuition is $10324. I bet that's not much
different from what the local public HS spends.
Mater Dei tuition is $10950. Don Bosco Tech
is $8600. Not every school is some elitist
academy that costs more than Stanford.
\_ Parochial schools may be subsidized by the
church--you can't just look at tuition to
know their costs. -tom
\_ They may be, but they may not be and
it's not clear to what extent. I went
to a Christian school and it wasn't.
Public schools receive money from other
sources, too, like the PTA fundraisers
and gifts. (The public middle school my
nephew goes to just received $400K from
a donor for a new tennis court.) Also,
many students at private schools pay
*less than* tuition because they
receive financial assistance. I think
it's reasonable to compare tuitions
because public schools receive a lot of
subsidies and private schools have expenses
public schools do not (like advertising).
I would argue they all wash out, which
is why the average private tuition and
public school expenditures are so similar
to each other.
\_ Even Communist Mainland China has a sustained higher growth rate
than the US.
\_ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/05/upward-mobility-reality-and-illusion.html
\_ This one is great, take that Gold Bugs:
link:tinyurl.com/d4lsch |
| 2009/3/16-21 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52721 Activity:nil |
3/16 RECALL RECALL RECALL!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/16/MN9T16DDOA.DTL
\_ 47 states facing deficits:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711 |
| 2009/2/17-25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52594 Activity:moderate |
2/17 Calculate how much you're about to get taxed per year for the next 5
years:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1627728.html
\_ $2000 for me. Pocket change, considering that I'm well over 6 dig salary
Even if I pay 10X, if it improves traffic conditions, air quality,
better city planning, less crime, etc, I'm all for it. Then again,
I'm a socialist, so I want to see social programs done right
\_ Just repeal the stupid Prop 13 (appeals to poor liberals most of whom
are renters), put a tough border + deport illegal immigrants who are
leeching on our infrastructure costs (appeals to conservatives).
That solves 1/2 of the problems.
\_ Just repeal the stupid Prop 13 (appeals to poor liberals most of
whom are renters), put a tough border + deport illegal immigrants
who are leeching on our infrastructure costs (appeals to
conservatives). That solves 1/2 of the problems.
\_ When your landlord's property taxes go up who do you think
is going to cover the difference? Hint: you.
\_ I rent in a rent-controlled place but yeah, I could imagine
rent going up for a bunch of people.
\_ $2000 for me. Pocket change, considering that I'm well over 6 dig
salary. Even if I pay 10X, if it improves traffic conditions, air
quality, better city planning, less crime, etc, I'm all for it.
Then again, I'm a socialist, so I want to see social programs done
right.
\_ Since you are a socialist and $10K is pocket change then pay
my share, too. Thanks!
\_ paying individual is capitalism. Sorry.
\_ Not me. My share to the glorious state, comrade. Clearly
you can afford to pay much more than you are.
\_ Uh, it's not going to improve conditions, why would you expect
that it would?
\_ Do you honestly think that we can chop $15B from the state
budget without any reduction in services?
\_ 1) !reduction != improvement
2) Gov't has DOUBLED IN 10 years! Have you seen a doubling
of services?
\_ Apparently you still don't understand math.
\_ What do you intend to cut then?
\_ The current compromise only has real cuts of $3B. Most of
the "cuts" are reductions in planned increase. So the
actual proposed cuts are 3%.
\_ And $15B in new taxes right? Which you claim are
unneeded. Where would you chop the state budget by
$15B?
\_ Just about anywhere. Across-the-board cuts.
\_ Close the prisons and let the prisoners all out?
That would just about do it. Or shut down the
CSU and Community Colleges?
\_ I've worked as a contractor at "Department of Health Services"
when I was in school. There are PLENTY of people who can be cut
and not cause ANY drop whatsoever in service level. Now, if you
ask me if I think they'll cut the right set of people, of course
not. Incompetent at one thing almost always implies incompetent
at other things, like the ability to determine incompetence in
people.
\_ So your solution to the budget crises is "fire all the
imcompetent people" which you believe to be impossible?
\_ $570/year for me. I'm with pp, this is well worth it.
\_ *WHAT* is well worth it?
\_ $570/year to keep the unwashed masses from losing all hope
and burning down my neighborhood.
\_ That $570/year will fund Irvine and Orange County's
shuttle-homeless-to-Venice program. Works wonderfully.
Crime has gone down in Irvine+OC by at least 25% since
the program started, and may I add that Laguna Beach
is a lot cleaner now than 5 years ago? OC OC OC!!!
\_ I'd rather spend $570/year to give kerosene and
matches to the homeless and set them loose in OC.
Your enclave has no soul, and neither do you.
\_ Uh, I was just trolling as a typical lame OC person
that I totally despise. I hate OC but people in
it love OC and their BMWs and their homes -pp
\_ Then you and I are brothers. Here's your
kerosene tank. Party time TBD.
\_ You're also black? Cool man.
\_ Silly troll. |
| 2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52590 Activity:high |
2/16 California is truly f'd for sure this time. Can we find another pair
of stupid radio DJs to start a drive to recall Arnold?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17cali.html?_r=3&hp
\_ It will only help if we get a governor with a spine, and get rid of
the incompetent legislature.
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the 2/3rd
requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
\_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge? With the
2/3rd requirement to pass a budget and ridiculous gerrymandering
creating permanent seats for wackos and wingnuts on both sides
of the debate, we essentially have tyranny of the nutty
minorities. I don't see how you fix California without having
a constitutional convention, and I can't see how that would
ever happen.
\_ We can amend the constitution with an initiative. In the past
the super-majority to pass a budget issue was put in front
of the voters and they voted it down, they might be more
receptive after this year.
\_ I actually like the super-majority rule. Why don't they
cut more spending? They talk about the budget as if
it's set in stone and there's no way to solve it except
raising taxes.
\_ What is the rationale for tyranny of the minority for
simple rule changes?
\_ Example of simple rule change?
\_ Redistricting is the only thing that will fix the legislature
problem IMO.
\_ I thought a proposition to redistrict passed in the
last election?
\_ Redistricting plus removal of the 2/3rds rule plus removal
of the set-asides. California's troubles are a layer cake.
\_ Oh hell no. The 2/3 requirement for RAISING taxes needs
to remain. In fact, it should be 2/3 for raising total
expenditures.
\_ Ah, I see. You're actually a wingnut.
\_ No, we got into this mess because as fast as
revenue went up, we spent even more, vastly
outpacing inflation + population growth.
\_ Where are you getting your figures?
\_ http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx
Spending in 97-98 = 52.8B, 07-08 = 102B
Spending based on pop + infl:
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20090126.shtml
\_ What is the figure of population +
inflation? The reason article is playing
games with averages that make it very
difficult to tell how honest he is
being. This article is more balanced imo:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3020153
\_ GDP is going to grow a bit faster
than population + inflation.
\_ Why do you think its the governator's fault when the budget has been
hung up in the legislature all this time?
\_ The governor has vetoed a compromise, and the Republicans
refused to override his veto.
\_ Really, the problem is not so much legislative incompetence
as legislative inexperience. The problem is term limits,
which ensures that no one in the legislature has the experience
or the relationships to work through a budget impasse like
this one. -tom
\_ The budget has doubled in 10 years, and rose faster under
Arnie than under Davis. The Governor has line-item veto. He
could fix this problem if he wanted to, but instead worked on
budgets that papered over problems for years.
\_ line-item veto only works when there is something to veto.
The budget is still stuck in legislature....
\_ Shouldn't budget numbers be looked at as a constant % of
GDP rather than absolute dollar value? Some folks like to
bitch that spending has gone up 82% since 1998, but so
has GDP. Looking at things in terms of relative share
is important.
\_ Do we have to spend every freaking dollar? If GDP
went up 82% then what if we increased spending 60%?
Would that be wrong?
\_ It would be wrong if the state does not have enough
money to provide the services it should. For
example, per-student funding to UC has dropped
40% since 1990. So yes, if the state gets more
money, it needs to spend it to begin to restore
services which have been cut in previous hard
budget times. -tom
\_ Our tax burden is still among the highest in the
nation (#6 I think). We should be able to confine
ourselves to such a budget without putting
the state in danger of insolvency like the
Democrats + Arnie are doing by refusing to make
any meaningful cuts.
\_ We are no where near #6.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbystate2005
http://tinyurl.com/9mv2z (Money Magazine)
\_ this isn't 2005 (although even taking that
data I think my post still stands to reason)
\_ What, taking the data that California
is actually in the middle of the pack
in terms of state and local tax rates?
And of course, California's average
income is higher, which pushes the
tax burden higher. And doing things
in California costs more (land and
salary), so we need more state money
per capita to provide the same
services. Do you have anything other
than ideological ranting? -tom
\_ It's not middle of the pack.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf
Average income being higher does
not push the tax burden higher,
are you on crack? Tax burden is
a function of tax rates.
A rich state should actually get
away with less, because govt's
costs do not scale linearly
with income. A car in CA still
costs the same as a car in OK,
basically. Land is not a recurring
cost, in general.
Also, for tax burden, it is much
worse for CA when you look at the
burden on those who actually pay
the tax. CA's income tax is very
progressive and we have a large
population of low-income freeloaders.
\_ Are you really this stupid? Among
other things, a car in CA pays
20% more for gas. Property is
absolutely a recurring cost, and
I noticed you completely ignored
the question of salary. -tom
\_ You are a complete idiot. The
car itself costs the same.
Land itself is not a recurring
cost either.
I said "costs do not scale
linearly" not that there are
no higher costs. Higher
income trumps those costs.
\_ Let me put it this way;
how much more do you think
it costs to do business in
California, compared to,
say, Kansas City? Are you
really trying to make the
assertion that California
business operators spend
about the same as Kansas
City business operators?
-tom
\_ We need to deport IMMIGRANTS
\_ Nope, like I said, he's another
wingnut. Part of the problem.
\_ We have the highest income, sales, and
gas tax in the nation.
\_ Where do you get your BS from?
Tennessee has 9.25% sales tax.
NY has the highest gasoline tax.
CA has very low property taxes,
as I am sure you know.
\_ Low in terms of % of value,
but not in absolute terms.
We pay about the same property
tax as everywhere else and
a high income tax to boot.
\_ Paying the same dollar
amount on a mansion in
Malibu and on a shack in
Wyoming is not "paying
about the same property
tax." You're a moron. -tom
\_ A mansion in Malibu
pays a lot more tax
than a shack in Wyoming.
Stupid argument. Reality
is that California is
#26 in local property tax
collections per capita
and #20 per household.
http://tinyurl.com/aopmde
\_ And top-3 in property
value. -tom
\_ So? That doesn't
mean we should be
top-3 in taxes paid.
I know your dream
is to be #1 in this
particular category,
but some of us think
paying average taxes
is just fine and
that the State
should be able to
survive with that
given that income
taxes are also high.
I don't use any
more services here
in CA at my $650K
house than I do at
my $150K house in
another state. In
fact, that house is
bigger but the tax
bill is much less.
Cost of living is
less there, too, but
not *that* much less.
You just love to pay
taxes. I'm happy at
#20 for property
tax. Feel free to
mail in more on my
behalf when your
next bill is due.
\_ Services cost
more to provide
in California,
due to higher
land, labor,
fuel and food
costs; therefore,
the state needs
more money to
provide the
same services
as cheaper
states. That's
why our state
services are
massively
underfunded. -tom
\_ Do you think
services cost
8x more,
because that's
the difference
in property
tax I pay even
though the
cost of living
is only 40%
less and the
other house is
2x the size. I
assure you
that the fire
and police
work just as
well and that
the schools
are better
than in most
of CA. Our
services are
not
underfunded.
We allocate
money
incorrectly
and, sad
to say, the
illegal
immigrants
are sucking
the State's
coffers dry
by using
services they
do not pay for.
do not pay
for.
\_ You have
no content.
Goodbye.
-tom
\_ Loser.
I give
you a
real
example
of
property
tax
disparity
dispar-
ity
and you
can't
handle
the
truth.
\_ I agree with you that Arnie has been very
fiscally irresponsible but at this point the
GOP is being reckless. Aren't they just as much
to blame for pushing the state towards fiscal
insolvency?
\_ No, because they aren't the ones who added
the spending. The Dems and Arnie busted
the budget repeatedly even during the times
of bubble-inflated tax revenues.
\_ They had their share in busting budgets,
if nothing else, they could have shut the
state down during the boom years. Now
they are just appearing as immature
obstructionists.
\_ I agree. If conservatives hadn't decided to push for
three-strikes and put all those extra people in
prison, we wouldn't be in this mess. We warned you
at the time that it going to get too expensive.
\_ Don't forget the "car tax" cut!
\_ Or Prop 87, when California tried to put
royalties on oil production (like almost every
other state does, when oil or mineral
resources are extracted) and was opposed by
the GOP, combined with Big Oil. |
| 2008/11/21-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52069 Activity:nil |
11/21 California now state with 3rd highest unemployment rate at 8.2%
(behind Michigan and RI at 9.3%)
\_ Just wait until Ahnold's new taxes kick in.
\_ I'm looking forward to my new 11.25% sales tax rate.
\_ Is this for reals or just a joke? URL?
\_ REPEAL PROP 13!!! |
| 2008/11/11-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:51906 Activity:low |
11/11 Ronald Reagan is my hero.
\_ Did you know about his support of California's lovely Proposition
14? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14
\_ My hero! -landowner and landlord, love prop 13 and 14
\_ Yup. He won in two landslide elections.
\_ You are aware of the blatant racism involved in the prop. 14
campaign, and that the supremes overturned it in '67 anyway?
\_ if I'm a landlord, I could care less. Go Pete Wilson!
\_ What does Pete Wilson have to do with the '60s? Oh
I see, you are just a dumb troll.
\_ Maybe you're too young to remember this but Pete
Wilson was a racist and people loved him for
Prop 187. YES ON PROP 187 Pete.
http://members.tripod.com/~cochiseguardian/NEWS/WilsonDefImmStance020503.html
\_ ofc not, he's a troll.
\_ Yup. He won in two landslide elections, better than how Clinton
did in his two.
\_ But Obama just won a larger percentage of the vote than Reagan
in '80.
\_ "Gov't should protect people from each other but not from
themselves." Also you gotta love how he ordered the nat'l guard
to open fire on the UCB protesters.
\_ "So you wanna be treated like a communist, huh hippie?"
\_ You're an idiot, but you're not alone. That doesn't mean you're
not an idiot. |
| 2008/11/6-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:51866 Activity:low |
11/6 SOCIALNETWORKISM
\_ Yes? What about it? Young people today with nothing to lose
but everything to gain from Socialism, embrace it. We're
tired of having sucky infrastructures and unfairness.
Let us all embrace socialism.
\_ Why do you think they have nothing to lose?
\_ Read Prop 13 history and ramifications
\_ I presume you are free-market type. Please do tell me you
oppose the 700 billion bail out package. Please tell me you
do support the abolishment of
- SEC
- FDIC
- FDA
- minimum wage
- child labor law
- ban on human trafficking
and let the invisible hand does everything.
\_ Excellent straw man sir!
\_ oh yeah? why don't you take a shot at it. Free Market right?
do you support the 700 billion bail out? do you support
government bail out of GM/Ford? do you support government
in effect double our national debt by acquiring AIG (liability
on AIG's book constitute as part of national debt).
Do you support roll back of margin requirement regulations
that imposed by FDR? Do let me know. Because *PERSONALLY*
given the choice of government take over these failed companies
versus just hand out free cash to them with little or no
string attached, I prefer the former. If a company is too big
to fail, then, it's to big. Let it fail as free market
dictate, right?
\_ You know, I'd say 8 of the top 10 nicest countries to
live in in the world are socialist.
\_ Which are the other two? Switzerland and Singapore?
\_ Nicest for who? You need to think about that.
\_ I'm the decider, and I decide what is best for the
country. -GWB
\_ Wow, I think this is the most efficent troll I have ever
seen. Bravo!
\_ Seconded. It takes the Art of Troll to the next level. Kudos!
\_ Key word: socialism
\_ BUD CORT doesn't like your tone. Obviously you've never
\_ BUD CORT doesn't like your tone. Obviously you've never been
served. |
| 2008/10/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:51343 Activity:nil |
10/1 I am a liberal. I've constantly being lectured about how great
free-market is. I am a bit frustrated now that practically *NO* ONE
talk about free-market anymore.
\_ eBay works well in the free market. In short, IMHO free market
works the best if you're dealing with oranges and such, and
not so well when you're dealing with homes and healthcare. I
for one welcome FDR style government because we're ready for it.
The pending wave of Socialism reforms is about to sweep America.
I know, because I am the next generation, and we want Socialism.
We are as talented and hard working as the generation before us, and
the generation before that, but unlike them we all missed out
the dot-com and housing boom. We have NOTHING to win and
everything to lose with the F-U everything for myself
Reagan style Capitalism. But we have everything to win
and NOTHING to lose with FDR style programs. We're fed up, and
we want CHANGE. The future of America depends on a bunch of
people like us, and we want Socialism NOW. More taxes on the
people who have, and less taxes on people who do not. Fuck
Prop 13, fuck corporate tax cuts, fuck religious nuts, fuck
anti-gay biggots, fuck tax cuts, fuck deficits, fuck automobiles,
fuck free market. We are ready for change.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/socialismisback |
| 2008/8/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50924 Activity:nil |
8/21 greatest hammond organ solos of all time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nsPgSl52qY
\_ I'm sorry, why is this even posted? Why is this so interesting
and or special? Why would I care about some dude playing
organ? Is he famous in the old days? If you post shit like
this without explanation I'll just nuke next time.
\_ I did describe it. Does it have to be about BUSH==OBAMA
or Prop 13 to pass your motd content test?
\_ الله أَكْ! |
| 2008/8/21-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50923 Activity:kinda low |
8/21 CA highest income tax bracket hits at 44K?
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/press/2007/07_38.shtml
\_ seems like it's 60k for head of household, which would apply
for anyone not claimed as a dependent I believe. --jwm
\_ So 90K for married filing jointly. Anyone here call that rich?
\_ I think Head of Household is when you are not married and you
pay for more than 50% of the living expense of another person
who is not a dependent of another taxpayer.
\_ Yeah you're not head of household if you are just a single
dude without dependents. (like me). fuck.
\_ Well, at least we still have one of the lowest property
taxes, and capped so that when we retire, we don't have to
worry about ridiculously amounts of tax increase! By a happy
owner. Once you buy a home in CA, DON'T EVER SELL!!! Trust
me. This is the way of life in California.
\_ ObSwami
\_ الله أَكْ!
\_ No, our property taxes are around the median.
\_ Median in rate, but because of Prop 13 they are lower than
most places if you've owned a property a long time. When
I bought my house for ~$350K N years ago it had been in
the seller's family for 65-70 years. They paid something
like $600/year property tax, which is definitely low. I
paid $4000/year on the same property when I bought it,
not that I'm complaining, because now my neighbors are
paying $8000+/year on similar houses.
\_ You know I wouldn't pay $100K for any piece of land in
inland Southern California, though I would be
willing to pay millions of dollars for Malibu and
coastal estates. S Cal inland in general is dumpy,
including Santa Ana, San Fernando, and even
Pasadena. Hot. Traffic. Dumpy.
\_ Yes, much better are New Jersey, Texas, and Florida. |
| 2008/7/16-23 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50601 Activity:kinda low |
7/16 Support air-drying laundry. Save energy.
http://www.laundrylist.org
\_ I just learned that a friend's home owner's association has a rule
against drying laundry outside, even in your backyard. I'm still
flabbergasted by this.
\_ Why? Some won't even let you keep your garage door open
longer than it takes to put your car in.
\_ Most HOA's do. This is one of many activities associated with
poor folks, that are perceieved as lowering property values.
\_ Banning this in front yards I can understand. But backyards?
\_ Banning this in frontyards I can understand. But backyards?
\_ Some HOAs don't even let you keep your garage door open for
longer than it takes to park your car.
\_ Is this for lowering auto theft rate? If not, I'd think
leaving doors open on garages with Porsches and Mercedes
inside would raise property values.
\_ No, it's because the inside of garages is usually
cluttered with junk. BTW, my old neighbor used to park his
new Porsche on his lawn. Talk about conflicting statements.
\_ So, I figure a lack of HOA add $20,000 or so to the value of
the house. Any opinions?
\_ I don't know, but a lack of HOA fees probably adds value.
\_ depends on HOA amount... but do some math
\_ Rule #632 why you should never buy a condo - stuffy HOAs
telling you what to do.
\_ HOA is not limited to condos.
\_ Don't most new suburban developments these days have
HOAs?
\_ Yes it is very true. Take a look at the Rosedale
Community in Azusa. You have 2 HOAs. One is the North
HOA at $150, and the other one is the South HOA at
about $150. Then there is Mello-Roos that jacks your
property tax to about 1.75%, because the state of
CA no longer can pay for new schools in that new
area. We're talking about "cheap" homes between
$450K to $750K.
http://www.rosedaleazusa.com/community
New SFH today have HOAs in addition to Mello-Roos.
I'm talking about S Cal. N Cal doesn't seem to have
that type of shit, presumably because it's regulated
growth so no need to rebuild schools/pipes/wires.
\_ ^regulated growth^farther from Mexico^
\_ what does Mehico have anything to do with this?
\_ Rub your two brain cells together and you
will figure it out.
\_ I get it, you think IMMIGRANTS cause all
the problems that S Cal has. Yes immigrants
are bad GO BACK HOME IMMIGRANTS!
\_ ILLEGAL immigrants are hard to plan
for and regulate. |
| 2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50526 Activity:moderate |
7/9 Now we know what the definition of "rich" is: $150K/yr/household
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1069753.html
\_ Only $150K, why you poor poor thing.
\_ The GOP has no function in CA, except as obstructionists.
\_ You mean like all those Republican unions that got all of
the Governator's propositions defeated in the 2005 special
election?
\_ I notice you still can't pick one thing that the GOP
has accomplished in California in the last 30 years.
\_ That's because the California State Legislature
has had a Democratic majority for the past 30 years. So
the inability to get anything done is somehow the
minority party's fault? Try again, dumb troll.
\_ In other words, their only function is as
obstructionists.
\_ Sure maybe in the CA Legislature, but the you
must have missed my comment 9 lines above yours.
Oh wait, you're a troll. So you're deliberately
ignoring presented facts.
\_ Somehow the Republicans in Congress get things done
even though they are in the minority and they control
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA? Is it because
the Executive. Why can't the GOP in CA?
\_ You do realize that US Congress has a completely
different legislative process than the state of
California, right? Oh wait, you're a troll.
Is it because
they hold onto a tired and inflexible ideology which
rejects the possibility of compromise? Also, there
rejects the possibility of compromise?
\_ You're nothing but a political homer if you think
California Republicans are the only ones with
an inflexible ideology.
Also, there
have been many GOP "victories" at the initiative level.
Why not trumpet those? The extension of Prop 13 tax
breaks to the decendents of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general Conservative
agenda of advancing inherited wealth over earned wealth.
breaks to the descendants of the original home purchaser
must count as a great victory in the general
Conservative agenda of advancing inherited wealth over
earned wealth.
\_ Prop 13 is older than 30 years old.
How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are Out"?
Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
earned wealth. How about "Three Strikes and You Are
Out"? Surely, breaking the back of the State budget with
overflowing prisons and severely cutting back public
post-secondary education must count as one of the
greatest victories of American Conservatism in the 21st
century. The GOP has always hated great public
institutions like the University of California, and it
looks like you will finally get your long desired goal
of destroying it, or at least severly weakening it. How
about Prop 187? Surely eliminating schooling for the
about Prop 187? Eliminating all schooling for the
children of the poorest must rank as a great victory
in the Class War against The Poor! Isn't it every
Conservatives secret desire to have a house full of
poor, dumb, uneducated servants, too hopeless to be
anything but docile? Eliminating any chance of becoming
literate is surely a huge step in the right direction.
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one donw. C'mon
Oh, that's right, the courts shot that one down. C'mon
fly your flag high, you have lots to be proud of!
\_ So pretty much the California GOP has the courts
against them now too. So, what have CA Dems
accomplished with the deck stacked so heavily in
their favor?
\_ Were you foaming at the mouth when you wrote this
rant?
\_ Yes, because obviously anyone who disagrees with
the GOP is rabid.
\_ That is the most off the rails rant I've read
in months. That has nothing to do with the
target. -!pp
\_ Still waiting for some "successes" from the
CA GOP. Don't the things I listed count
as initiatives they are proud of?
\_ Actually, if you read it it is $321K. The $150K number is just
for a child dependent exemption worth $200.
\- well there are a few way to approach "rich" ... say the
"top 5%, 2%, 1%" in the country/state/"area" and then there is
"doesnt have any money worries" ... can buy any car they want
"within reason", can vacation anywhere they want, no worries
about healthcare expenses, or college tuition for kids, has all
the house they "need". i think we operate in the latter context ...
but if you are "richer" than 98% of "everybody", can you really
say you arent "rich"? rather than picking a wealth/income level,
how would you define "rich"? the "relative income" approach or
the "opportunity" approach or something else? |
| 2008/7/9-13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50508 Activity:high |
7/9 Check out the graph of CA revenue vs spending
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ttws3
\_ CLEARLY, we need to cut pork, like education (for illegal
immigrants), lunch food (for illegal immigrants),
healthcare (for illegal immigrants), transportation (amigos
driving on my I-210). You see it's all about illegal amigos.
Say no to illegals, say yes to tax cuts! !dim
\_ it's hard to tell whether this guy is a nutjob, or is satirizing
nutjobs.
\_ Is this guy one of those "compassionate" conservatives I keep
hearing about? I just *love* his idea of scrapping public
health. Can you say epidemic?
\_ Look at the chart. Notice how spending increases outpace revenue
increases? -op
\_ what a surprise, given relentless tax cuts amidst growing
demand for services. -tom
\_ Next time I spend more more money than I make, instead of
cutting back on my expenses, I will just order my boss to
give me a raise so that I can keep on binge spending. That
is such a great plan, I can't believe I never thought of
it before.
\_ Noone is saying cuts shouldn't be made, but the cuts
this person came up with are beyond dumb. You can
cut services that may very well pay for themselves and
have serious quality of life concerns when they are gone
(even for people who don't directly benfit from them) or
you could go after the real pork like prison overspending.
\_ I agree. I don't agree with the cuts the guy in the url
wants to make. I think some of them are totally nuts. My
point was only that some cuts should be made and that
it is unrealistic for the government to keep demanding
ever increasing taxes to fund pork projects.
\_ How about, next time your are spending about as much
money as you make, you order your boss to give you a
pay cut, since the extra profit the company makes from
paying you less salary will trickle down to you. -tom
\_ This is just bizarre. Revenue was increasing. Spending
increased as well, just faster. I can't see any
evidence of "tax cuts" in the revenue curve.
\_ Well tom's idea is that spending has a natural
positive growth and income should have a similar
growth (by maintaining or increasing taxes). I
don't think he accepts the premise that perhaps
government spending and income shouldn't grow.
Re tom's hypo - perhaps the government should
try spending LESS than it makes and re-thinking
what services are absolutely necessary.
\_ I think my brain just popped. Does tom think that
we should decided spending first and then set
taxes to raise that money?
\_ You can find evidence of tax cuts in the legislative
record. Revenue continued to rise because *more
people came to California*. In 1980 there were
23.7 million people in California; now there are
36.5 million. -tom
\_ Overall state government spending as a percentage
of GDP has been within 1% of 9% since the mid 90s.
It has not gone appreciably up or down.
\_ Inflation-adjusted per-capita spending has
increased over 40% in the last decade.
\_ Please provide evidence for this "fact".
\_ Math is hard.
\_ http://www.caforward.org/dynamic/pages/link_10_135.pdf
\_ link:preview.tinyurl.com/65rpor
[caforward.org]
\_ Personal income has risen much faster
than state spending; obviously the
state's increase in spending is trickling
down to the people of the state.
(NB: a likely flaw in these numbers
is use of incomplete or fudged figures
for inflation.) -tom
\_ So, as a percentage of personal income,
state spending has actually gone down.
As I have asked before, why do you think
that state spending should track
inflation? Most of what the State spends
on is salaries. Shouldn't state spending
track GDP or personal income instead? Why
do you think that State employees should
expect their salaries to constantly lag
behind the private sector?
\_ Government employees in general
are compensated extremely well.
Have their numbers increased or
decreased over time? (Honest Q)
\_ Government employees are not
compensated well compared to
corporate employees; at low levels,
if you include benefits (which
are better for government
employees) people are still
paid a little better in the
industry, and at the high end,
there's nothing in the public
sector anywhere close
to the compenstation given to
industry executives. Their
numbers have increased, as
the population and thus the need
for government services has
increased. -tom
\_ Actually, government employees
are compensated very well.
We're not talking CEOs
here. We're talking rank
and file government employees.
Government jobs are some of
the highest-paying jobs around
*NOT ACCOUNTING FOR* the
ridiculous benefits. You
don't realize it, because
you work in one of the few
fields where the government
underpays. Two of my sisters
work for the gov't (county and
city) and for example the county
just hired a new 24 y.o. civil
engineer with an MS at $120K
per year. The evidence is
not just anecdotal, either.
For example, 2/3 of OC
sheriff's deputies make
$100K+ with the top sheriff
making $221K. Note that this is
not The Sheriff, but a detective.
not The Sheriff, but a
detective.
The average DWP employee makes
$77K. Locksmiths and painters
for DWP make $80K. I read
a gardener for the City made
$100K including overtime
and a transportation coordinator
(coordinates events like LA
Marathon) made $120K base + $60K
overtime. No, the government
pays quite well, the benefits
are good, expectations are low,
and it's hard to be fired.
\_ gee, then why aren't you
working for the government?
How much do you think a
sheriff's deputy should
make? -tom
\_ My industry is one in
which the gov't underpays
unless I move to DC which
I don't want to do. But,
actually, I do work for
the government indirectly.
Not sure what your point
is with that ridiculous
comment anyway. As
for deputies and prison
guards, compare their
salaries with those of
free market security
guards. I think a deputy
should be paid more, but
not *that much* more
to work the mean
streets of Irvine.
BTW, if gov't pay is so
low then why have you been
working for the gov't for
20 years - all through the
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy wealth?
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> era of easy
wealth?
\_ Because I am not
motivated by pursuit
of wealth. -tom
of wealth. (Although
I will note, you have
no clue about my
career.) -tom
\_ I was exaggerating,
but it's been 13
years according to
your own resume.
\_ Your anecdotal evidence is BS, as
I am sure you well know. I have
three family members who work for
State of California and they are
all paid poorly for their level of
experience. One is a DBA, with 20+
years of experience, who makes $80k
one is a programmer, with about 10,
who makes $60k and the last is
a secretary, who makes about $30k.
\_ IT is one of the few areas where
the gov't underpays. I won't
dispute that. However, a
secretary at $30K is about
market value. The average
pay at the DWP is $77K. That
is not anecdotal, and the
average is not brought up by
lots of $800K managers. In
fact, only about 10% of the
workforce makes more than $100K.
If you work for DWP you can
make $70-80K for just about any
job and it's easy money, too.
It's not just the DWP either.
Pay in the public sector is, in
general, below the private sector.
And even if it wasn't, why should
people who work in the public sector
expect their pay to lag and fall
further and further behind? You
cannot even answer this question,
which is why you are trying to change
which is why you are trying to
change
the topic.
\_ I have no interest in answering
that question. I am not the
person to whom it was asked.
I just want to point out that
the government wastes a lot
of money, which should come
as a surprise to no one
other than tom.
\_ Corporations waste a lot of
money, too. -tom
\_ Maybe, but here's the
point you miss:
It's *THEIR* money!
The government's money
is *MY* money.
\_ So? It's not possible
to run a large
organization 100%
efficiently; that
standard is simply
not realistic. -tom
\_ So? SO? You like
handing over your
$$$ to be wasted?!?!
Maybe the gov't
shouldn't be so large
then.
shouldn't be so
large then.
\_ It doesn't bother
me any more to
hand over money
to the government
than to United
Airlines or any
other faceless
corporation.
I think most
governmental
programs have
decent return on
investment. -tom
\_ I can't say I
agree that that
has been true
for many years
now. It was
true once upon
a time. What's
the ROI for
attacking Iraq?
D'oh!
\_ State spending as a percentage of GDP has remained
essentially unchanged since the late 80's:
http://www.cbpp.org/7-31-07sfp-f2.jpg
\_ http://www.urban.org/publications/1001173.html
"State and local revenues have been relatively stable over the
last 30 years..."
Sorry to bust your bubble, buddy. |
| 2008/6/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50327 Activity:kinda low |
6/22 Who Ruined California Public Schools?
http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=267
Is it true that CA is 42nd in school spending? By what measure?
\_ Oh yes, blame it on Prop 13. Why do you hate tax cuts?
\_ No, it's a simple lie. CA spending has been well outpacing
inflation, and enrollment has actually declined significantly.
\_ Other states could still have raised their spending more.
Do you have any data that supports your claim?
\_ Which means nothing. Performance has almost no correlation
with spending.
\_ So does that mean you have changed your tune and now
agree that CA is 42nd in school spending?
\_ Not the PP and I'm not sure what the right number
is, but it has nothing to do with Prop 13 as CA tax
revenues are the same as they always were.
\_ You need to explain what you mean by "the same as
they always were". Same in nominal dollars, in
inflation adjusted dollars, in inflation adjusted
per capita dollars or as a percentage of GDP dollars.
Those are all pretty different things.
\_ http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG186.sum.pdf
We used to spend 4.5% of total income on education,
now we spend 3.5%.
\_ Enrollment has declined since 1978? Are you crazy? |
| 2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50284 Activity:high |
6/17 Obama the Marxist
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qxoqt [wsj.com]
"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of
workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure
that wealth is distributed more equitably.
\_ Highly unequal wealth is generally considered bad. In the past
the government of the united states WAS concerned when regular wages
stayed stagnant or dropped while the upper 1% gained a higher
percentage of the pie. That's not Marxism, no matter what your
Libritarian echo chamber says.
\_ Grive me Librity or grive me Dreath!
\_ Thank god, I can't wait to see tax rates go to pre-Reagan
era. Fuck globalization and trickle down to China economy,
it was a dumb idea in the beginning, and a complete
disaster in practice.
\_ Sorry but you're either incredibly stupid or ignorant if you
want to go back to the Carter era economy. Compared to then,
this is a golden time for the economy for rich, middle class,
and poor. Or wait, there's a third option I forgot: you're
a troll which is why you keep mentioning Reagan; you're looking
to draw someone out on how great Reagan was or something.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the early 70s.
\_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the late 70s.
\_ You gonna support the shit you just made up from
your ass, liberal?
\_ What shit? That in the Carter era we had double digit
inflation, we voted in prop 13 to save people from
outrageous property taxes and that the country was
headed downhill in a huge way as stated by Carter
himself in a major speech? If you don't know those
things then as I said you're either ignorant, a troll,
or just plain dumb. I'm pretty sure you're a troll.
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a Conservative:
\_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a
Conservative:
link:preview.tinyurl.com/3w79k5
From article at:
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
\_ "Public programs that enrich..." Looks like a
socialist advocacy group. Try the Cato Institute
web site if you want to convince me. -pp
\_ Yes, the BLS is such a biased org. So you only
accept facts authorized by the Authorized
accept facts approved by the Authorized
Conservative Statistical Institute? How Stalinist
of you. An overwhelming body of evidence points to
three decades of stagnate wages for the middle
three decades of stagnant wages for the middle
class. Amazing that you have somehow missed it.
\_ Cato Institute > Heritage Foundation, but not by
much.
\_ So, what, you are against technology and automation?
Let's all go back to stone age tech. Let's redistribute all
resources equally to everyone! Actually no, fuck that.
Poor people should have fewer kids.
\_ You're entitled to your extreme thought processes and
belief as do I. -fuck Reagan
\_ You're entitled to your extremely bad grammar.
\_ I'm entitled to have 100 kids because I'm winning
the genetic pool race. PS my kids have US
citizenship, nah nah nah nah nah -fuck Reagan
\_ Believe it or not the world isn't binary. Marxism is one
extreme, yes. However that doesn't mean, say, Pell
grants are Marxist. But Pell grants do have a good track
record of increasing social mobility and in doing so
decreasing the inqequality of wealth. A large, desperately
poor, increasingly hopeless segment of the population is
something any government wants to avoid if it wants to
prosper.
\_ I don't want the government to prosper. I want the
people and the country as a whole to prosper. Providing
some education assistance (or a more reasonably priced
educational price at each institution would really be
more helpful) is helpful. Raising taxes on everyone
and flushing more money down the drain is not helpful
to anyone unless you're one of those government employees
sucking the life out of the rest of us who earn our living
the traditional way: working.
\_ duhhh what? hmmm your dumb
\_ thank you for adding zero content.
\_ Raising taxes on everyone is not good. Raising taxes
on the wealthiest as the income gap continues to
grow makes a lot of sense. Hint: no one earns $1bn
strictly through "working."
\_ No. The folks making tens and hundreds of millions
are mostly hedge fund manger and other NYC financial
types who are taxed at the cap gains rate instead of
the income rate where they belong. That is the only
place you need to change the tax code if you want a
fairer tax on the truly rich. But slamming people
who make $100k in this area with a higher tax rate
because they are 'rich' is just stupid and harmful
to the economy. Raising taxes across the board is
not going to cause economic prosperity.
\_ Agreed. Making income>$1m level pay their fair
share, though, might. $100k is not filthy rich
anymore. --pp
\_ Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make
over $250k, not $100k. If he means family
income, I am screwed, but if he means personal
income, I am still under that.
\_ Screwed? Just how exactly are you "screwed"
if you pay more tax on your $250k?
\_ The dead hand of The State will force me to
quit being productive, drink cheap wine and
die of alcoholism.
\_ I agree, my grandfather worked hard so his descendants
could have the best of everything. Why should I let the
mean old government, at the point of a gun, take away
everything he sacrificed for, just so some truck
driver's son can get some education he will just throw
away anyway.
away anyway. -truck driver's son
\_ Hey, Obama wants to eliminate capital gains taxes on start-ups!
Now that's a Marxism I can get behind.
\_ What is his definition of "start-ups"? |
| 2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50277 Activity:high |
6/17 When I first came to California many years ago my advisor invited
me to his house and gave me an advice that I never really thought
about until recently. It was dead simple, and had nothing to do
with what I was studying-- if you ever buy houses in California,
DON'T SELL THEM. Keep them around, because in time, property tax
will be so low that it'll take an act of stupidity to sell them. As
long as population is booming and as long as people like me flock
to California, property values will only go up, and in time, I will
be a wealthy landlord just like my advisor. That's it! His second
advice was a counter advice of the first one-- don't buy a house in
California unless you're rich enough to hold on to it forever. Why?
Because of Prop 13 which acts like Social Security in many ways.
As long as you're the first recipient, you have a lot to gain from
because newcomers pay more taxes to cover the old timers who are
paying less. In addition, because (he thought) both SS and
Prop 13 ecosystems are not sustainable in the long term, newcomers
will receive much less services when they get old themselves, while
new comers are hit with shit like property tax reset which are
always proportionally much higher than pre Prop 13 taxes, as well
as Mello-Roos, an additional 1% on taxes to pay for services that pre
Prop 13 taxes used to cover. In another word, people who gained the
most were those who joined the game early on while those who are
new to the game (me) will simply pay exorbitant amounts of money
with proportional gains that will only decrease in time. Hmmmmm.
So basically-- my advisor's advice to me was pretty much: newcomers
are pretty much screwed because they're late in the game, but if
they ever get sucked into the game, don't leave. Thanks for coming
to California Joe!
\_ California is full, go home.
\_ No please stay. The longer you stay, the higher value my
home is. -home owner
\_ Your advisor's advice to you was: buy as early as possible and
don't sell. Sounds likes good advice.
\_ Holding onto a property that is not making enough rent is
stupid as hell. Sell the house and invest in something that's
actually making you money. Property tax is not a reason to
hold onto a losing investment.
\_ In California, even if you put down 20% on normal homes
(decent location, decent crime rate, etc), you're mostly
likely still not going to make enough rent for the first
decade or so.
\_ Only if you're an idiot who buys without considering
cash flow. If you only buy SFR in areas where rents
are low compared to prices then sure. Don't do that.
\_ *BUYING* a property that is not making enough rent is
stupid. No one said to be stupid about buying.
\_ There's all sorts of reasons you can end up with
property that's a bad rental. Maybe it was a previous
home. Maybe you inherited it. I'm just saying that
buy early and never sell is not a given.
\_ It wouldn't be buying if you inherited it.
\- it's unclear what you advisor's "objective function" was,
and i am guessing he is not an economist, but what an economist
\_ right he's not an economist. He's one of those jolly
old guys who love drinking and talking shit and always
says things like "LIVE SIMPLE & BE HAPPY!" and "BUY
LOTS OF PROPERTIES IN CA AND NEVER SELL, TRUST ME!"
\_ This advice makes sense if you were a Baby Boomer,
which this guy probably is. Our lives are more
complicated.
\_ I think the moral of the story is you should have
bought properties when you were 5 years old.
\_ I'm 27, is it more complicated than a 35 year
old, and even more complicated than a 45 year?
\_ no. life is no more complicated now than then.
oh wait, we have the intartubes now and ipods so
gosh i guess life is really hard now not like
the people who fought in ww2, got schooled on the
gi bill and bought houses in the 60s. those
guys had it easy.
\_ You are confusing Boommers with the WWII
generation. People who were born after WWII
would not have had a chance to fight in it.
would not have had the chance to fight in it.
\_ I'm not confusing it at all. Few of those
wwii vets came out and bought a house. They
went to school, they saved up, then bought
later. So someone buying in the 60s was
likely a wwii vet. Someone born in 1945
would have been 20 in 1965 and not buying
a house. None of which has anything to do
with anything on this thread.
\_ I think most people born in the late
40's bought their first house right out
of college. I know my parents, who were
born in 42 & 45, bought their first house
in 1968. It was easier to buy a home in
California those days.
\_ My advisor said when he first got his
BS in the 70s his salary was about
$10K/yr and homes were $20K/yr, and
it wasn't a big deal getting a house
1-2 years after you graduated. A
lot has changed since then.
\_ A lot of veterans bought houses when
returning from the war. That's when
cheap tract housing became popular. In
CA there were a lot of houses built
in the 1920s, but very little in the
1930s (Depression) and then a big
boom in 1945-1950s or so when returning
vets came back, took factory jobs (or
similar) and bought homes. Even now
in much of the country two people
with union manufacturing jobs or even
something less well paid like call
center operators can buy a nice home in a
safe neighborhood.
would tell you is "people move too little" and would make more
money if they were more open to moving because of jobs. but
of course that in turn doesnt factor in quality of life issues
[like how much of a premium would you have to be paid to move
to the fresno branch of your office for a year? $50k? $100k?].
but once you start including more than NPV in the calculus,
you have to start considering that in terms of house purchase
too. if having three kids is important to you, that may affect
you housing decisions. also, when you no longer need the
services of a local good scholl district, it might not make
sense to keep paying for it. imagine how much more expensive
SF real estate would be if the schools were palo alto level.
\_ Not that much more. Reason: Most people who can afford SF
can afford private school and would likely put their kids
in private school even if they lived in Palo Alto.
\_ I'm not sure that most means what you think it does.
Here's a hint, there's a hell of a lot of kids in
SF public schools.
\_ Sure, but how many are there by choice?
\_ There are some very good public schools in SF, as good
as the schools in PA. The trick is getting your kid into
them.
\- look at percentage of WHITE CHILDREN in SF public
schools as you go from low grades to high school.
it's amazing how non-white SF public high schools are.
\_ So, what is your point? That only white children
can be good students?
\_ White kids don't go to SF public schools.
Either there are none living in SF (possible) or
they are going to private schools anyway.
\_ This is mostly true. About 10% of the kids in
school are white, while 30% of the population
is (non-hispanic) white. 20% of the students
are in private school, so I think you can
figure out where they went. |
| 2008/6/1-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50116 Activity:nil |
6/1 question for MOTD Armchair Economists, are home prices in CA
artificially high because of old people homeowners and Proposition 13?
are rents artificially high because property value is so high?
are rents really artificially skewed in the Bay Area because land
is more precious than gold, Prop 13, rent control and what the hell
throw in all powerful fabulous and fabulously wealthy gay couples?
\_ according to Master Dimwit, they are high because of speculation.
Speculators think it'll be high, so they keep buying until...
they're too high for speculators. In all seriousness, dimwit
will most likely say something to the effect of free-market,
supply and demand, etc.
\_ Bay Area is more expensive because of several reasons. One is
a much much stricter land use control. Lots of areas are reserves
and hippies from Sierra Club fight to preserve whatever land is
available in the Bay Area, so developers have less land to build.
The other reason is average income. N Cal on average has higher
income and educational level and attracts more immigrants who
are well educated or well to do. In contrast LA has been the
manufacturing and service hub of CA and attracts different types
of immigrants and workers. In addition LA has been sprawling
crazy in the past few decades so homes are plentiful and
cheap and attracts a much diverse populace, from those who are
super rich all the way to those who are super poor. Proposition
13 is just one of the few components, and just as important
as Prop 13 is the low property tax, which drives demand from
investors from all over the world who hold on to their investments
for decades but don't really use (look at all the empty and
expensive homes in Arcadia and San Marino), since homes in CA
have much lower tax to deal with (compared to say 3% prop tax
in Texas), which make properties in CA very good long term
investments. CA properties attract certain types of buyers
(investors) similarly to FL properties that attract certain
types of buyers (criminals... because properties in FL are not
repossessed even if you go bankrupt). All of these things make
\_ WTF are you talking about? If you don't pay your mortgage
in FL you lose your home just like anywhere else.
\_ In FL, if you paid off your home and then declare bankruptcy,
they can't repossess your property back. This is why
Al Capone "invested" heavily in FL properties, and ditto
with many criminals.
\_ You are confused about the Homestead Exemption:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/63bs5f
(No need to read the whole thing, just read the five
states that allow unlimited HE, FL is not one of them)
Also, Federal bankruptcy code changes have considerably
limited this kind of protection.
\_ Dude! Capone! Obviously we are still living in the
30s! Now why aren't you wearing a suit and hat?
CA homes highly desirable, which then drive up huge demands from
all over the world, which then drive up prices. It's all
inter-related.
\_ What makes you think rents are too high and if they are too high
then why do people pay them? All things considered I find rents
in CA reasonable compared to income. I can't believe people pay
$1000/month to live in places like Alabama. (I own a rental
home in Alabama so I know what rents there are.) |
| 2008/1/17-23 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:48962 Activity:high |
1/17 Bond insurers go foom. MBI/ABK down 31%/51% respectively.
\_ What is this, Bloomberg?
\_ are you kidding? we're better than that.
\_ Geez, just http://finance.google.com, you can see it.
\_ I think he's asking why lame financial headlines are
being posted here.
\_ Yes, exactly. If you want to start a disucssion about the
state of the economy, that is fine, but up to the minute
stock ticker info is not going to do it.
\_ Oh, I'm pretty sure this is housing bust gloating. -pp
\_ As I explained to my desperate-renter-wants-to-be-a
-home-owner-waiting-for-big-housing-bust coworker:
As a home owner I don't care at all what housing
prices do except on two days: the day I buy and the
day I sell. All the ups/downs in between mean
nothing to me.
\_ That's fine, but it's obvious your co-worker DOES
care, because he wants to buy, and wants a good
deal. So why even say this to him?
\_ Because he's an ass.
\_ You have it backwards. The guy was
sending gloaty email links and smothering
lunch chats with bad housing news smirking
at the home owners. I simply explained to
him the way I and likely many other home
owners view the ups and downs of housing
prices. Are you one of the bitter-renters?
\_ I'm a renter who wants to be a home owner, but
do not yet know much about owning a home. Does
the housing price fluctuations affect your
property tax? (Don't you pay a percentage of
increase in value? What about if the value
decreases?) Also, I'd imagine it would matter
if you ever need to take out a new load against
your home. Feel free to clue me in.
\_ In CA, price fluctuations aren't really an
issue because of Prop 13. If valuations
fall below the assessed value, then yes
your tax can be lowered. However, since
increases are capped at 1% per year and
the rate of appreciation generally is more
than that, it is rare that homeowners worry
about it. It is safe to assume that your
property tax is ~fixed here in CA. Other
states do things differently.
\_ I would not be surprised to see Prop 13
modified in the next decade.
\_ No one is going to push to have other
people's taxes raised. If anything they
will push to have their own lowered. But
I seriously doubt anyone really has any
clue what their neighbors are paying
anyway so this whole line of thought is
just silly. What are your neighbors
paying in property taxes? Do you know?
\_ Yes, I know. Just look on
http://propertyshark.com. People push to have
other people's taxes raised all the
time, you just aren't paying attention.
What do you think Hillary's campaign
promise to raise the top rate to 39.6%
is?
\_ I would. Homeowners are a big voting
block. Who would vote to change it?
\_ Everyone who bought a home after 1999,
once they realize they are paying 10x
in taxes than the neighbor who bought
in 1977, for the same services. I don't
think it will go away, just reindexed
to inflation, not inflation minus 1.
\_ They won't ever know what their
neighbors are paying. And if the
taxes hurt that much they'll want
theirs lowered, not their
neighbor's raised.
\_ That's how it works. You pay
more today to get a break in
the future when you are
(presumably) retired. I don't
have a problem that my
neighbor who moved here in the
1940s pays less tax than I do.
He bought his house for less,
too. I can't worry about that.
\_ Nobody cares if they paid less
when they bought the house.
That's just pure strawman.
\_ You can worry about whatever you
like. My neighbors on each side
own many rental properties. Even
combining them all, they probably
pay less in property taxes for
much more city services than I do
Why should these multi-
millionaires get subsidized by
everyone else? In the long run,
taxes should keep up with
inflation (or even GDP), unless
you want service levels to fall,
which is what has happened to
CA over the years. The voters
are slowly coming to realize
this fact.
\_ Ah here it is: class warfare
jealousy and envy. They pay
less because they were smart
enough to get in early. You
are now locked in at your
current rate and your future
neighbors will want to know
why you pay less than them.
Think your taxes should rise
to their level just as you're
retiring?
\_ If property tax exists for
a reason, then it should
be raised if it needs to
be raised. I don't see
how you justify your
position. If you extend
the idea into the future
for all possible market
scenarios you see that it
is unsustainable. The
focus should be on keeping
the overall rate low, not
arbitrarily locking rates.
Capping the amount it can
rise per year would seem
prudent, but not making
that 0. It's not just
about fairness but market
efficiency: in my
experience people become
really "attached" to their
low tax rates.
\_ We effectively cap
property tax rates
because people should
not be taxed out of
their homes. This is
still the U.S. the last
I checked where the
people are more
important than
government revenue. If
the gvt needs more $$$
they should cut the
pork and increase
efficiency. I've
worked for both state
and federal gvt for
many years. There is
tons of room for pork
cutting. They make
large corps look like
models of efficiency.
\_ No, they pay less than me
because they were born a
generation earlier than me,
and then rigged the game in
their favor, not because they
were "smarter," as you claim.\
Property taxes should pay for
the city services required
to support them. Consistently
charging less than inflation
guarantees that this cannot
happen. Why should others
have to pay the tax burden
shifted to them? Who should
pay taxes instead of the
homeowner? Streets, schools,
police and fire protection
are not free. And even if you
did cut city services, the
anomaly of early owners
gaming the system in their
favor still remains. Why do
mostly wealthy older home
owners deserve a tax break at
the expense of everyone else?
I think the idea of a tax
break for an owner occupied
residence with a low income
senior citizen in it is great
but this not what Prop 13
does.
That's still not an argument for prop 13. Cut _/
pork, great, benefit everyone. So what.
\_ Prop 13 only caps property tax rates if you
hold on to the house. If you sell, which
most people do, the rates catch up. Property
tax revenues are plenty high and do a job
tax revenues are plenty high and do a good
job of beating inflation. BTW, it's easy to
find out what your neighbor pays for tax if
you want to know. Why should you care?
Should a family of eight pay more property tax
than a single homeowner? They use more services.
It really sucks to live in a state where the
tax is not capped. In many states property
values doubled or tripled in the last few
years. Would you like your tax to go from
$3K to $9K a year just because speculators
are moving the market? How can anyone plan
and budget for that? It has nothing to do
with the cost of services tripling either.
No, I think CA got it right. If the state
needs more revenue then tax income.
\_ Adjusting Prop 13 so that property taxes
go up with inflation after purchase, instead
of inflation minus one, would not cause
of two percent a year, would not cause
anyone's tax to go from $3k to $9k in one
year. Go fight that Straw Man somewhere else.
\_ Whose definition of inflation and why?
They are already keeping up with inflation.
$10.3 BB before Prop 13 = $35 BB in 2006.
(calculated from CPI).
Actual amount collected in 2006 = $38 BB
From Howard Jarvis:
"Despite Prop 13's restrictions,
today's government in California
collects the same 16% of personal
income in taxes, fees and assessments
that it collected before Proposition
13 passed. Today, the government in
California collects and spends per
capita in constant dollars -
that is, incorporating population
growth and inflation growth -
more than it taxed and spent per
capita in 1978."
What has changed is the distribution
of taxes:
1977:
Schools: 53%, Counties 30%, Cities 10%,
Other 7%
2006:
Schools: 38%, Counties 26%, Cities
18%, Other 18%
Any homeowners, like Tom, who feel
they aren't paying enough property tax
are free to write a check out for
more. It's easier to steal money from
other people instead, though.
\_ Right and all you have done is steal
money from other taxpayers to reward
homeowners for voting for you. The
overall tax burden is the same, it has
just shifted away from property tax, to
one that is less reliable (mostly
sales and income). Jarvis lies with
statisics, btw, since the per capita
inflation adjusted property tax burden
has gone down. You forget the per capita
part in your calculation there. Here,
\_ Presumably the increase in
population is a major driver in
"inflation" so it is accounted for.
\_ No.
I will present you with a logic problem:
Since the overall state spending per
person has stayed the same since 1970
\_ So why are the State's infrastructure
and schools falling apart? Sounds
like poor spending decisions. IOW,
where's the problem then if
there's plenty of money already?
Why abolish Prop 13 to give the
government more?
\_ That is a good question, but
Prop 13 doesn't have anything
to do with it. "Three Strikes
You're Out" is one reason.
You're Out" is the biggest reason.
The State is spending much more
on prisons that it used to. The
rest of the answer is not worth
going into as a tangent on the
motd. You abolish Prop 13 to:
1) eliminate the boom/bust that
goes depending on revenue
so closely aligned with the
business cycle and
2) shift the tax burden back to
the users of the services
where it belongs, instead of
poor schmuck third party
\_ What poor schmuck third
party is that? Everyone
uses the services. As
for boom/bust, I think
abolishing Prop 13 is
the wrong way to go
about that. You know
that what will happen
is that everyone will
pay higher property
taxes and overall burden
will also go up,
because the State can't
stop spending like
drunken sailors.
\_ I already established that
per capita real spending
has been constant, so give
up with the drunken
sailors theme already. I
would prefer to see other
taxes, like sales tax, go
down as property tax went
up.
\_ Where is your evidence
that the State spends
like drunken sailors?
As best as I can tell,
inflation adjusted per
capita spending has been
near constant, with a dip
after 1977, but then an
increase in the 90s, so
that we are back to where
we were in 1970 (and less
as a percentage of GDP,
the traditional way to
measure tax burden).
we were in 1970.
link:preview.tinyurl.com/386grn
(PDF)
\_ We are spending
the same, but doing
less with it. If
we had to do as
much as before,
then we'd have to
spend a lot more.
That's why people
want to raise
taxes - the
amount of money
we used to spend
isn't cutting it.
My solution is to
figure out what
we're blowing
money on and stop
it. Then we won't
have to choose
between services
and high taxes.
Throwing more
money at the
problem is not a
solution. Revenues and
expenditures are same
as ever and yet the
infrastructure is
deteriorating. The
Throwing more money
at the problem is not
a solution. Revenues
and expenditures are
the same as ever and
yet the infrastructure
is deteriorating. The
problem is we're not
spending where we need
to, not that property
taxes ar too low.
taxes are too low.
\_ While you're busy trying to
prove that it's better for
people if you tax people
instead of corporations, why
don't you also try to prove
that US corporations don't
benefit from the public
education system. -tom
\_ I'm just responding to
the person who wants
to tax based on
services used. A single
person also benefits
from public education,
but where do you draw
the line on which
services you use and do
not use? Therefore,
it's better to just
charge everyone (including
corporations) the same.
(in real dollars) and the proportion
of tax revenue from property tax has
declined, then the per person amount
of (real) property tax has _____.
A) Declined
B) Increased
C) Can't tell from information provided
D) I don't know
\_ Q: Why should we care? A: because we pay tax.
S: most people sell A: not if they can help
it because after a while that tax base is too
big of an economic advantage to pass up, so
it dicks with normal market forces. My family
benefits a lot from prop 13 but it also
complicates things because it adds this weird
disincentive for them to sell their property.
They just hang on to stuff because they are
more profitable for rentals. I hate when gov't
tax schemes dick with markets.
Q: like your tax to go from $3K to $9K a year
A: There are many ways to prevent someone's
tax going 3-9k in 1 year besides locking their
tax base completely.
\_ It's not locked. It adjusts 2% per
year plus whatever happens from sales.
That seems reasonable. If you are in
favor of a cap you are in favor of
Prop 13 and the only question is what
the cap is. Most states have no cap at all.
\_ What the cap is makes a huge difference.
2% beats inflation, so in some place
where the home market was flat the base
goes down in practical terms. 10% would
basically be acceptable to me. I'm not
really in favor of a cap, I'm just
saying I wouldn't really complain if
it was at least matched to inflation.
\_ I am actually in favor of a cap, because
I can see the advantage of giving
homeowners more predictability over their
tax bill. But it should be inflation and
I think it should be retroactively
adjusted back for homeowners since 1978.
Okay, I know the latter will not happen.
\_ The real scam of Prop 13 is that it was sold
to people based on the story of the aging
grandmother taxed out of her too-valuable
house, but the major dollar beneficiaries
are corporations, who own more valuable
real estate and turn it over less often. -tom
\_ To prevent corporations from getting any
tax benefits we should make sure to put
all the people on fixed incomes into the
streets. Great plan. Very humanitarian.
Perhaps you have a newsletter to which I
can subscribe?
\_ nice strawman. Hint: You could have
a law that taxes corporations
differently than homeowners. -tom
\_ Then again corporations are not
sending kids to school or using public
services to the extent that private
parties do when compared to property
parties due when compared to property
valuations, plus corporations provide
jobs which increases the tax base.
Corporations pay plenty of tax as it is.
Corporations play plenty of tax as it is.
If you make the business environment
more unfavorable to corporations then
you also hurt individuals, most of
whom work for corporations and pay
property taxes out of their earnings.
\_ That's an ideological stance not
backed by any real proof.
\_ Proof that corporations don't send
kids to school? They are paying for
a service they don't directly use.
Please explain why corporations
should pay a different property
tax rate from individuals. What
about a property that switches
from commercial to residential
and back? It's silly to base
property taxes based on use,
unless the use causes for instance
some egregious environmental harm.
Corporations pay plenty of
dollars in taxes as it is, but
they get swept under the rug
because they are "payroll taxes"
when people like to focus on
income taxes. How about we don't
tax earnings and then dividends,
too?
\_ The assertion that it's better
for people if you tax people
instead of corporations is
unproven and unsupported by
evidence. I would argue that
it's silly to cap property tax,
but if you're going to use
Grandma's House as an emotional
argument for Prop 13, it makes
no sense to give corporations
the same tax break as Grandma.
-tom
\_ Maybe grandma is a shareholder.
You have the mentality
that it's okay to screw
over corporations because
they are faceless entities, but
the reality is that we are all
shareholders and customers
of corporations. When you
raise tax on corporations
then who do you think will
pay for that? It's not
like money gets magically
created. Now, I do agree
that one major difference
between a corporation and
a person is that the
corporation will live forever
and never has to transfer
property if it doesn't
wish to. (It would be nice
to know how often this
really happens.) So maybe
corporate property tax can
reset after some period of
time (e.g. 99 years)?
\_ Who will pay for it? The
corporation. That's why
you tax them. Taxes placed
on corporations don't come
directly out of people's
pockets any more than
taxes placed on people
come directly out of
corporations' pockets.
Chevron had $17 billion in
profit last year; you
really think it needs to
be protected from property
taxes? -tom
\_ The corporation will
pay for it with the
dollars its
customers pay, which
will probably be a
regressive tax in a
lot of instances.
You don't think
Chevron isn't going
to try to pass the
costs along to its
customers? While it may
not be successful in
doing so, you're deluded
if you think they
are just going to
take the money out
of profits (which
also affects investors
like you and me and
probably everyone
with a pension and/or
401k). Or Chevron might
trim costs by laying
off employees.
Whatever happens,
you are redistributing
wealth from Chevron's
customers to the State.
You think this is a
good thing when the
State's budget is as
healthy as it has
been over the past
35 years?! Throw
more money at the State?
\_ Your connection to
reality is strongly
correlated with my
interest in continuing
this discussion.
Goodbye. -tom
\_ The State's budget is
healthy?
\_ Yes, the State
just has a
problem living
within it.
/
If your income jumped up and then
went down year to year, it might
be hard to adjust to it.
\_ Oh please. What the State does is spend every
dime the minute there is a surplus.
\_ http://csua.com/2007/10/31/#48495
\_ I hope this is a lame financial headline and that's it -op |
| 2007/4/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:46435 Activity:nil |
4/24 More on Mello-Roos. Basically it curbes growth and sprawling,
which you poor environmental hippies want anyways:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/91
\_ "The "auto mall" is now common throughout the United States,
but it was invented in California -- not by the auto
industry trying to sell cars, but by local governments
trying to capture sales taxes. The plethora of outlet
malls, entertainment retail centers, and regional malls is
also partly the result of Proposition 13. So is the boomlet
in the creation of new cities in the last twenty years --
because for the first time in history, a California
community could incorporate by transferring money out of
the county treasury rather than raising taxes. Many of
California's sprawling regional development patterns are
the result of Proposition 13 also."
What article are you reading?
\_ That article is kidding itself if it thinks all of this is
a result of Prop 13. All of that crap has happened in
non-Prop 13 states, too. |
| 2007/4/23-25 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:46415 Activity:very high |
4/22 What exactly is the "maler-roos" on new properties? Why is the
property tax rate close to 2% instead of 1%?
\_ A little history on CA tax:
1978: Reaganomics advocates-- "Tax cut is good for everyone! "
Prop 13 of 1978 will cut slacks for existing land &
property owners, allow self-reliance, force government fat
to be cut, and kick start trickle-down economy!
\_ Were you here in CA in 78? Your version of how this
went down has nothing to do with reality.
1979-1981: Uh, we fucked up. We lost so much revenue that we no
longer have money to fund government fat like public parks,
new transits, new bike lanes, and public schools.
\_ New bike lanes? I'll bet they stopped funding linux too!
Schools got as much/kid then as now. It is *how* it is
spent that matters, not the total number. And the *how*
is that it is being pissed away on excess administation
and fake special programs while the bulk of students get
crap education.
\_ reference for school spending, please
\_ CA state budget is higher than ever before. 40% of
budget is mandated to be spent on schools, which was
not true in 1978. Do math.
\_ Your claim was based on $/kid; please provide a
reference. (Extra credit if it's adjusted for
inflation.) -tom
1982: Henry Mello & Mike Roos-- It's ok! We'll double the
cost of property tax for *future* homeowners and since
they're not here to speak for themselves, the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act will get passed easily and save
all of our problems!
\_ Because forcing old people on fixed incomes to sell their
homes so they could eat is always a good idea and the
morally right thing to do.
\_ This is, and always has been a red herring. The largest
beneficiary of Prop 13 tax cuts is not old people on
fixed incomes, but corporations. If we really cared
about old people, we could have made Prop 13 apply
only to residences, but that's not what it's about.
Corporations not only own more valuable property, they
also resell property less often. -tom
\_ I ask again: were you here in CA in 78? I was. There
were for sale signs everywhere. People were leaving
the state young and old because they couldn't afford
their property taxes. If corporations got a free ride
along the way, so be it, they weren't the ones who
voted on it, nor were they the ones who came up with
the idea.
\_ People were leaving the state because of complex
reasons. Property tax was simply one of the
many components. Trying to fix the root of the
problem by adjusting proprety tax is like
the Feds trying to stabilize an extremely
complex & globalized economy with 10000 of
knobs and switches with this single knob
called the interest rate knob. It's absurd.
\_ Were you here in 1978? I was. When your
neighbors tell you they are selling because
they can't afford it and it's the same story
in the newspapers, tv, everywhere, I'd go for
that long before I'd accept your "well there
was other stuff too but I won't mention any of
it, just claim that your thing is absurd".
None of this stuff is a big secret. Apply
browser.
\_ You keep repeating this unverified claim
that you were here in 1978. Who are you?
How old were you in 1978? How does your
anecdotal evidence outweigh all other
input to this discussion? -tom
\_ Real estate is not a large part of expenses for
most businesses. It's labor, of course. For most
corporations it's in the noise and they are
depreciating the properties anyway. Many of them
lease, too. Do you know what the average property tax
rate was before Prop 13?
\_ Throwing a lot of stuff at the wall there, aren't
you? None of it sticks; if corporations don't
mind paying more property tax, Prop 13 is totally
stupid, since it gives them more tax benefit than
it does homeowners. And whether corporations
buy or lease their space, they receive the benefits
of the lower property tax. Non-residential
property taxes *dropped* by 5% from 1991 to 2001,
during the largest increase of property values
in CA history. -tom
\_ Who gets more of a benefit?:
Me, saving $2K of my, say, $100K salary or
a corporation saving $50K of their, say, $100
million revenues? I think it's clear I do.
I am not sure I understand your last
sentence. Are you saying total revenues
dropped? You do realize that the commercial
property market was not part of 'the
largest increase in property values',
right? It's very possible that commercial
property taxes might rise even as residential
home values fall. In fact, I predict that.
\_ You really have no idea how much corporate
real estate is worth, do you? Property
taxes on a big commercial building go
into the millions of dollars. So, you
saving $2K get hurt because you lose more
than $2K worth of services due to Prop 13
and the relief it gives corporations. Plus,
cities then do things like raise sales tax
(CA: highest in nation), which, guess what,
you pay! -tom
\_ How much do you think commercial real
estate is worth? The most expensive
skyscrapers sell new for a few
hundred million dollars. Most
buildings are far less. So even if I
own 100% of the TransAmerica building
(whose property taxes are paid for by
many tenants and not just one) then
the property tax is still only a
couple of million per year. How much
in revenues is generated there? Your
typical industrial building is only
worth a few million, which is at
most 10x a house, and yet revenues
are likely much more than 10x higher.
As for sales taxes, CA's are not that
much higher than anywhere else.
\_ No matter what the corporations pay in
taxes it will get passed down to the
consumer. And corporations doing well
isn't necessarily the horrible thing you
imply considering how much retirement
money is invested in these same corps and
how many people they employ, etc. The
anti-corpo screed is insufficient to make
an honest claim that prop 13 was bad for
the people of california.
\_ It's clearly bad for everyone who
doesn't own property in CA. It's
very likely bad (negative total
ROI) for residential homeowners. It's
not even clear that homeowners pay
less tax, overall, due to Prop 13.
It's clearly good for major commercial
real estate holders. -tom
\_ It reduces carrying costs for
real estate holders, which
means they can charge less rent
and/or develop the land more
intensely. I am guessing that this
is a net benefit to the economy in
terms of taxes. Imagine if
property taxes were back at 20%
like they were. Who do you
think would be doing business
here? What would the tax base be?
Low property taxes are even
good for people who don't own
land, because they (renters and
consumers) carry the costs
anyway, as alluded to above.
\_ Corporations don't just "pass on"
costs. They charge what the
market will bear, no more and
no less. It is important to
understand the difference between
the two ideas. -ausman
\_ I understand economics, but
property tax is a fixed
cost. It will be paid
even if the land lies
fallow. (In fact, for
this reason high property
tax encourages sprawl,
since the cost of holding
land is high.) There can
be no market at all and
yet the taxes are still
due. This is different
from most expenses. The
tax represents pretty
much the baseline cost of
holding the property. If
an owner were to lease
for less than the taxes
owed, he'd rather just let
the property go rather than
take a loss on it to hold it.
So when the tax increases, so
does this "minimum rent".
E.g., I have to rent my
house for ~$400/month just
to cover the property taxes
- $700/month if I just
bought it. This is *with*
Prop 13 if I paid *cash*
for the house.
\_ BofA building just sold for $1B:
http://www.csua.org/u/ijt
\_ Which is too expensive and unusual,
as the article says. The most expensive
building in LA just sold for $600 million
and most of the office towers are ~$300M.
But even using this ($1B) figure, it's
still just $10M/year in tax. I pay
~4% of my income in property tax. If
I bought my house new it would be
~8%. So the equivalent in revenues
is still around $200M/year. I am
guessing that the businesses housed
there will have more than $200M in
revenues per year for the operations
based in that building. I am
guessing a *LOT* more, given the
(presumably high) salaries of people
working there. Actually, doing the
math in the article (1.3M sq feet @
$75/foot) shows they are hoping to
lease it for $100M/year, which means
10% of the rents would go to property
tax. Using my own house as an
example, I pay ~$24K/year rent and
$4K/year in property tax so my
burden is higher. Why would you want
to eliminate Prop 13 when it helps
me more? (Being I have a higher tax
burden.) Now factor in that most of
the corp tenants (other than the landlord)
are probably paying much less as a
percentage of revenues in property
taxes. If you double property tax
then my burden goes to, say, 33%
(where it was in the 1970s) and the
landlords goes from 10% to 20%. Who
will be more hurt by that? BofA or me?
Now, if you want to eliminate Prop
13 for commercial buildings (as some
propose) that is something else
entirely.
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're
not saying anything."
\_ Prop 13 benefits homeowners
more than businesses. That's
the gist. To say otherwise is
ridiculous and to repeal it
completely would be ludicrous.
1990-2007: Future homeowners paying 2X property tax-- Why the
fuck is my property tax bill near 2X my parent's rate?
\_ The rates are known before you buy your house and directly
impact the sales price. If property taxes were lower the
house base price would be higher. Your monthly wouldn't
change.
\_ Google will find you more info under "Mello-Roos"
\_ The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 was a reaction
to 1978 Prop 13's cutting of property tax for existing home
owners while not cutting back on government spending.
In layman's explanation, Prop 13 in 1978 cut taxes while gov
fat remained so money had to come from elsewhere. Thanks to
rich people like you, your 2% prop tax (w/ Mello-Roos)
benefits everyone else, including those who are only paying
1% tax on nice (but older) homes. Thanks rich guy!
\_ This is not true. Mello-Roos is a special assessment that
applies mostly to new development, to pay for things like
sewers, roads and schools in new areas. The beneficiaries
of the tax pay the tax.
\_ Yes, it is true that the beneficiaries of the tax pay the
tax. In theory, that is absolutely correct.
\_ To some extent. In the future, the bonds will be paid
off and future owners of the same house may not pay
the tax despite being beneficiaries of it. |
| 2007/3/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:46139 Activity:nil |
3/28 David Brooks apparently hasn't read his Orwell - says the new
Right-wing paradigm is "security leads to freedom"
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/opinion/29brooks.html?hp
and Glenn Greenwald's response:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/29/brooks/index.html
\_ With or without the Orwellian tint, it's closer to the zeitgeist than
the tax cuts/Prop 13 of the 80s. |
| 2007/2/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45643 Activity:moderate |
2/2 http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=289 Link that talks about how CA spends $3200 per capita now versus $1240 (inflation adjusted) in the 1960s. \_ Thanks for the link. Do you know where he got those statistics? I am actually most interested in what local+state taxes collected have looked like over time, both inflation adjusted and as a percentage of income. I know there was a big shift from local to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to kind of distort the number that McClintock reports here. to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to distort the number that McClintock reports here. \_ I assumed that he meant *ALL* taxes in CA (local+state), but I really don't know. Obviously, if State doubled and local fell in proportion then it's just cooking the books. I think we are both interested in *TOTAL* spending and re-reading what McClintock wrote it seems like he might be referring only to State spending. You might want to read the following, though: http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/Jun98/jun98-4.htm It reports that total spending is higher now than it was, although not so much higher. Look at the chart on this page: http://www.caltax.org/research/taxspend.htm \_ Yeah, I also would like to know if McClintock measured from "peak to peak" or "trough to peak" as these kinds of factors make a huge difference. The first caltax article measures spending as a percentage of GDP, which is probably a better measure than inflation adjusted anyway, since the things that government spends money on (health care, education, bridges and roads) has on (health care, education, bridges and roads) have increased in price faster than inflation. This is \_ Government always over-pays for everything. This is not a surprising finding. probably not a conincidence. The second caltax article \_ We are in agreement here. probably not a coincidence. The second caltax article measures overall tax burden, which is mostly because the federal government overtaxes Californians compared to the rest of the country, because of the relatively high wages here. \_ So what have our reps done to correct this imbalance? I haven't checked but my bet is on "nothing". \_ You are surprised that after 12 years of GOP dominated Congress that pork tends to flow from blue states to red states? What could the (Democratic) California caucus have done about that? Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi will even things out a bit. \_ Oh please, what did they do in the previous 50 years of Dem control? The same nothing. This has nothing to do with the evuuul GOP and everything to do with tax'n'spend. Nancy isn't going to even anything out. If Hillary was elected in 08 and the Dems had both houses, there would still be no cost/location based federal tax system that accounted for living in higher price/wage states. It isn't even on anyone's radar. \_ We used to get a larger percentage of our taxes dollars back. I don't think that the Democrats are going to lower my taxes. I do think they will start diverting tax money from Republican favored states (wars, defence contractors, etc) to Democratic favored states (mass transit, public health care, etc). \_ I don't want a larger portion of federal tax dollars coming back to the state. I want them to take into account that I live in a more expensive area with higher wages and thus need more money to maintain the same standard of living as someone making half as much in some other states and lower my tax bracket. I agree that the Dems won't lower anyone's taxes, but you're off base in claiming that "Republican States" are the "War States" and "Democratic States" are the peace loving, we take care of our people states. CA is chock full of military bases, defense contractors, etc. I used to live with in get-nuked range of a nuclear sub base and related defense contractors in CT. They are in every state. I also don't see the Dems unporking the budget since they invented the concept, although the last Repub. government honed that skill to a fine point. They're the same, we're all hosed either way. \_ You are full of it. CA lost most of its military bases in the 80s. \_ You are wrong about spending. CA lost most of its military bases in the 90s. Maybe you are too young to remember. In any case, most of the defence contractors are heavily Republican. Whatever you want to call it, the pork should start flowing our way. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html Shows overall state and local tax burden as exactly the same today as in 1970. And this is from an anti-tax site (!) This site also shows a drop from 1978 to 1995, so at this point it is almost a case of dueling experts: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_998MSRB.pdf \_ My expert can beat up your expert. \_ I think the key point to take away here is that there's at least as much money now as ever. So why is the infrastructure falling apart? \_ That is a really good question and I do not have the answer for it. A small part is that we spend more on prisons, but that can't be the whole answer. \_ While tax revenue increases linearly, waste and corruption increase quadratically. \_ Exactly and most of it is not in the prison system. It is in the k-12 education system. Which is not to say the prisons aren't a big scam, too, just a smaller scam than the k-12 system. |
| 2007/1/30-2/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45617 Activity:high |
1/30 You know what will stop global warming? Energy shortage.
Refinery fubars. Oil peak. Things of that sort. I pray
our oil fields get sabotaged so that our energy costs would be
10X it is now. Then, there would be no more wasteful lifestyles.
No more SUVs and less traffic jams, and most importantly
no more irresposible suburban sprawl. -sierra club urbanite hippy
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ your opinion does not matter.
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ I'm not filthy rich but I don't mind paying extra for
gas if that extra cost comes in the form of a tax that
goes to pay for infrastructure. Our public roads cost
an arm and a leg and someone has to pay for all that
road maintenance, emergency service, and environmental
cleanup. If I use those roads as a luxury (which I do),
then I should pay for my fair share of that road usage.
How much gasoline you consume is a better correlation
than how much money you make in a year. Joe Shmo who
drives his 2500 lbs Honda 5 miles a day probably damages
the road less than soccer mom who drives her 5000 lbs
SUV 20 miles a day.
\- i'm talking about about actual poor people ... which
is relevant if we're talking about "global energy/oil
prices" ... like people who dont have electricty and
only have kerosene lanterns. if we're just talking
about say califnornia slightly more expensive gas
blend for pollution purposes, then those people dont
really factor in, but they do when considering "the
big picture". does your life really change at all
whether gas is $2.25/gal or $2.75/gal? [i'm more
irritated the bay bridge toll is going to $4].
\_ You know all the infrastructure we have came from somewhere
and it wasn't paid for with criminally high levels of
taxation. Ask yourself how the state brings in more money
than ever yet falls further into debt every year while
doing very little to improve infrastructure or even really
maintain what we have now. There is plenty of money, it
is just spent poorly.
\_ I am not so sure that there is plenty of money.
Inflation has made everything so expensive.
Additionally, as the standard of living has risen
so have expectations. One example is that longer
lives have resulted in more medical costs. We never
spent money on lots of expensive procedures and
medications before, because they did not exist. I
think it is obvious that the current standard of
living is not sustainable long-term and will have
to decline to meet the rising standard of living
in the Third World at some less-than-current level.
There really isn't enough money to live like we
have been, hence the national debt.
\_ You were talking about things like public roads and
other infrastructure. Did you know there are 42
levees in CA that are considered New Orleans quality
unsafe? Anyone can see the roads are crap.
Emegency rooms are packed. Follow the money.
Inflation has not eaten the budget. The CA state
budget has ballooned up to gigantic proportions in
the last 15 years while inflation has remained low
and we still keep adding to the debt, selling bonds
and doing very little about our state's failing
infrastructure.
\_ I really don't think that is true. What is
the state spending, per person and adjusted
for inflation and how does it compare with past
years? I am sure we spent more per person back
in the Pat Brown "golden years" when California
was able to make the desert bloom, build a
great transportation network and a world class
university system. Nowadays, since Prop 13,
no one wants to pay for new schools, so we
are just living off stuff built and paid
university system. Nowadays, with things like
Prop 13, no one wants to pay for new schools,
so we are just living off stuff built and paid
for by our parents. That, compounded with the
sprawling McMansion problem, gives us a need
for more roads and less money to pay for them.
All the illegals don't help.
\_ I am the person who mentioned emergency
rooms. I wasn't saying that inflation per
se is the cause. We spend 2x the money per
capita now than we did 40 years ago, even
adjusting for inflation. When I say
'inflation' what I am saying is that costs
have risen because of increased standards.
That is, we are getting more for our
money. My example was medical treatment.
\_ So you think the MediCal program
is the cause of limited infrastruct-
ure spending?
Health care costs a lot more now than it
did then, even adjusted for inflation, but
we received more for it. More regulations
we receive more for it. More regulations
(e.g. environment), longer lifespans, and
illegal immigration are all things that
are costing the State money that were not
really big issues in the 1950s. Add to
\_ How does longer living people cost
the state money? Same question for
environmental regulation.
that the growing population (growing
faster than high-paying jobs which
contribute to the tax base) which contributes
\_ Low paying jobs don't cost the state
money.
to the high prices of, for example, real estate
and utilities. This effects the State and
\_ High incomes are inflationary, so
you get higher real estate prices
but no more real income from them.
Low paying jobs don't cost the
state money.
employers both. There is no way the State
can return to business as it was in the
1950s and 1960s, when untreated sewage
drained into the ocean, people died at
70, ESL classes were unheard of, land was
plentiful, and crime was low. I read that
\_ Thank God, no, it can't. But boy
we sure had good roads!
Santa Ana spends 50% of its budget on
police now. I doubt that was the case
in 1960. Prop 13 is a red herring. LA
County just had a huge surplus in budget
because of windfall property tax generated
by the rising real estate market. Look at
\_ Fake money.
\_ Unlike pieces of paper, backed
by nothing? Is that "real" money?
the State budget and you'll see that
there's almost nothing to cut except for
perhaps the penal system, where we spend
much more money than ever before.
\_ Nonsense. The education budget is a
ridiculous mess.
\- people who follow these kinds of things
are well aware the real issue on the
horizon is medical spending not the
social security. there was an excellent
article on this some months back in the
ny rev books. i can dig it up, but you
have to email me. --psb
\_ Prop 13 is *not* a Red Herring. Overall
per person tax revenue plummeted after
it was enacted. True, other taxes eventually
\_ Because it was criminally high and
forcing people from their homes.
\_ Obviously you prefer shitty roads,
overcrowded emergency rooms and
declining schools to paying a
few more percentage points of
GDP to taxes. I respectfully
disagree.
took the place of property taxes, but they
are much more cyclical, causing weird
booms in tax revenue and then inconvenient
busts, during recessions, right when
government spending needs to be higher.
\_ Gosh, you mean the people we elect
to manage the state will have to
take that into account and have
a rainy day fund and not spend every
penny plus the future with bonds?
Furthermore, the decade or so of under-
investment in infrastructure post-13 has
put us in a rut we still haven't dug
ourselves out of. I am not even going to
get into the regressive effect of things
like sales taxes, which replaced prop-13.
\_ Yes, it's a red herring because - as
you say - other taxes replaced it.
We spend 2x the tax dollars per capita
now than we did 40 years ago. The
solution here is not to repeal Prop
13, too. Infrastructure is not
failing because of Prop 13. The
State funds most of that anyway
and the State doesn't collect
property taxes.
\_ I don't believe you. What is your
source for your "2x" figure? We spend
13% more than we did in 1990:
http://www.csua.org/u/hz3
Are you saying it almost doubled
from 1970 to 1990? Show me your
statistics.
link:www.csua.org/u/hz4
It also fell from 1978 to 1995.
\_ So you're praying for global economic collapse and the deaths of
billions. Ok, I guess one way to save the environment is to just
kill off humanity. Of course your life style will be impacted in
ways you can't even imagine but I'm figuring you're much more
likely to be a troll than believe what you're saying. Now I know
soda is back in action. Welcome, first motd troll of 2007!
\_ I don't think a gradual ratcheting up of gasoline prices will
cause global famine. If it goes up 10-20%/year, we will adapt.
There will be fewer sprawling suburbs and smaller cars and yes,
probably a slowing in global growth, but this is better than
runaway global warming, imho.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ As the total cost of fossil fuels rises, other energy sources will
be competitive and we'll shift to somehitng else. The end.
\- it's not that simple because of externalities. although it is
true that all of a sudden were not going to have 0 oil because
it all ran out. [so the easter island tree analogy doesnt
quite work].
\_ which externalities?
\- risk, pollution, tax policy, govt subsidy etc.
but i do agree [i think we're agreeing] that correcting
the mkt forces and moving toward a level playing field
between oil and other fuels is what is most likely to
bring about change. frankly things like preaching about
conservation is stupid. that just keeps things cheaper
for the people who dont conserve. and minor investments
such as smal tax credits for solar or small r&d isnt
going to make that much of a difference. the biggest
problem in teh global wamring area [as opposed to
"energy security"] i feel will be the "big fuck you"
from china, india ... i cannot see what an agreement
between them and the us over how to share the costs
of dealing with global warming will work ... it's going
to be even more stark than the doha round collapse.
\_ In what way is there not a "level playing field"
between oil and other fuels? What are these other
fuels you're talking about? Then you mention solar
but *no one* is talking about solar as a fuel source.
\- when the govt sells drilling rights to an oil
company [or spectrum rights, or western grazing
rights, or water rights etc] those are all
subsidies. when the govt [us army corps of
\_ How is it a subs. if they paid for it?
Do you want to have food, radio, tv, and
transportation? To not sell rights to some
corporation means these will all be govt
provided. No thank you.
\- i am not saying the govt shouldnt
sell these. but the way you sell them
affects the prices you get. e.g.
an auction vs the govt setting an
aritificially low price for western
grazing lands, giving the networks
free spectrum in retun for public
service messages etc. do you know about
say "water farming"? ... where a famers
real asset is his right to artifically
cheep water which he can resell? that is
bullshit ... it is just welfare for some
rich farmer.
\_ There are no rich farmers. Just ADM.
Anyway, you/someone mentioned a level
playing field between alternative
fuels but no one said what fuels.
Like bio diesel? Like ethanol? Like
what? For many reasons these are
worse than oil for fuel and make for
a giant boondoggle to the farm states.
Which alternative fuels were we
talking about?
engineers?] dreges channels differently for
oil transportation, that is a subsidy. i am not
sure if costs are internalized for say pipeline
construction. also in cases of oil spills and
such, it is unclear full costs are paid.
\_ probably not, but that's a minor cost
on the scales we're talking about.
note: it is quite possible other industries
receive efective/indirect subsidies as well,
such as nuclear. some of these subsidies may make
senes, but they exist and people should be cognizant
of them.
\_ So you'd prefer the oil companies dredge the
channels themselves or that they pay for the
USACoE to do it for them? Let's say all of the
govt provided infrastructure you mentioned was
taken away. Either we wouldn't have an oil
industry or it would just pass the costs on to
all of us at the pump. So rich people are mobile
and empowered while the poor are screwed and the
middle class lags as usual picking up the bulk of
any tab. Taxes won't be any lower if all these
services are not provided to corporations, they'll
just be spent on some other pork project that
doesn't help the average citizen.
\_ If the tax dollars were returned to you
then you could choose whether to give it
to the oil companies to dredge (via
gasoline purchases) or to do something
else with it. When it's a subsidy the cost
is hidden. It's more more useful when
people realize what it is that they are
paying for. Costs don't get "passed on" to
consumers. Consumers choose to absorb
them - or not.
\_ But the tax dollars won't be returned to me.
They will be spent elsewhere and I'll still
have to pay more for fuel. If there was a
direct link between cutting these corp.
subsidies and lower taxes I'd agree with
you on the rest of it, but the world does
not work like that. |
| 2006/11/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45207 Activity:low 79%like:45200 |
11/6 1A: .
1B:
1C:
1D:
1E: ..
\_ None of the above because running your failed state via
proposition to purchase basic structural needs and services
while using the general fund for pork is nutty and doomed: .
\_ So, how much of the general fund is used for pork? It does
seem crazy to borrow money for basic structure, but it's
pretty obvious the CA legislature isn't going to become sane
anytime soon.
\_ In the last 3 years, tax revenue has grown by about 22% and
spending about 28%. You tell me -not pp
\_ None of the 1*'s are propositions. They're all either amendments
to passed initiatives (1A) or bond measures which the legislature
approved, but which by CA law require direct voter approval to
pass. Bonds used to be (and in most other states are) sold
without direct voter approval.
\_ ok, ok, I'm voting for 1a but not the rest.
\_ why not 1e?
\_ eh. Compared to the size of the general fund and
considering it takes several budget cycles to build,
repair, etc, on that scale, we can or at least should
be able to afford the levees from general funds.
\_ the bonds are all going to get paid that way anyway.
Why not get some balls in the legislature and get
the work done, wihtout having to pay interest for
borrowing the money to do the job. That way just costs
more in the long run.
\_ yeah that's what i'm saying. we're in agreement.
\_ If you're in favor of the legislature being able to
operate as they do in other states, as the person above,
that's exactly backwards.
\_ I'm definitely no on 1C. The problem with housing in CA won't
be solved by the govt. giving handouts. Lifiting building
restrictions would do a lot more.
\_ McClintock on the props. As usual, good on bonds.
http://www.tommcclintock.net/news.php?news_id=85&start=5
Good, Interesting justification on 1E. (no on B, C, D)
\_ Gah, hadn't read that, but that was the exact reason I came up
with for having that be my only 1* "yes"
Sad to see he actually believes 83 will do anything.
\_ I don't think opposing that prop is politically tenable.
\_ Yeah, I've decided to vote no on 83. Sad as it is to see
kids get raped, it's too much money to reduce a very rare
crime. Not to meantion things like Satutory rape can get
you a GPS tracker. Seems a bit much.
\_ False. Statutory isn't part of it.
\_ Why should my tax money go to support someone who decided
build in a flood plain? I'm voting no on 1E. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:43306 Activity:low |
6/7 LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/hozap Angelides the Nerd to face the Terminator Governator. From LA weekly: Angelides will be playing for Best Supporting from the start, because Arnold will always be bigger, tanner and shinier than his opponent. So a guy like Angelides, whose limbs flail out at irregular angles but whose ears look like satellite dishes receiving and transmitting all forms of knowledge and expertise, is the best bet. Californians, after all, just dated a jock, and you know how that turned out. This time around, they.ll want to settle down with the valedictorian. \_ Were there really as many anti-Angelides adverts as anti-Westly? I don't watch TV but I do listen to Air America, and only remember lots of anti-Angelides spots (I assume because Westly was coming from behind). \_ Fact: Westly started aggressive negative ads 3 whole days before Angelides started fighting back, after they promised each other to not do negative campaigns! Westly threw the punch first when Angelides didn't expect it, and still loss. What a loser. \_ Yes Angelides #1. I want new creative taxes on everything! I want to drive businesses out of California, too! remember lots of anti-Angelides spots. \_ You can't have service without paying tax, unless you actually believe in Reaganomics. \_ I want small, efficient government with a safety net without paying welfare to people who can work, skyrocketing tuition, rolling blackouts, and huge deficits. Davis and Ah-nold didn't seem to help. Who can I vote for to get all that? \_ Nobody. California is ungovernable. If you really want to change things, get rid of the initiative system and all the stupid set asides and budget constraints. Of couse, this will never happen. \_ I'm all for breaking CA into 3 states, \_ I'm the opposite. I'd like to see it unite with Baja California and form its own nation. \_ I'm interested in this subject. But where do you draw the lines? I guess the middle should be the bay area counties incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, Placer bordering the north, and Merced, Madera, and Mono along the south. This captures the direct relationships pretty well, with the Sacramento corridor out to the Sierra tied to the bay area and including Hetch Hetchy (and Yosemite). What do you call the middle state? I can't see any downside to this and we'd pick up 4 more senators. http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8188/ca3state0kk.jpg Actually Placer probably belongs to the middle too. A couple of these are debatable. Actually this is better: Or actually this is better: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8968/ca3state20dx.jpg \_ I think that cutting the state apart like this would really hurt the far northern part. There's no tax base there, except Sacramento. \_ Well right now, the state pretty much ignores the north. They have their own industries and don't need a lot of social services because they don't have big messed up cities. They'd be fine. Maybe A bit of southern Oregon also belongs with them but that would be even harder to do. Sure you could keep them together, but I thought they'd want to be separate. They have different concerns than the bay area or LA. Maybe with their own state they could develop better. It's really beautiful country. \_ Gross Regional Product: SoCal: $710 billion Bay Area: $410 billion (includes Napa/Stockton) Rest: $180 billion (1/3 from Sacramento) If you siphon off the Central Valley into Central California then "Bay Area" increases and "Rest" decreases. \_ Sounds fine to me. That Northern CA would still have a bigger economy than some other states like Wyoming or the Dakotas. It will be growing in the coming decades too. \_ Wow, bigger than North Dakota. Sign me up! I think it is in the interests of NoCal to remain attached to the rest of CA. For example, you can have UC Davis or University of North Dakota as your state university. Which would you choose? \_ They could develop Chico and a couple others. There's nothing stopping you from going to another state uni. All I know is, as long as those northern counties are attached to the rest, they are drowned out. I think NoCal would be bigger than a number of states. I guess at least #35-40 in size maybe. Again, the population isn't large so the needs are less. Whether or not the north benefits from leeching off the south like that is true, that is not a good reason to keep it that way. Do you really think in those terms? I think it would do better by looking out for itself instead of being drowned out. Anyway, at least SoCal should be split off. Ok then, maybe this should be done since it already exists: http://www.jeffersonstate.com Then Northern Cal, and Southern Cal. All I really want is SoCal separate. \_ We don't really like you hippy freaks either, but I don't see any advantages gained by breaking apart the State. There's a lot of synergy between NoCal and SoCal. \_ There's a lot of synergy between lots of states. So what? Should Wash and OR be combined? Washington: 5.9M pop, $262B Oregon: 3.4M, $145.35B Washegon: 9.3M, $407B Calif: 33.8M, $1.55 trillion Why or why not? Obvious advantages are better Senate representation, and more responsive state government. No and So already have their own utility companies. \_ What do utilities have to do with anything? San Diego's is different from LA's. OC's is different from Pasadena's. As for representation, why not split CA into 50 states? Imagine how many senators we'd get then! There are a lot of restrictions and regulations on interstate commerce. Things would work okay as long as NoCal and SoCal stayed in synch, but what happens when they start to heavily diverge? For example, the NoCal people repeal Prop 13 and the SoCal people don't. Does the population shift? Such unforeseen changes can have unintended consequences. Why mess with a good thing? \_ because it's not a good thing? \_ Sure it is! CA is the best State in the USA! \_ Local self-determination is better for its own sake. Plus the above post. If they heavily diverge, then it's good because they WANT to diverge. It's called democracy. And there are NOT a lot of restrictions on interstate commerce. Read the Constitution. \_ Why not have city-states if you're into local self-determination? We can divide the nation into 100 square mile grids of self-determining fiefdoms. As for commerce, a big thing I was thinking of is farming. There are restrictions because of threat of transmission of pests/disease. Also, liquor is often restricted. There are other examples. |
| 2006/1/26-29 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:41547 Activity:moderate |
1/26 Does anyone have a pointer to research that shows how the FMV paid
for eminent domain purchases compare to some "fair" FMV for the
property? I know anecdotally the government-paid FMV is unfair,
but some research would be nice.
\_ The government should pay whatever the owner wants and forget
about FMV. If the owner wants too much, the government should
not buy it. It's that simple.
\_ Wow, thanks for that astute analysis.
\_ Seems like common sense and yet that's not the way we
are doing things at the moment.
\_ The 5th amend. requires "just compensation" not fair market
value. This gives a court considerable flexibility in dete-
rmining what the appropriate value is for property. Usually
they get an appraiser, look at the property's income (if
use for rental purposes), and compare the prices of similar
property in the same locale. I don't have a url w/ numbers,
but I remember looking at a Real Estate Valuation treatise
that had some comparisions.
\_ Well, there was an allegation here that prices would plummet if
a neighbor has been declared the target of eminent domain
seizure. Then the government would come in and pay the post-
plummet price. Is there anything beyond anecdotal that this
happens?
\_ Generally the gov. comes in and makes an offer on your
house prior to using ED. They would prefer that you leave
willing instead of being forced out. In many cases, the
gov. price is reasonable but not great. But it is enough
for the vast majority of people to sell and leave. The
people who suffer the low price problem are the holdouts.
No one wants to buy their property and they've already
told the gov. no, they are probably stuck getting a very
low ED price rather than the gov. original offer. Pre-
Kelo there was a HOPE that a sympathetic ct would say
no public use and you could stay, but now there is no
such hope.
\_ Eminent domain purchases would suck in California. For example,
if you bought your house 10 years ago for $200,000 and had to
sell it for $800,000 and if you wanted to buy a comparable house
in the same area for $800,000 now your property taxes go up by
at least a factor of 3.
\_ I agree. For the sake of fairness, we should get rid of
prop 13.
\_ For the sake of truth in advertising, everyone in an ED
discussion should self identify as [renter,owner,want-to-own,
will-never-own,bitter/not-bitter]. For the sake of of well
run government, we should stop spending an insane amount of
money on our broken k-12 educational system, then we wouldn't
have people looking to kill prop 13 as yet another way to
raise taxes even if it means old people cant afford their
homes anymore. Anti-prop 13? I'll start: owner, amused,
feel bad for you. I'll guess you are: renter, want-to-own,
will-never-own, very bitter.
\_ Let me guess, you have asperger symdrone and you
think everything is either black or white, democrat
or republican, good or evil, renter or buyer, happy
or pissed off. Fucking dumb turd.
\_ Sounds like he pegged you.
\_ Sounds like he's a bitter renter, a poor guesser,
and can't read well either. Sounds like you're very
much the same.
\_ Pegged! |
| 2005/11/9-11 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:40520 Activity:moderate |
11/9 Why did people vote against the teacher "5 year probation" prop?
Seems like only incompetent teachers should worry about that.
Maybe they miscalculated and "4 years" would have passed?
\_ Maybe it was a combination of people thinking the current two-year
probation period was enough and hating Ah-nold.
\_ Why did people love him before but hate him now? I haven't really
been paying attention.
\_ it really started to turn when he decided to mess with the
nurses / teachers / firefighters / police.
and then people realized he was doing the same ol' "i'm
ah-nold" routine, without providing any substance behind the
muscle. and then people realized that it was the CA
Republican party that was controlling his agenda.
light at the top, actually operated by people smarter than
him, just like dubya.
\_ Yet here were are with the same old status quo and
\_ Yet here we are with the same old status quo and
looming deficits and blah blah. Poltics sucks.
\_ huh?
looming deficits and blah blah. Politics sucks.
\_ I liked this story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teacher10nov10,0,7202054.story
\_ Why should the employment rules of schools be a political issue
decided by the uninformed masses based on what sounds good to
them? -tom
\_ We should let the King decide these issues. Death to the
plebes!
\_ Because the uniformed masses are paying for it and it's
bankrupting the state?
\_ Let's vote to change police officer's uniforms to
pink, while we're at it, since we're paying for them.
The idea that schools are bankrupting the state is ludicrous,
and in any case, probation length has no effect on the
total amount spent. -tom
\_ Errr... talk to any business major about this. -jrleek
\_ CA spends ~50% of tax revenue on education. MN (one of the
highest ranked if not the highest) spends <30%. I
don't know what's wrong, but spending more money on it
isn't the answer.
\_ Just out of curiosity, what is MN's total tax revenue
per capita, including income and property tax.
Saying MN spends less than 30% on their schools
impresses me not at all since they are still spending
far more per student than CA.
\_ They have fewer students to educate. CA's
problem is all the low income immigrant children
who are filling the schools at the same time
that their parents don't contribute much to the
tax base. Those kids deserve an education, but
I think it necessarily won't be one as good as
what the kids in, say, MN receive. The failure
is thinking that it should/can be.
\_ What's the percentage of MN children whose native
languge is not English or whose parents' language
is not English and how does that compare to CA?
\_ So you're saying you want to kick out all the
illegals to bring CA costs in line with MN?
\_ Sounds good to me. Might save some ER's down in
SoCal as well.
\_ No, what I am saying is that demographic
factors probably can offer an explanation to why
factors probably can offer and explanation to why
CA students underpeform despite the state spending
lots of money on them. 88% of MN population are
white with a tiny hispanic minority.
\_ I have yet to hear a good explanation for why pre-college teachers
need tenure.
\_ Because the incredibly power teacher's union says so.
\_ Because the incredibly powerful teacher's union says so.
\_ Because most can get more money working at a different job.
They are trading salary for some job security and with the
add on of pensions, school districts keeps fairly steady
workforce.
\_ College professors, yes. School teachers? Mostly not.
I had one teacher that could hold a real job in the
real world K-12. The rest were "mom" types working for
extra take home cash. "Those who can, do. Those who
can't, teach."
\_ So the state should be willing to pay private school
prices for teachers? Or should the state should expect
to accept a high turnover rate for teachers. Note that
most teachers don't get past the five year mark.
\_ I think your points are unproven bullshit.
\_ What do you mean 'private school prices'? Most
private school teachers make less.
\_ Where's your evidence?
\_ http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm
"Private school teachers generally earn less
than public school teachers."
\_ And it also says at least some of those
private school teachers don't have the
credentials to work at a public school.
It's only fair to compare ones that do.
\_ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
"On average, public school teachers earn
between about 25 to 119 percent more than
private school teachers earn, depending
upon the private subsector... Between
about 2 and 50 percent of this public-
private difference can be accounted for
by differences in teacher characteristics
depending upon the private subsector.
Controlling for differences in teacher
and school characteristics between the
public and private sectors, one observes
a residual difference in the salaries of
teachers that is simply associated with
the sector in which the teacher is
employed." Anything else I can point you
to to convince you (everyone else is
already convinced) that you are wrong?
\_ I went to a private school (many of
them, in fact) and the teachers always
said they could make more in public
schools but that they didn't want to
deal with public school students,
parents, and administrators. Also, many
teachers are at private schools because
they care about more than a paycheck
(many private schools are religious).
\_ Why should anything be decided by the uninformed masses based
on what sounds good to them? The whole proposition system is
dumb.
\_ All Hail Caesar! Long Live The King! Democracy is dumb!
Why should the same 'uninformed masses' be allowed to vote
on anything? Isn't having the same dumb people choosing
their own leaders dumb too? You're totally right, all the
modern dictatorships one could name were much better off
with A Strong Noble Leader(tm) than we are with all those
dumb uninformed masses running around *gasp* voting! and
participating in other things normally reserved for Noble
Leader and His Family. Is there a place I can donate a
few bucks to start a CSUA Motd History Book Fund and then
can we require that people like this be a certain height
before posting here?
\- strictly speaking this is more E_RATCHET than E_TOOSHORT
\_ Strictly speaking, this comment is considerably more
stupid than the one to which it was responding.
\_ This falls under the "I know you are but what am I?!"
school of debate. Would you like to add some actual
content or are you happy at the "sticks and stones"
level?
\_ I love the motd. Calling a post that starts out
"All Hail Caesar!" and proceeds off on some straw
man dictatorship tangent "stupid" really requires
clarification? If you actually need it spelled out
for you, the response below does a decent job.
\_ Here's the difference: the below posted something
that makes a point and is worth responding to.
You posted noise and then waiting for someone
smart to respond and then said, "yeah! what
*he* said! nyah!"
\_ False dilemma. It's not about democracy vs. dictatorship;
it's about pure democracy vs. representational. Hey,
let's have everyone in the nation vote directly on
congressional bills too. Doesn't that sound like a grand
idea? Who needs leaders? Let's let all the people vote
on everything.
\_ When your respresentatives no longer represent and the
system has gone too far to self correct, there needs to
be some form of check/balance to counter the prevailing
non-representative system. In CA we have the prop.
system. It provides the people, you know, the tax
payer plebes/victims, a chance to retake control of an
out of control system. It can also be abused and can
create bad situations as well, but overall I have a lot
more faith in the voters than I do in life long
political hacks and beaurocrats. Pure democracy would
likely lead to the people voting themselves goodies from
the public trough as they say, but no direct democracy
has given us the same problem with corporations and
special interest groups and the proposition system is
a reasonable attempt to restore power to where it
belongs: the people. |
| 2005/9/25-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39865 Activity:nil |
9/25 My property tax for 2005, the amount I need to pay, has increased
8% from 2004. Is this legal? I thought the cap was 2% a year
(and it has been more/less for the past 2 years). The total
assessed value is only increased by 1.9%, but the end result
is a whopping 8% increase. Anyone else seeing similar things?
This is Santa Clara county. Thanks.
\_ Your city has been taken over by evil socialists.
\_ Prop 13 limits the raise in assessed value to 2% per year.
\_ http://www.hjta.org/faq.htm#I%20just%20got%20my%20property%20tax |
| 2005/8/26-29 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39296 Activity:low |
8/26 How many poeple here would find the following tax system to be
acceptable:
A flat income tax of 15 % is paid by everyone, *but* it's based on
your first job right out of college, and stays fixed even as your
income increases. So if you work at walmart for a year and then
go into investment banking, you're still taxed at the flat 15%
rate based on your walmart salary, while the guy who got the ibanking
job right out of college pays six times what you do in taxes.
Imagine also that everyone who moves into the state starts at the
rate of their first california job. Hence when an out of stater
takes a job, they might pay four times what their co-workers pay,
since the co-workers are paying based on happening to have a low
paying job 15 years ago when they graduated college in California.
Sound fair?
Or does it sound like a perverse nightmare that would fuck up the whole
labor market for the state and totally distort the tax base?
\_ I didn't think the current tax system could be any more broken
than it already is. I was wrong.
\_ I'm guessing this was intended as a Prop. 13 analogy.
\_ Yes. I wanted to see if any of the pro-prop 13 crowd would be
willing to defend the same system applied to fucking up the
labor market as they're using to fuck up the real estate market.
\_ Then get a real analogy. Yours is silly.
\_ Hm, I guess. It's a poor analogy since a job != a house. I
can get a crummy job for a day and then get a high paying one.
If I get a crummy house, I pay less property taxes. If I get an
expensive house, I pay more. The analogy falls over at step 1.
\_ It continues to be poor: changing income tax rates don't
screw over retired people on a fixed income.
\_ When I graduate, I'll make sure I tell Google or whomever to
postpone my start date by a month, so that I'll have time to take up
a job at Walmart for a few weeks.
\_ How do idiots like this get into Cal? Is it really that easy?
\_ broken analogy. When/if I buy a new home, I pay new taxes. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39268 Activity:low |
8/25 My feeling wrt Prop-13 is that many proponents of Prop-13 also
think that tax is too high, that we should do whatever we want
with our own money, and that flat-tax is fair. Is this
completely off?
\_ Yes. You're completely off.
\_ Pretty much. These days, most Prop. 13 proponents are people
owning property they haven't bought in the last year. A
general reassessment would hurt that much.
\_ I purchased my house about 5 years ago. Today, similar houses are
selling for more than 2x what I paid. Should my property tax
double? My income certainly hasn't. -emarkp
\_ I think YOUR tax should quadriple because I don't like you as
fucking stubborn thick headed conservative dweeb who thinks
the Iraq war has made the world a safer place to live. Fuck you.
\_ Absolutely. If someone is really willing to pay twice what
you did, and you can't pay the taxes, I think you should
be forced by economics to sell and move. That's how it would
work in any other state, and I know of no place in the U.S.
where real estate is as blatant a rip-off pyramid scam as
in California.
\_ This is bullshit. The government should not force people
out of their homes just because some other person is an
idiot who overpaid for a property and will be foreclosed on
in 3 years. Now that other states are seeing the type of
price inflation that CA has had for the last 30 years
more and more states are realizing how progressive and
valuable Prop 13 really is.
\_ Even Prop 13 allows the assessed value to rise, but only
like 2% or whatever. I think that should be more like 5%.
So if prop values double they'd have to stay that way
for like 10 years+ before you reach that level. Gov't
wouldn't "force people out", it would tax them the same as
the others in your neighborhood. If prop values double
they'd still have all that equity sitting there.
\_ I am talking about the situation if Prop 13 did
not exist. People have seen their taxes rise 50%
in 3 years in other states (and in CA before Prop
13). Prop 13 prevents that. As for the rest of your
argument, read my example. Someone overpays for
a property and will lose the house anyway.
Meanwhile, the prudent consumer has to sell because
the government bases taxes on market forces?
\_ For owners that bought properties that are similar in your
neighborhood but bought/sold at different times, are they
paying similar taxes?
\_ No, they aren't. When I bought my house, which had been
in the family for 60 years or more, the property tax
went up a factor of 7. The old family was undercontributing
and now I am making up for it. That's fine, because I
budgeted for it. Some day I will reap that benefit if I
don't sell. It all balances out.
\_ What if my neighbor and I bought the house at the same time,
but he's a better negotiator and paid less for the house?
\_ I think it should approach that gradually, giving you time
to evaluate your options. (and faster than 2%). But yes.
\_ I disagree.
\_ That's just because you don't feel like paying taxes.
\_ I think more than half of the people on the motd
base their entire political philosophy on this one
principle: not feeling like paying taxes.
\_ I'd be much happier paying taxes if I can pick and
choose what programs my tax dollars fund.
\_ You can, it's called voting.
\_ Only if your guy ends up winning in that case.
And then the control is indirect at best.
I want a system that I can fund programs on
a line-by-line basis. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39267 Activity:low |
8/25 You know, I don't like tom's personality but at least we're
both socialists and agree on certain social/government issues.
Way to go tom. -tom's #2 fan
\_ What's socialist about opposing prop. 13? Prop 13 is anti-free
market. Of course, the kool-aid drinking greedheads who call
themselves "libertarian conservatives" on the motd don't care
to notice this because prop 13 saves them money, but it's still
true.
\_ It's a socialist position to want to raise taxes and a
libertarian position to want to eliminate them as much
as possible. How is Prop 13 anti-free market? I didn't
realize tax rates were determined by supply/demand.
\_ I have an advice for you tom. Occasionally you make valid points
and you'd definitely add more weights if you simply don't sign your
name. The reason is that people are used to laughing at your rants
that even when you do in fact make a valid point they turn their
heads away knowing it's from you. -tom's #2 fan
\_ You're mistaken. -mice |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39265 Activity:nil |
8/25 Is property tax painful because the housing price / rent ratio is
so out of whack? It's like, for the property tax one is paying,
one may as well go rent.
\_ If you are not taking property tax into account when buying a
house, you don't deserve to own.
\_ Yes, which is why Prop 13 is so valuable. If you take it
into account and then 3 years later it rises 50% because
the market goes nuts you can be screwed. It is not a good
solution to sell or to take out a loan to pay for the tax,
in spite of what Tom says. Prop 13 actually allows one to
budget because it limits the rise of property tax to a
reasonable level (1%/year).
known level (1%/year).
\_ do you think artificially low property tax has artificially
jacked up real estate prices?
\_ Heh, that's pretty funny. "artificially low property
tax". You do know that all taxes are arbitrary, right?
-emarkp
\_ Well, if property tax is raised then prices will
fall, sure. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Transfer more wealth from the people to the
government, right? It's here to help us.
\_ Not to mention that if the rate rises and the
values then fall the government still collects
the same amount of $$$ except the homeowner is
assed out of his equity.
\_ How about a scheme that keeps track of additional property
tax owed and then charging the seller that amount when the
property is sold?
\_ too fucking complicated.
\_ What do you call the IRS? |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39262 Activity:high |
8/26 Does anyone know how prop 13 even come about? On one hand it makes
sense that old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have
to pay mortgage up their nose. On the other hand, new home-owners
many who are young and owning homes for the first time have to pay
MORE than old home-owners, many who are corporate land owners, or
individual investors owning and controlling vast amounts of lands?
We talk about flat tax, but this is the opposite of that. Is this
even fair?
\_ How about taking an end-run around prop13 by abusing the newly
refined powers of eminent domain (thanks SCOTUS) to force longtime
landowners to sell in order to bring the property taxes on
their properties in line with current valuations of the property.
Yeah!
\_ "old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have to pay
mortgage up their nose" You mean pay taxes up their nose. Let's
see...is it fair for the government to reassess your property and
then tax you on their assessment? That sounds a bit scary doesn't
it?
\_ This is how government has been raising taxes as long
as there has been government and still how it is done
all over the world. Don't know why it scares you so much.
\_ It's not fair at all. It passed because people were sold fake
images of old people sitting on extremely valuable property,
losing their homes because they couldn't pay property tax. -tom
\_ Well, the people who voted for it were people who owned
land. In another word poor people didn't vote, and people
who wanted to protect their assets, did so regardless of
consequences like less funding for infrastructures, etc...
\_ Were you in CA at the time prop 13 passed? I was. People were
selling houses left n right and moving out of state because they
couldn't afford to own their houses anymore. They were taxed
out of home ownership.
\_ True, but you didn't answer the question about fairness. Why
is it fair that new hard-working home owners have to pay
more than everyone else? Whatever happened to meritocracy,
where the harder you work, the more you should get back?
What about the fact that old timers usually own properties
close to down-town or working areas where they no longer
work, forcing young home owners to buy properties much
farther away, and causing traffic? You mentioned one effect
of not having Prop-13, but what about its side-effects?
\_ The idea is that over time people will sell and the house
will be reappraised at market value or die or whatever.
The effect is to slow down the overall rate of increase of
property taxes across the state. Those same young people
(but really *any* new buyer) who pay current value rates
will be paying next to nothing in 30 years, the same as
that "old couple" who stayed in their house. I see nothing
wrong with encouraging and even rewarding people to stay
in the same neighborhood, helping to build a community
instead of the super transient "don't know who my next
door neighbor is and don't care" nature of many people
today. Those old people paid high rates when they were
young. They pay low now. Same thing for current young
people. No issue.
\_ The issue is that the cost of the services keeps going
up, so other taxes, like sales tax, get raised to
pay for them. So Prop 13 transfers the tax burden
onto people who don't happen to be sitting on half
a million dollars in equity. -tom
\_ I'm not the pp but I think he will respond like
this: "No. The old couples were once young and
had to share the burden of having to pay more.
Now new young couples have to share the burden
of paying more but when they're older, new
young couples will share their burden, so on and
so forth. No issue."
\_ Uh, you might not realize this, but there are
a lot of people in California who don't own
property and are not likely to ever own
property. So they get to pay more for their
whole lives. -tom
\_ That isn't the first thing I thought of, but
yes I believe that's true. In direct response
to tom above, "the cost of the services keeps
going up" is not just an inflationary measure
but also an ever increasing number of 'services'.
I'll happily pay my share of roads, schools, etc,
but there's a zillion other "services" I'll never
use which are just vote buying at best and high
corruption and criminal at worst.
\_ That's a red herring argument; the vast bulk
of municipal government expense is roads,
schools, police and fire. -tom
\_ When Warren Buffet advised Ah-nold to repeal Prop-13 to raise
revenue, Ah-nold said "If he mentions Prop-13 again I will make
him do 500 push-ups." Thank god for Ah-nold, thank god I
voted for him. -going to inherit 3 properties from my parents
\_ If you're inheriting properties from parents, don't worry.
There's a law protecting that.
\_ Why should this be "protected"?
\_ It's written into the Prop. It was part of the selling
package. Sold as "preserving" neighborhoods and avoiding
"poor kids inherit pricy house - must sell" scenario.
\_ Where do people get the idea that government has a right to
endlessly tax your house, and raise those taxes without limits?
Imagine paying $24K for your house in 1970, as my parents did,
now their house is worth $600K. If they paid property taxes
on 600K as they would without prop 13, they would be spending
100% of their retirement income on those taxes alone. -ax
\_ They're sitting on $600K in equity and you don't think they can
afford, what, $5K/year? And of course, the services they
receive from property taxes still cost the same as they did
in 1970. -tom
\_ When the premise of your argument is that we aren't taxed
enough, I give up and walk away right there. -ax
\_ The premise is that the *wrong people* are taxed. -tom
\_ Under what conditions should someone escape taxes?
Shouldn't retired poor people pay the least amount
of taxes, if any? You want a flat tax? -ax
\_ I think it's fair to say that property owners
should be taxed more than non-property-owners.
The beneficiaries of Prop 13 are almost
exclusively not retired poor people. -tom
\_ I'd like to see the numbers. I know a lot
of retirees in my neighborhood benefit
from Prop 13. You call them rich because
they own a $700K house free and clear,
but the reality is they have very little
income and would have nowhere to go if
they sold. By the way, if you raise taxes
on property owners then guess who will
eat that? Owners will pass the costs on
to the renters anyway.
\_ Look, it's pretty simple. The proportion
of tax paid by property owners after
prop 13 is less than before. This is
trivially obvious even if you account
for rents rising to pay property tax.
Therefore, non-owners pay a greater
proportion than they used to.
And it is also trivially obvious that
poor retirees who own their own homes are
a tiny portion of all property owners
in CA. -tom
\_ It is not trivially obvious that
the beneficiaries of Prop 13 are
almost exclusively not retired poor
people. Young people tend to move
much more often. It is also not
obvious that non-owners pay more
now than they did. Essentially,
the same people pay either way
(the wealthy landowners) whether
it is in the form of income tax
or property tax. Renters can pay
more rent (w/o Prop 13) or more
in other taxes (w/ Prop 13). Sales
tax is a red herring, because it is
about as high even in states w/o Prop
13. At issue is whether the state is
collecting enough, not who is
paying for it. The poor are never
paying for it, unless you consider
the poor retirees who would pay
if Prop 13 is repealed. Given state
revenues, I think the state is
collecting more than enough as-is.
\_ OK, given that the state is in
deficit, and two-thirds of the
budget is schools and health care,
what do you think should be cut?
-tom
\_ Whatever we've pumped money
into recently. The State
spent a lot of money in the
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> years when we were
flush with cash. What did we
spend it on? I also guess
I am not opposed to raising,
say, income taxes or the
VLF. I just think going after
Prop 13 is barking up the wrong
tree. Here's the budget:
http://tinyurl.com/ckduv
If you look at previous
years you see we spent now
than before, so it's not
that anyone wants to 'cut
education' but instead
change how we spend some of
the money allocated to it.
years you see we spend more now
than before. Why?
\_ Because of increasing
education and health care
costs, mostly. -tom
\_ Health care costs are
rising faster than
inflation, but what
about education? Why
would that be true?
\_ Because we're comparing
against historically
low (abysmal) school
spending from the
Wilson years. -tom
\_ What about before
that? Prop 13 was
around a long time
before Wilson.
\_ Equity is meaningless until you sell your home. When you
sell your home, you don't need to pay property tax.
\_ Umm, the whole economy is currently being powered by
cash-out-equity financing. Don't forget there is always
the reverse mortgage for old folks. So equity is NOT
meaningless until you sell your home.
\_ So you get to determine how much someone can pay? In a city
that has normal property turnover, aggregate taxes will go up.
That doesn't give gov't the right to decide what property
values are and then tax you on it.
\_ Alright. No do you feel the same way about commercial property?
I.e., would you oppose something that specifically repealed
prop 13 with regards to commercial property alone? -- ulysses
\_ YES. A general pholosophy of taxing: Taxing on real gains,
fine. Taxing on paper gains, NOT GOOD. My fater recently
sold his business's building for about 2x what he paid.
But if property tax kept going up on PAPER gains before
he sold it, it would have been a significant additional
expense.
\_ Alright. Now does that same approach apply to the
massive land value appreciation of, say, the Shorenstein-
owned buildings in downtown San Francisco or the hundreds
of square miles developed into office parks by Kaufman and
Broad - which have, incidentally, made outfits like these
the most powerful political players in the State?
\_ It is a NECESSARY evil when you get bubbles in the market.
I'm all for taxes on real gains and real property, but being
taxed on paper gains is, emm, problematic. Would you like to
be like my friend in Virginia who's property tax went up
by $5000 a year because his rather modest suburban townhouses'
appraised value went up by ~$200k?
\_ I think it is fair to be taxed $5000 a year. It's called
natural forces of capitalism. If you have to pay more, you
work harder. If you can't afford it, then you leave so that
someone else more capable or more desperate can take your
place. Look at Silicon Valley. Half of the inhabitants are
tech-related workers but can't afford housing, thanks to
land investment companies that lock down land, or people who
locked properties from generations and generations even though
they have nothing to do with the local industry they're in.
You either help with progress, or inhibit progress.
\_ I think it's fair if you are taxed $100000 a year. It's not
natural forces of capitalism, because the person didn't sell
their property. It's an artificial reassessment by the
government who then tells you to hand over more cash. Doesn't
sound fair to me.
\_ My issue with granting immunity to land owners is that
often times they own a huge amount of land and lock
them down for things that are not necessarily good for
the people. For example, a Sunnyvale nursery built 100
years ago, now surrounded by young working people who are
desperate to find housing in one of the most expensive
places in South Bay. This is not helping everyone.
\_ Actually, in spite ofyour communist rant about
'helping everyone' it might be nice to have things
like a nursery within a 100 mile drive of your
house, right? Some of those old mom and pop
businesses are valuable to the community. Tearing
them all up for (what exactly?) doesn't sound good
to me.
\_ What if the property-owner enjoys letting the field
lie fallow and unused?
\_ You gonna tell him how to use his land, comrade?
\_ Not me, but that fellow a few posts up ("My
issue with...") sounds like he's got a few
ideas. -pp
\_ Well, the law could build in some hysteresis and do the
increase as an increment every few years based on the
difference or sth. But permanently exempting prop owners from
tax reassessment is bullshit when those taxes are what's used
to support community services that all use. It makes the
rates higher for the rest of us. (And doesn't the tax base
get transferred on an inheritance? And of course to rental
investment properties.)
If values go up like crazy then at some point that tax rate
should be cut also, since services costs probably don't
go up linearly.
Not wanting to pay taxes in general isn't a good enough reason.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't exempt property owners from reassessment.
It limits the amount the assessment can be raised each
year. Also, if you do something like improve your home
you will trigger a reassessment on the new construction.
In short, I think people opposed to Prop 13 are whiners.
The government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell,
so why tax on property? My coworker just received a
'special assessment' of $40K from his city in order to
upgrade the sewer even though he has a septic tank which
he just installed a few years back. He has no choice but
to pay. This is fair? If shit like this happens with Prop
13 in place can you imagine what will happen without Prop
13? Every time the city or county needs money they will
take it rather than make the necessary cuts. In LA, even
with Prop 13, there was an unexpected windfall because of
property taxes. Most people sell after ~7 years. If Prop
13 is ever repealed the CA economy will be screwed.
\_ I paid plenty of AMT tax on stocks I didn't sell, so the
statement that the government doesn't tax you on stocks
until you sell doesn't work for stock options.
\_ Sure it does. Did you exercise the options or not?
If you didn't then you shouldn't have owed any
tax. You mean you exercised them and then didn't
sell the stock afterward. Not quite the same.
\_ Exercising is not the same as selling. You can
exercise the stock, the company can go bankrupt
and not be able to sell the stock ... You've now
paid taxes on paper value only. The statement
was "The government doesn't tax you on stocks
until you sell" -- I didn't sell and still paid
tax. This is not advanced logic here, the
statement is simply WRONG.
\_ He said "stocks". Not "stock options". No
matter how bitter you may be, he is right.
\_ When you exercise an option you are 'selling'
the option. A transaction has taken place.
People are taxed (generally) on
transactions. If you don't exercise you
don't pay tax. Same idea.
\_ Thx for overwriting my response. And the
argument here is about SELLING stock you
don't SELL options. You
\_ Of course you can buy and sell options.
http://www.cboe.com
\_ Funny I sat through hours of stuff
and my company never mentioned
selling my options, because that
doesn't apply here. And matters
not since I'm not selling the
option anyhow.
\_ You made a categorical statement
that was factually incorrect.
\_ Ok I probably should have
said "I couldn't sell MY
options"
can exercise an option and not be able to
sell the stock. You may never be able to
sell the stock. The statement was "The
government doesn't tax you on stocks until
you sell" -- NO STOCK SALE HAS OCCURRED!
Exercising options and selling stock are
totally different things, unless you believe
that BUYING stock and SELLING stock are
the same thing. And I'm not bitter about
anything, I did quite well. However, I
know many who had to declare bankruptcy
because of AMT taxes on now worthless stock.
\_ I'm opposed to AMT on stocks as well.
\_ Well, stock taxes aren't the same as yearly property
taxes. It almost sounds like you're opposed to those at
all. Basically I stand to benefit from this stuff
because my parents inherited some property, and I stand to
inherit that same property eventually, and I don't forsee
ever doing anything to trigger a tax reassessment. But I
still think it's unfair. They rented this prop out and I
probably would end up doing the same. Other thing are
bullshit like depreciation writeoffs, exemptions from
taxes on gains, etc. I believe all taxes should be very
clear and straightforward, not a myriad of special rules
that people manipulate and that interfere with the free
market. I also think it's bullshit that tax rules are
voted on in general propositions and the legislature is
crippled.
\_ Prop. 13 came during a housing bubble akin to what is happening
today. The initial proponents were small goverment conservatives
who saw the backlash against the huge rise in property tax as a
chance to "starve the beast" by limiting property tax increases and
reassessments to a minimal level. As such CA has become more
dependant on income and sales tax and fees for it's budget.
Unfortunately, those sources of revenue are not as reliable nor
as progressive as property tax, so you get CA's socially liberal
stance clashing with it's constant budgetary problems and failing
infrastructure.
until you sell doesn't work with stock options.
\_ I believe prop 13 is a good thing. Without prop 13, a lot
older retired and soon to be retired people will be forced
to leave, because there's no way they could afford to pay
property tax that's more than their retirement income.
Raising property tax without a limit is NOT FAIR any way
you cut it. Forcing people out of their homes because the
market has gone up (especially in a crazy time as now) is
not fair. Capping the gain is a reasonable compromise. I
suppose you are also against prop 60/90 that allows seniors
to carry over the current property tax to their new place.
I pay a premium now on my property tax, but knowing that it
will not grow without limit and I can have a comfortable
retirement life later in life sounds pretty fair to me. I
made a wise choice buying a home a few years ago, the
savings I get on property tax now is my reward, plain and
simple. Just like I have no problem with people making
millions because they bought Microsoft 10 years ago. It's
their reward and they earned it. There are other ways to
solve the housing shortage problem. Most retired people
does not want to sell because they have no place to go and
anywhere they go they cannot afford the new property tax.
Prop 60/90 is a step in the right direction.
\_ Your reasoning is flawed. Seniors are by far the richest age
segment today and most likely to afford increases in taxes.
Before Prop. 13, you could have your property reassessed or
apply for property tax relief. Those imaginary poor old people
being "forced" out of their houses? The state would have had
them jump through a few hoops, but they wouldn't have to pay
anything close to the full amount. This is how it works in
other places. Your whining about having to pay property taxes
is nothing more than more self-interest. It's always amusing
to hear people speak of the downfall of American communities and
society, and yet when it gets down to brass "taxes," forget it.
It's all about the individual.
\_ I don't think anyone is whining about paying property
taxes. Prop 13 doesn't eliminate that. What it *does* do
is set a reasonable rate that taxes can be raised. You
might think seniors are the wealthiest, but they are not, by
the way. They might have high net worths if they happened
to own a home (which many do not) but their incomes are
low in any case and much of the income they do have goes to
medical care. If this real estate bubble crashes many
seniors won't have any money at all beyond Social
Security. In fact, many people depend solely on Social
Security as it is. I am going to guess that you are
either a wealthy limousine liberal (in which case you
can afford to fund the government's waste) or else someone
who doesn't own any property and thus doesn't care. |
| 2005/7/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38795 Activity:very high |
7/23 50% of Americans think that the the Atomic bombing of Japan
was a bad idea:
http://csua.org/u/ctr
Take the poll again in another 20 years and most of the people alive
during WWII will be dead, then it will be 70%. I'll bet in 1945 that
number was a lot lower. What percentage of Japanese think
bombing Pearl Harbor was a good idea? -ax
Put that in your pipe and smoke it emarkp -ausman
\_ My anonymous troll has a name! -emarkp
\_ On the flip side, this is what Japanese think of the Pearl
Harbor invasion:
http://photobucket.com/albums/y105/LordAzrael/Az/slanted.jpg
\_ The exhibit gets some key points wrong, but there does
seem to be some indication that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor
to happen despite some knowledge of a Japanese attack
in order to rally America behind a war that he WANTED
to join.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking sucks.
\_ Oh gawd, the exhibit fucking lies.
\_ Yeah, and the FDR forced Japan to commit Nanjing Massacare,
atrocities of Unit 731, and all the other good stuff it did to
other Asian countries. Oh, or was it the Chang Kai-Shek of the
Chinese govt that forced Japan to do those things? Also, Japan
was already at war with Britain even before Pearl Harbor. FDR
could have used the same excuse to declare war on Japan
\_ 50% of Americans voted for W.
\_ That, and the below bit about "not being able to find Japan on
a map" are my sentiments exactly. I'm glad someone's using their
brains tonight. -John
\_ What about Americans who were actually around back then?
\_ 50% of Americans can't find Japan on a map. The other 50% don't
know what a map is. Thanks to the teacher's unions for the
quality public schools that brought us here.
\_ thanks to the california senate which doesn't allocate enough
funds to the public school system and the people who voted for
prop 37.
\_ Schools are the biggest line item in the budget and CA
teachers are among the highest paid anywhere. There's money.
It's not a money issue.
\_ Even if it was the case the CA teachers are the highest
paid in the country, why would anyone want to teach
in CA? You wouldn't be able to make a decent living.
\_ Isn't California like 43rd on average spending per
pupil? Of course it is about the money. You can't
totally scrimp on spending like that and have
a good outcome. Teacher salaries are high, but
not on a purchasing parity basis (adjusting
for California's high cost of living).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG186
\_ The average spending per pupil number is not
meaningful. The fact is that CA spends almost 60%
of all tax revenues on education. Should it
increase to 90%? The fact is that the urban areas
of CA are difficult to teach in. Throwing money at
the problem won't help. King/Drew in LA has some of
the highest paid doctors and a large budget and yet
it provides far worse service than other hospitals.
The same principles are at work in education.
\_ California used to spend 4.5% of state income
on education, now we spend 3%. Not surprisingly,
the quality of the education has gone down. We
need to raise taxes.
\_ Uhm... Doesn't the state law say they have to
spend 40% of outlay on education, minimum?
\_ Where are you getting these crazy numbers?
\_ From the Rand report cited above. "In the
early to mid-1970s, California spent about
the same share of its personal income on
public education as the rest of the country
did, about 4.5 percent. However, in the late
1970s, the share of personal income that
Californians devoted to their public schools
fell to about 1.2 percent below the national
average and remained well below the national
average through 2000."
\_ http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2005/opd_05-03-03li.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/7vxl7
\_ Ok that's nice n all but has nothing to do
with total state outlay to education. The
State is paying 40% of the total budget at
a minimum, by law. How much more of the
budget would you like to spend on education
in this state? At what level of budget
spending do you think we'd magically have a
real school system again? You're just
playing with statistics that favor your
"pay my mom more money!" position. I've
*never* heard or seen anyone, reputable or
not, use a "percentage of personal income"
measurement to determine anything before.
Ever. Join the rest of us using a useful
number and we'll talk. In the meantime,
the evil teacher's unions can take a hike.
\_ Exactly. CA has a higher income. Why
does the % matter? Likewise,
spending per pupil. If I have a
school district of 10 and a school
district of 100 they both need, say,
an administrator. The district of 10
is going to pay more per pupil for
that administrator, but they are not
getting anything more for it. You
can't argue this with teachers,
though. They just like to bitch.
\_ Prior to prop 13, California had some of the best public
schools in the nation. Post prop 13, it ranks near the
bottom. It is at least a very strong data point.
\_ Once judges ruled that local money couldn't be spent
locally, Prop 13 was inevitable.
\_ Getting rid of Prop 13 won't help anything. Don't
believe the propaganda.
\_ Yeah, prop13 was so great. The schools were just
awesome... for anyone not getting taxed out of their
home and forced to move out of state.
\_ Spoken like either a true union cultist or someone who has
no idea how the teacher's unions work in this country.
\_ spoken like someone who went through public schools and
saw almost every helpful and effective program for
connecting with students fought and eventually dissolved
because of financial reasons. Spoken like someone who
has family working in public education being jerked around
by an administration focused on standards based assessment
and transfered or laid off at least once a year due to
financial reasons.
\_ yes, everyone in teaching is just like your anecdotal
experiences. go look at how the unions behave and come
back and shed a bitter tear about all those poor
teachers who just want to educate the next generation.
\_ actually, every teacher I know winds up spending
hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on books
and office supplies that the school system refuses
to pay for.
\_ They can deduct this on their taxes. It sounds
to me like they need to take this up with their
school district. The money is there, but teachers
are such pathetic whiners I can't blame most
districts for tuning them out at this point.
\_ The same article says:
"Two-thirds of Americans say the use of atomic bombs was
unavoidable"
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea? Hmm.
So it was unavoidable BUT it was still a bad idea?
\_ The same article says a number of other things but taking a
single line out of context makes some people feel good.
\_ Okay here is some context. Preceding lines:
"President Truman decided to try to end the war by
dropping atomic bombs ... Those bombings led to
Japan's announcement on Aug. 15 that it would
surrender."
And then the article says 2/3 of Americans felt that
the use of the bombs of unavoidable - ie there was
no way to end the war OTHER than to use the A-Bomb.
The line following says that 20% of Japanese agreed
that use of the A-Bomb was the only way to end the
war while 75% felt that the war would have ended
w/o the A-Bomb. Then comes the sentence so promiently
quoted above. I find it inconsistent to not approve
of something that you find was the ONLY possible
option.
\_ A lot of Japanese don't even know about Pearl Harbor. Japanese
textbooks only talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
\_ Do Americans now about the crippling naval blockade that
made the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?
\_ But Japan attacked without declaring war.
\_ yea, America should continue to supply Japan with the
resources to undertake more Nanjing Massacres.
\_ The point was that it was something foreseeable.
\_ If not others, the 1970 Hollywood movie "Tora! Tora!
Tora!" by 20th Century Fox talked about all that. |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38254 Activity:high |
6/23 Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50
\_ More like "SC upholds ED as is."
\_ Can we get a non freeper link about the same subject? I'll start:
http://tinyurl.com/bepw2 (forbes.com)
\_ Here is the opinion:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
\_ anyone find a url for the dissent?
\_ It's all here: link:csua.org/u/chm (pdf file)
\_ The cornell page has links to the dissents as well.
\_ what's so new about imminent domain?
\_ When eminent domain is used to acquire land for private
development, the potential for abuse is large. A politically
conected businessman can 'suggest' that the city use eminent
domain to help build a new retail or office development. The
city uses its power to acquire the land for a value which is
much less than if the developer had to sweet-talk homeowners to
sell. -dgies, !op
\_ Because this isn't eminent domain. This is a greatly expanded
and never seen before abuse of the power. Any developer can
now come into any area and tell the city council how much more
tax revenue they'll get from a new Walmart and it is now legal
to tear down any homes in the way. This is entirely new which
is why the SC had to rule on it. You're just trolling, right?
\- While I see the potential for abuse, I find it odd to see
STEVENS as a corporate tool and THOMAS and RHENQUIST as the
defender of the "little guy", so I think some closer reading
on this case may be in order.
\_ Ok, you tell us what you find that says this isn't a new
huge expansion of ED and isn't easily abused. We both
read the same article. Go see O'Connors quote in the text.
She has it right on the money. It's about the money. Mr.
Developer promises new tax renevue from flattening a bunch
of homes and it's legal. Period. Please link to the
further reading you find that says this isn't the case.
\_ 1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit:
http://csua.org/u/chd (law.berkeley.edu). It's not
"new." It's re-establishing something old. key grafs:
MAJORITY: "The power of eminent domain is to be used
in this instance primarily to accomplish the essential
public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revi-
talizing the economic base of the community. The bene-
fit to a private interest is merely incidental. If the
public benefit was not so clear and significant, we
would hesitate to sanction approval of such a project."
DISSENT: "With regard to highways, railroads, canals,
and other instrumentalities of commerce, it takes little
imagination to recognize that without eminent domain
these essential improvements, all of which require
particular configurations of property - narrow and
generally straight ribbons of land -would be "otherwise
impracticable"; they would not exist at all... [I]t
could hardly be contended that the existence of the
automotive industry or the construction of a new [GM]
assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain." -!pp
\_ Ok, did you miss below where someone posted this was
over turned later? Maybe you have something else to
link to that shows this isn't a new and dangerous
ruling expanding ED to places it has never been?
\_ A PDF version of the Connecticut State Supreme Court's
decision on the appeal:
link:csua.org/u/che (300k)
This is LONG, and I'm not going to summarize. It bears
reading, as the appellants' challenge has a lot to do
with interpretation of the phrasing of state law.
A large number of documents were filed on this case:
http://csua.org/u/chf (Findlaw.com)
Hope that helps. --erikred
\_ very interesting (che link). Thanks. -nivra
\_ Precedent for this application of eminent domain was established
in 1981 in Poletown, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown
Detroit seized 1300 homes & 140 businesses to build a GM plant.
The 1981 decision was overturned in 2004: http://csua.org/u/chc.
What I don't understand is wtf was going on in the intervening
23 years? Didn't houses get razed for the GM plant? Was the
plant never built? The overturn happened in MI SC by 4 very
conservative judges. In this case, conservatives are arguing
for private property rights, and liberals are arguing for
"public good," including economic development. The public good
for economic development policy's glaring drawback is the
vulnerability to corruption: city planners can easily be bought
by greedy developers. Wiki link on eminent domain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
\_ The solution to government corruption is to stop the corruption
not try to stop government from functioning.
\_ I'm pretty liberal, why oh why does the Supreme court keep making
rulings that make me agree with the rightwing of the court?
\_ Yup, all the liberal justices are fighting for the little guy!
\_ yah... I think my principles also steer me towards preferring
the conservative side of this one. If the corporations want to
the dissent on this one. If the corporations want to
develop the land, make the tenants 2x or 3x fair market price
for the land. -nivra
for the land. -nivra [edit: I misused cons/lib labels]
[Note: On 2nd reading, I agree with majority, see below]
\_ See, this shouln't be a conservative/liberal issue. It's
about private property. This ruling basically says there's no
such thing as private property. A free society shouldn't
accept this. -emarkp
\_ This is a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue
of who decides what is best - the state or the people?
Liberals generally want to take things out of the hands
of the people and stick them in the hands of the state.
Look at the opinion - it basically says the state said
this was a good idea, who are we to second guess the
state.
Conservatives (real ones) would prefer to leave things
in the hands of the people - Let the developer PAY Ms.
Kelo the amt of money she wants in order for her to
willingly sell.
\_ This is simplistic and ridiculous. I'm a liberal who
believes in private property, individual responsibility,
freedom of religion, and government non-interference
in reproductive rights. Liberal and conservative are
labels that do not accurately reflect the level of
complexity needed here. --erikred
\_ Eh, it doesn't say there's no such thing as private
property. The City still had to pay compensation, so
it still falls under Eminent domain. I don't agree
with the ruling (as i currently see it), but I
wouldn't go so far as the above. -jrleek
\_ If I can't determing the selling price for my property
(whether anyone wants to buy at that price or not), how
is it that it's mine? -emarkp
\_ Uh.. You can determine an asking price. A selling
price, no. Now, if you lose bargaining rights, that
sucks.
\_ By that reasoning the constitution never
protected your property rights at all.
"nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation." Doesn't say you
get to decide what is just compensation. -jrleek
\_ And if you think it's not just, you petition for
redress.
\_ The fact that the onus is on you in the first
place is evil and fucked up. -John
\_ Compensation doesn't take into account things like
subjective value in the property. In this particular
case Ms. Kelo family has lived in the same house for
many years, the house has a very nice view of the
Thames river, &c. The assessed value of the house
isn't that high and no where near enough for her to
afford to buy another river front home.
What give some rich ass yuppie who works for Pfizer
more rights to that river view than Ms. Kelo? If he
wants Ms. Kelo's home he should be prepared to pay
what SHE feels is a proper price for the property,
not what the assessor thinks.
Under the Kelo regime it seems that the only way
to have private property is to be willing to lay
down your life to defend it. (At least they won't
be able to take your home while you are alive).
\_ this is a totally different issue: ie.
how to determine "fair market value" or "fair
compensation." The issue at hand is one of
viable use of eminent domain clause and what
constitutes "public use." -nivra
\_ I was just pointing out that compensation
in this case will likely not be adequate.
BUT, if anything can qualify as a public
use (and anything the city says is a pub
use seems to qualify under the Kelo view)
compensation becomes VERY important. If
the city can just walk up to a perfectly
good home and say that it is taking it
b/c some yuppie is willing to pay more
for it and just pay some pittance where
is the justice?
\_ Re: the ad-absurdia claim that "there is no private
property." The Conn. SC said: "This claim, while
somewhat incalescent, affords us the opportunity to
reiterate that an exercise of the eminent domain
power is unreasonable, in violation of the public
use clause, if the facts and circumstances of the
particular case reveal that the taking specifically
is intended to benefit a private party. Thus, we
emphasize that our decision is not a license for
the unchecked use of the eminent domain power as a
tax revenue raising measure; rather, our holding is
that rationally considered municipal economic
development projects such as the development plan
in the present case pass constitutional muster."
-nivra
\- again it does sound like there have been some iffy
uses of eminent domain recently, but i havent read
about them in depth. but the world is a complicated
place. see again something like the pruneyard v robins
case. property rights arent absolute or always trumps.
similarly, simple "common sense" principles like
"coming to a nuisance" dont always make the most
sense. see e.g. spur v. del webb, and Guido Calabresi
and Melamed: Property rules, liability rules and
inalenability: one view of the cathedral, from the
harvard law rev. --psb
\_ There are two underlying principles to this
decision:
1. Property should be put to the best possible
use
2. The law should be allow rsrcs to be allocated
in the manner that maximizes their use
From a certain pov Ms. Kelo's use of the prop.
was not the most profitable (ie best possible
use) of the land; the property could be put to
better use by Pfizer (or their proxies).
Once the city decided that Pfizer could make
better use of the land than Ms. Kelo, the duty
of the cts is to see that this decision is
implemented UNLESS it can be shown that the
decision will not maximize the use of the
property.
If this is the view then Ms. Kelo bore the
b/p to show that her use was as good or better
than the proposed use - she could not show
this, so her b/p was not met, so the city's
wins. Case closed. Everyone go home - except
Ms. Kelo, she doesn't have a home.
\_ What? You actually believe those 'principles'
and what follows from them?
\_ Absolutely not, but that is the only
way that I can make sense of this
garbage.
\_ This may need a Constitional amendment, from a first reading.
-moderate
\_ Yes, the majority ruling is constitutional and I agree insofar
as this is correct within what's currently legislated. But, law
doesn't provide for what's "ample and reasonable compensation."
An amendment should probably address that to favor excessive
recompense for the "condemned properties." After perusing the
pdf opinion from the Conn. SC erikred posted, I agree that
(1) public use for economic development should be allowed.
(2) limits on this are a flexible and changing issue, and
need to be determined case-by-case via the legislative and
judicial system. In this case, the economic development in
question was planned by the city for a large economic develop-
ment zone, which happened to include Pfizer offices. There's
also a marina, park, etc. Eventhough some of the specific land
in question may be sold to a private entity(Pfizer), the plan,
in whole, is justified under "public use." -nivra
\_ You want case-by-case. I think raising the bar higher via
Constitutional amendment is something which should be
seriously considered. -moderate
\_ I think recompense should be increased, but the correctness
of interpreting "public use" --> "public purpose" is valid.
case-by-case allows the correct judgment to be made in
borderline public good/private benefit situations. If
the recompense to the existing property owners is aug-
mented, I don't see why "raising the bar" is needed. -nivra
\_ Like I wrote before, a Constitutional amendment is
something which should be seriously /considered/.
I'm not sure the American people believe being paid
"more" is sufficient for an interpretation of eminent
domain that goes beyond transportation and military
bases. -moderate
\_ I parse "raising the bar" and "wider interpretation
of eminent domain" as two different issues.
Raising the bar is increasing the burden of proof
that the economic development is public use.
"wider interpretation" is changing the definition
of "public use" -nivra
\_ Let's just change the Constitution so it qualifies
"for public use" with "limited to improving
transportation infrastructure or in the interests
of national security". -moderate
\_ Opinion: This is bullshit. Eminent domain is one of those issues
where I set the bar REALLY REALLY high for the government to even
have a right to get involved directly. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which side is more strict constructionist --
interpreting the Constitution as it is written, as opposed to
following the spirit of it as a loose constructionist?
\_ Is this a joke? -- ilyas
\_ No.
\_ Your question is a tautology. -- ilyas
\_ This discussion reminds me of something a guy I knew from the
Caribbean said. He asked, "How come Americans can't own land?"
Huh? "Well, do Americans have to rent the land from the
government or something?" Uhhh.. no. "But you pay property
tax. How can you say you own something when you have to pay
someone to keep them from taking it from you?" Uhhhh...
\_ This ruling is a disaster. Now any tract of land anywhere in the
country is up for development, all a wealthy developer has to do
is to pay off a city council, and the city council can make a case
that the development will benefit the public by creating jobs or
whatever, and you can kiss your house and your neighborhood
goodbye!
\_ Realistically speaking, I wonder how much an average Joe would
have to spend to fight a dubious eminent domain claim in the
courts? Could be a lot, I think. I'd just sell and forgo my
rights, unless nice GOP people gave me money.
\_ see ad-absurdia claim above. -nivra |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:38253 Activity:nil |
6/22 Rent or buy? You decide:
http://tinyurl.com/9ll3u (cbs news)
\_ The calucalator does not take Prop 13 into account, so the numbers
are way off, especially near the end of 30 years.
\_ I assume the calculator is National, not CA. How do you
think prop 13 should skew it? Doesn't prop 13 hold the tax
rate steady? You can set the rate on the calc.
\_ It locks the tax to a percentage of the purchase price, not
the current assessed value. |
| 2004/9/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:33742 Activity:very high |
9/24 I am annoyed by the Chron's sloppy reporting on the UC admission
GPA increase. http://csua.org/u/971
In one paragraph, they talk about "4900 fewer students in the
eligibility pool". In another paragraph, they talk about the
smaller number of each racial group who would be admitted, but
they do this trick that confuses members of the eligibility
pool with the students actually admitted. (I imagine not that
many 2.8 GPA students were admitted into UCB.) What I really
want to know is how the policy would actually affect admissions,
say by looking at admission statistics of the last several years.
But the Chron deliberately, lazily, or misleadingly does not
provide that information. Does anyone know?
\_ I was admitted with a 2.8 highschool gpa. I agree that it's
probably rare. There were also minimum SAT score requirements
which were higher the farther your gpa was below 3.0, iirc.
\_ You mean "the Chron's sloppy reporting." period.
\_ I am not usually bothered by the Chron since I use other
news sources most of the time. Thinking about it more
though, I am somewhat worried that there are people who
depend on it for their primary "in depth" news source.
\_ I don't understand. If conditions are bad at your school,
shouldn't it be easier to get a high GPA?
\_ Easier given the same amount of effort, but if you've ever
been to a bad school you'd understand why this is not
necessarily true. Lots of kids are trying to survive, not
get a high GPA.
\_ Generally those kids aren't too worried about going
to a UC either.
\_ Which is the sad part, because they should be. To
compare Beverly Hills High to Crenshaw High in terms
of GPA is silly. It's probably *harder* to get a high
GPA at a place like Crenshaw, despite less
competition.
\_ I agree with you there. Which is why we need to
fix the schools, not make it easier to get into
college. Then it's already too late.
\_ What's that? The public schools are broken?
But ... how can that be? Aren't they overseen
by the ALMIGHTY STATE? WHAT WENT WRONG? It
must be the greedy private interests that fucked
up our schools!
\_ In fact it was. Prop 13.
\_ BWAHAHAHA!
\_ Not Prop 13. Check out:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A18D12E59
[disguised wingnut link]
\_ Read:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_1003HRR.pdf
"Despite Proposition 13 and other limitations,
state and local government spending in
California in in line with spending in other
states. In 1999-2000, state and local
government spending per capita in California
exceed the average of all other states by 9%."
The lack of tax money is not a problem. What
is a problem is how we choose to spend it.
\_ is that adjusted for things like local
cost of materials/cost of living?
\_ Doesn't look like it. Nor the teachers'
salaries, for that matter.
\_ Ah, but what's spending as % of GDP?
\_ California had good public schools before
Prop 13. I am old enough to remember.
\_ And free junior colleges. We REALLY
need to reexamine.
\_ And CA ranks near the bottom of
the US in state spending per student
\_ I don't think most people are
against spending more on
schools, if there was any
chance of it getting better.
Have you seen the schools?
They're run my complete
morons!
\_ Have you considered working in
the schools? It's terrible! The
pay is shit, the hours are long
and you have medeling from nosy
parents and a school-board run
by junior politicians. It's no
wonder they can't attract good
people!
\_ Wow... how can this
travesty happen with a
STATE-RUN INSTITUTION?
Surely, there must have
been some sort of shadowy
special-interest involvement
from greedy multinational
corporations that caused
this!
\_ Okay, think about it
this way. How often have
you received good service
at a Denny's, or some
shop at the mall, or
first level tech support
from a big company. If
you don't pay enough,
the good people won't
stick around "for the
love of it."
\_ It is not relevant that CA had good
schools before Prop 13. CA has plenty
of tax revenue. The reason CA spends
less on education is because we spend
a smaller % of tax revenue on
education (22% for CA versus 25%
elsewhere). Read the PPIC article. Prop
13 is just a scapegoat. In the 1970s
sale tax was 3% and houses cost $35K
(i.e. property values far outstripped
inflation). More taxes is not the
answer.
\_ What does California spend it tax
money on then? I am genuninly
curious. Do you have a reference?
\_ Yes. THE LINK ABOVE TO PPIC says
that. If you want to know
everything broken down look here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q25E25F59
BTW, CA has the highest paid
teachers in the nation.
\_ they make TWO hunks of dirt a day!
\_ http://www.edsource.org/sch_ca_us_pupil_xpn.cfm
California lags far behind the rest of the
nation in per pupil expenditures.
\_ Try looking at: Serrano v. Priest |
| 2004/7/30-31 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:32601 Activity:very high |
7/30 How do you try to save money?
\_ The big things are obvious. It's the little things that add up
real fast. My big pet peeve is credit cards and debt in general.
I have never had a CC that had any sort of monthly/yearly/etc fees
associated with simply holding it unused. I pay off my entire
bill every month so I don't pay interest. I things I need. I buy
very little crap that I merely want. A new ipod, cell phone, mega
digital camera, faster computer, etc doesn't bring happiness. And
lastly, the first thing my wife and I did after getting jobs was to
immediately put all extra cash into paying off school loans and now
we try to put extra cash against the mortgage which is our only
remaining debt.
\_ Eat out less! Including lunch. That's the biggest one for me.
Get a copy of quicken or something and really keep a budget for
a month or two. It sucks, but stick at it. Really look at what
you are spending. Then you can try to devise a budget that trims
some stuff that is excessive. If you are a gadget freak think about
cutting down on your gadget budget, or having a gadget budget
if you currently just sort of buy when you like. Oh and yeah,
get a fixed amount from the bank every few days and try to pay
for things in cash. It really does make you pay attention to
how much you are spending on crap.
\_ fuck money! money's a tool of the Man to keep us tied down to
jobs we hate and toys we don't really need! we should tear down
the banks and credit card agencies and revert to direct trade of
goods and services.
\_ Hi Paolo!
\_ hey! that was me! -sax
\_ Calculate your monthly expenses. Autodeposit this to your checking.
Autodeposit some other amount into a Mutual Fund/Brokerage account
where you don't see it and won't spend it. The rest is yours to spend
\_ Make most purchases with cash, withdraw a fixed amount from the
ATM once a week. Have to make the cash last the week.
\_ sounds like it worked for you. did you have to cut back
on expenses? what did you cut?
\_ Eat out less at expensive places. When I get the craving, I
cook something really nice for myself. Also, fewer impulse
purchases and you start to thing of the credit card as only
for major purchases so you don't just whip it out for some
new shiny toy.
Oh, and stay off online shopping sites, especially eBay.
\_ direct deposit some money to a special account.
\_ housing is ~1/2-1/3 of your salary. Once you've figured out how to
reduce that cost, you've saved a lot.
\_ The motd has previously established that owning real estate is
A Good Thing; although you shouldn't buy more space than you need
\_ just wait till the bubble pops...
\_ Then what? I'll have a fixed rent I can afford and a
house that falls all the way back down in value to what
I paid for it - except my interest rate is lower now
than it was then. How scary is that?
\_ Uh, there's a thing called "property tax" that's
based on the worth of the house, moron. People
keep forgetting to factor the cost of that in.
\_ Right....so when the bubble pops, you get a
reappraisal and your prop. tax goes down...
\_ Don't try to argue with the bitter renters.
\_ Hey, if it makes you feel better about your
shitty investments to think that all renters
are bitter, then hey! Go for it!
\_ You think you're reminding a homeowner about
property tax? Writing those massive checks twice
per year is a pretty good reminder, I think.
\_ Don't have family, don't have a car, share your appartment/house
with other roommates.
\_ that worked 1 year after we graduated. But then my roomate got
a gf. She told him to move out, and move out he did. Then they
got married. Bought a house. Had a kid. Doesn't play computer
games and doesn't hang out with his buddies. Does laundry and
lawn and backyard work every weekend. Me? I'm still paying a
shitload of rent in my apartment. At least no one bosses me
around. Oh well. -getting old
\_ Why don't you get a new roomate?
\_ I went through a few, but they either moved out, got a gf,
or both. Getting old. -getting old, 30 something
\_ On average, how much of your time does it take to get a
new roomate? And on average how much money do they end
up paying you before they move out? How much is your
time really worth? You must 'make' hundreds per hour
when looking for a roomate!
\_ But you can't run around naked when you have a
roommate! And when having sex on the kitchen
counter you gotta always keep one ear on the
front door.
\_ that's why it's good to have your roommate be
the person you have sex with on the kitchen
counter. then you can save money *and* listen
to motorhead while having sex on the kitchen
counter.
\_ A car should last 10 years easily. Buy a 2-3 year old car, take
good care of it and drive it into the ground. You only need a new
car if your job depends on your image, and if you're a Sodan it
probably doesn't.
\_ I don't think that has much to do with sodans -- I think that's
just generally true. CSUA is a surpisingly diverse crowd -- it's
too bad that, as a group, we've all allowed the 9-5 suit types
and ex-fratboys to define our self-image. I'm not sure what's
worse: that we've bought into the stereotype of computer
tech people as overweight, socially clueless, stinky people - or
the type of people that we're bought into that image from.
\_ The peole who's jobs depend on having a new car are people
\_ The peole whose jobs depend on having a new car are people
like car dealers, real estate agents and plastic surgeons.
\_ you left out drug dealers, pimps, and lawyers.
\_ I get lots of h0t aZn ch1x with my new car.
\_ You get Ac-ur-Uh Integ-rah hah?!!!!1!
\_ Why do you let other people define you? Either you're a
smelly geek with no social skills or you're not. If you are
then someone else calling you that is just the truth. Deal.
If you're not, then who gives a shit what they say?
\_ Maxing out my 401(k) and ESPP. Making extra payments to my mortgage
principal when my bank account has a high balance.
\_ don't make extra mortgage payments if your interest rate is
low. You could make more income with your extra money.
\_ yea, after tax deductions a 30-year 6% interest becomes
like 4%. Not that hard to beat it by investing.
\_ Just play the stock market and earn big bucks like me.
\_ Get married. It worked for me.
\- you know i think prior to everything else is to "profile"
your spending. if you spend $50/week on drinks in bars, that's
better place to optimize than "dont buy the da vinci code,
get it at the library" if you amazon budget is $300/yr --psb |
| 2004/3/2 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:12483 Activity:very high |
3/2 Today is super tuesday. Don't forget to vote. Here's the obPoll:
Kerry: .. (lemmings)
Edwards: .
Kucinich: ..
Sharpton: .
Neither: ..
yes on prop 55: .....
no on prop 55: ..
yes on prop 56: ...
no on prop 56: ...
yes on prop 57: ..
no on prop 57: ...
yes on prop 58: ..
no on prop 58: ....
yes on Measure 2: .
no on Measure 2: .
tired of polls: ..
don't care: .
\_ not so. there are several other very important issues on there
even if you think the primary is over.
\_ votes formatted not because I'm anal, but because I'm so incredibly
bored. :-)
\_ No open primaries this year. This sucks if you are an independent
but want to actually have a say in what your choices for the
prez vote are.
\_ You can still vote for Nader...
\_ If you want to have a say, you should have registered as a Dem
for this election, then switched back before November. If you
can't figure out how to game the system, you have no place
whining about it.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want. I
am an independent and I voted for a Democrat in the primary.
\_ Yeah, those damn parties thinking they should base the primary on
who the party members choose...
\_ Let the parties hold their own elections then instead of
having the government foot the bill.
\_ The independent in front of me in line asked for a republican
ballot. There's nothing contested in any election for the
republicans. Why would he ask for that instead of the democrat
ballot where he can make a difference?
\_ Which prop is about raising the bridge tolls? I'm so ignorant.
\_ Measure 2, comes with good things and bad things.
Translink would be great, but ferries are a waste of money
as is extending BART to Byron.
\_ The problem with M2 is it raises the bridge toll but uses the
funds for many other unrelated projects. So it taxes a small
number of people but asks a larger number of people if it is
ok to tax that smaller number for the larger group's benefit
without cost to that larger group. This is the worst form of
taxation possible. I voted against it merely on those grounds
even though we need to improve the transit system. And no, I
don't drive the bay bridge regularly. Maybe twice a year.
\_ I agree that ferries suck, but BART builds slowly and it makes
sense to build in the direction of future growth, which is
to the east.
\_ BART is a ridiculous boondoggle, far too expensive and
slow to cover the distances it's trying to cover. The
more we extend BART, the longer it will be until we have
a decent transit system in the Bay Area. That said, I
begrudgingly voted for RM2. -tom
\_ Slow? 32min from Hayward to downtown SF during morning
commute hours seems pretty fast to me. Can't beat that
even if you're carpooling with two passenges.
\_ you *can* beat that if you're using a train system
in any major city in Europe or Japan. And the ride
from Byron is likely to be more than an hour. -tom
\_ How often do those train systems stop? Thanks.
Let's get some apples/apples here. Put away the
oranges.
\_ Heavy-rail systems with stops at similar
distance to East Bay BART are much, much
faster; top speeds 50-100% higher than BART.
In dense areas, systems like the London
Underground do just as well in comparison.
-tom
\_ And cost how much? Are you seriously saying
we should replace BART with a new system
that will cost more to run and run louder
through all the neighborhoods?
\_ No system will cost more to run than
BART--standard rail costs quite a bit
less than non-standard rail. And have
you ever actually been to another
country? The trains are quieter than
BART. -tom
\_ Have you ever been to New York?
You don't have to go to another
country to beat BART.
\_ How many trains have to go by before you can be
pushed into one in the Tokyo area?
\_ let me get this straight--BART is better
because it's really slow, so no one uses it,
so the trains aren't as crowded? -tom
\_ No, more like people use trains because the
population density is so insanely high they
live like rats. Is that what you want?
\_ How long does it take to get to the station and find
parking in the morning?
\_ There are always more than a hundred empty spaces
in the parking structure even at 9am everyday.
\_ Which parking lot are you at? If I'm not there
by 8:30, it's completely filled.
\_ 32 minutes? I'm a bit further out on that line and
it isn't 32 minutes for that part of it.
\_ Glen Park BART is 12 minutes to Montgomery, which
is faster than you can drive that route on a fast
motorcycle. I know, I have tried. -ausman
\_ How is a proposition different from a measure?
\_ Prop=Statewide, Measure [1-9]=County, Measure [A-Z] = City
\_ Why are they trying to fund healthcare with a sales tax increase?
It's regressive taxation and falls whenever the economy is in
trouble. Not to mention it harms the local economy more than an
income or property tax because it's easier for people to shop
somewhere else than to move or change jobs.
\_ Because nothing but a sales tax increase will ever pass county
wide. Any policymaker worth their spit would prefer an income or
property tax but they are generally impossible to pass in CA.
\_ with good reason. taxes are already too high.
\_ Where are they trying to do this?
\_ Alameda county. Proposed sales tax increase to 8.75%
It's a worthy cause, being funded in one of the most ass-ways
possible.
\_ So for the "yes on 55" folks, why do you want to add a $12B bond
with $12B interest to the CA finance mess?
\_ Because it is an investment for the future, because I think
education is usually money well spent, because CA spends less
than it should on education, because we are in a recession
and I believe in Keynesian economics. Yeah, I know we will
probably not still be in a recession by the time the money
is spent, but the CA finance mess is not a good reason to
not spend money on worthy causes, since the economy will
be better sooner or later, probably sooner.
\_ We already spend more on education/pupil than most states
and get the least for it. Education doesn't need more money.
It needs a structural overhaul.
\_ Somewhat untrue: Education in CA needs more money AND
they need to spend it more wisely.
\_ I don't think it's a case of "spend it more wisely" but
restructure the entire educational system. The people
in charge from the top all the way down plus the
teacher's unions all have to go. Until that happens,
no amount of money will improve CA education.
\_ Wrong. California ranks 33rd in per pupil spending. We
spend like a poor Southern state and wonder why we get
crappy results. CA needs to spend more on schools.
http://www.edsource.org/sch_expend.cfm
\_ Dump the illegals and then recalculate, or get a chart
that shows absolute numbers which your chart is hiding
or better yet, do both.
\_ Prop 55 includes a $300m grant to build more charter schools.
On this basis alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support
it.
\_ Building schools makes no sense when the kids at the
current schools don't even have books or teachers. This
is money poorly spent in the name of education.
\_ For the "yes on 56" folks, why do you want to lower the number of
legislators needed to increase taxes to 55% from 2/3?
\_ The state budget has been in chaos over not being able to return
tax rates to an equitable level. Giving the legistature the
ability to actually do their job sounds like a good idea, unless
you are one of the many in CA who doesn't like paying for what we
have here.
\_ If you paid the taxes *I* pay you'd think they're already too
high. Go get a real job and pay that shit yourself for a few
years and we'll see what you think "equitable" looks like.
\_ I for one think welfare queens should start paying their fair
share.
\_ What percentage of the state budget is spent by your
so-called "welfare queens"? Do you even know?
\_ I already pay more than my share for what "we" have here.
\_ If you really fell that way, why not leave?
\_ The weather which is not something improved by increased
taxes.
\_ Because it only takes 51% to lower them.
\_ Is that true? I thought *all* tax legislation had to be
passed by the same amount.
\_ and when was the last time your state taxes were lowered?
\_ It's sad how easy y'all get brainwashed by right wing talk
radio.
\_ When was the last time taxes were lowered?
\_ Last fall, by Herr Gropenator.
\_ Case in point. Look for a reference to a "car tax"
before, oh, '96.
\_ No taxes were lowered by the Governor.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCAVehicleLicense2003.html
\_ I wonder how it feels to be you and be wrong about
everything, all the time.
\_ I see a fee being lowered after it was raised
earlier. Where is your tax? Do you think I was
unaware of the VLF being lowered? You're not even
remotely as clever as you think you are.
\_ In real dollars, property taxes go down every day. Thanks,
prop 13.
\_ Until you move.
\_ Yes, thanks prop 13 or I couldn't afford to own a home.
My parents would already be in the street.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't do anything to help new homeowners;
it only helps people with hundreds of thousands of
dollars of equity in their homes keep from
contributing to the community. The idea of people
losing their homes over property taxes is a myth.
\_ A myth? I was here and saw it happen. It is
real life to me, not some history book lesson.
I lived in pre-prop 13 CA. Did you?
\_ Yeah, I was here too. We used to have good
schools before Prop 13 dried up the revenue
for them. CA has been on a slow downward
spiral ever since it was passed.
\_ Yeah, the state was better bankrupting
families so they'd leave and take their kids
with them. Who wants to spend money
educating all those middle class kids?
\_ Uh huh. Without Prop 13 my taxes would be up
40% over the last two years. Since they are
already $5K now that's another $2K. I wouldn't
lose my house, but I'd suffer. Eventually, I
might lose my house if the taxes double/triple.
\_ So? Suffer away. It's market economics. You
could always move instead. Also, without prop
13 the burden would be spread everywhere.
\_ It's not market economics. What good
does it do me if my house is worth 20x
what it used to be? I should pay tax on it
when I sell and not before, like with stock.
\_ I think Mr. I Hate Prop 13 is just a
bitter apartment dweller who gets off
every night thinking tomorrow will be the
day the housing bubble bursts and he can
finally afford a house.
\_ property taxes pay for the services which
support the value of your house, like
police, fire, and roads. The analogy to
stocks is totally missing the point.
-tom
\_ So if my house is worth 20x what
my neighbor's house is worth then
I should pay 20x more for this?
\_ I think so. -!tom
\_ Even if it doesn't cost 20x to
supply services to his house?
He uses the same amount of road,
fire, police and other services.
His more expensive house does
not put a bigger drain on the
local services. Let me guess,
you're not a home owner and
don't work yet, either?
\_ I am a homeowner, and have
been working for 15 years.
Try again, anonymous coward.
-tom
\_ You 'work' for UC and live
in Oakland.
\_ How much more will you lose if
your block goes up in flames? Or
if property values crash because
of high crime and shitty schools?
-tom
\_ He's getting the same service as
the shitty house next door. Will
the local fire department make
his fire a priority when both
houses catch fire at the same
time? Not a chance. Will the
cop go to his house first? Nope.
\_ Because it is past time that California raised its taxes.
\_ no its past time California lowered its expendatures.
\_ Okay, where? (And no, deleting my question does not count
as a win.)
\_ I wasn't here when your question was deleted. Where?
2 things for starters: revamp the educational system,
and stop spending money on illegal aliens, then we'll
have a chance to see what The People's real needs are
and go from there.
\_ California already spends less on education than
most states. This has been the case for a very
long time.
\_ I didn't say spend less. I said revamp. The
entire system is broken and needs to be redone.
\_ None of this really matters as long as the e-voting machines can be
shown to be easily compromised and voters are not required to show
ID in order to vote. Aargh!
\_ I had to show ID this morning.
\_ Where did you vote? (City, County)
\_ Dublin. They asked everyone for ID.
\_ When I was voting this morning I saw an old person asking about
paper receipts and audit trails. It made me happy.
\_ In San Francisco, we vote by filling in lines with a pen on
a piece of paper, which is then read by an optical scanner.
This seems like an ideal solution - not prone to error or
fraud, easy to understand for everyone, leaves a permanent
record for recount, and not labor intensive for the precincts.
Why do other counties insist on using such awful solutions
like Diebold?
\_ Who keeps the piece of paper, the voter or the polling
station? If it's the voter, this system is highly
vulnerable to verifiable vote-selling. If it's put in
a lock-box at the polling place, you're in much better
shape.
\_ The actual ballot with the pen markings is fed into
the optical scanner by the voter themselves - after this
it is locked away for safekeeping. The voter keeps
only the receipt torn from the top of the sheet.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/votetech.htm
Scroll down to "optical scanning."
\_ Wow, that rocks! Thank you! Now if only Alameda
County would implement this. |
| 2004/3/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:12482 Activity:very high |
3/2 Does anyone know how long can you drive with an expired vehicle
registration sticker? This morning I realized my car has an expired
Feb sticker, and I wonder if I will get ticketed. But I paid
registration fee but haven't received the sticker.
\_ I had a friend who had Michigan tags that were expired for
more than a year. He got pulled over, ticketed for speeding
but the cop never realized that he had expired tags. I'm
not sure they're that observant.
\_ until you get caught. Youmay be able to argue that it is paid
and only get a fix-it ticket for not having the sticker.
\_ I went all of last year without one (had it but put it on in
February, after it expired) and I still don't have one for this
year. I've been pulled over once for speeding but the cop said
nothing. It's an old car, maybe they're taking pity on me?
\_ you can drive as long as you want, but you're eligible to be
ticketed the instant it expires. if it's expired for more
than 6 months, they can impound your car if they want to.
\_ Same situation happened to me and I got pulled over for speeding.
Cop can look up your registration and verify it's paid. Still got
the speeding ticket though.
\_ I always pay late. You can avoid the ticket up to a couple months
in but after a while the cops and esp. chp get anal about it.
If you don't drive on the highway much you might be able to
get away with it. However, your car might be missing if you
leave it on the street and they decide to tow.
\_ In California, it's standard practice to get one month's grace.
If your sticker says FEB, it's policy to ticket you on April 1.
Parking enforcement left two tickets for me over two weeks in L.A.,
but they also make a business of ticketing residents who park on
the wrong side of the street during street-cleaning days.
\_ Depending on the city they will pull you over just for expired tags,
I have gotten tickets in SJ and Castro Valley. -oj
I have gotten fix-it tickets in downtown SJ and Castro Valley,
from a cop who was directly behind me when I was stopped at a light.
e/2 Today is super tuesday. Don't forget to vote. Here's the obPoll:
Kerry: ..
Kerry: .. (lemmings)
Edwards: .
Kucinich: ..
Sharpton: .
Neither: .
yes on prop 55: .....
no on prop 55: .
yes on prop 56: ...
no on prop 56: ..
yes on prop 57: ..
no on prop 57: ...
yes on prop 58: .
no on prop 58: ....
tired of polls: .
\_ Don't care -- the primary have already been decided so there's no
more point in voting.
don't care: .
\_ No open primaries this year. This sucks if you are an independent
but want to actually have a say in what your choices for the
prez vote are.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want.
\_ You can still vote for Nader...
\_ If you want to have a say, you should have registered as a Dem
for this election, then switched back before November. If you
can't figure out how to game the system, you have no place
whining about it.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want. I
am an independent and I voted for a Democrat in the primary.
\_ Yeah, those damn parties thinking they should base the primary on
who the party members choose...
\_ Let the parties hold their own elections then instead of
having the government foot the bill.
\_ Don't care -- the primary have already been decided so there's no
more point in voting.
\_ Odd...my poll responses were overwritten. Or maybe the censor is
enforcing the fact that nobody cares?
\_ Which prop is about raising the bridge tolls? I'm so ignorant.
\_ Measure 2, comes with good things and bad things.
Translink would be great, but ferries are a waste of money
as is extending BART to Byron.
\_ I agree that ferries suck, but BART builds slowly and it makes
sense to build in the direction of future growth, which is
to the east.
\_ How is a proposition different from a measure?
\_ Prop=Statewide, Measure [1-9]=County, Measure [A-Z] = City
\_ Why are they trying to fund healthcare with a sales tax increase?
It's regressive taxation and falls whenever the economy is in
trouble. Not to mention it harms the local economy more than an
income or property tax because it's easier for people to shop
somewhere else than to move or change jobs.
\_ Because nothing but a sales tax increase will ever pass county
wide. Any policymaker worth their spit would prefer an income or
property tax but they are generally impossible to pass in CA.
\_ Where are they trying to do this?
\_ Alameda county. Proposed sales tax increase to 8.75%
It's a worthy cause, being funded in one of the most ass-ways
possible.
\_ So for the "yes on 55" folks, why do you want to add a $12B bond
with $12B interest to the CA finance mess?
\_ Because it is an investment for the future, because I think
education is usually money well spent, because CA spends less
than it should on education, because we are in a recession
and I believe in Keynesian economics. Yeah, I know we will
probably not still be in a recession by the time the money
is spent, but the CA finance mess is not a good reason to
not spend money on worthy causes, since the economy will
be better sooner or later, probably sooner.
\_ Prop 55 includes a $300m grant to build more charter schools.
On this basis alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support
it.
\_ Building schools makes no sense when the kids at the
current schools don't even have books or teachers. This
is money poorly spent in the name of education.
\_ For the "yes on 56" folks, why do you want to lower the number of
legislators needed to increase taxes to 55% from 2/3?
\_ The state budget has been in chaos over not being able to return
tax rates to an equitable level. Giving the legistature the
ability to actually do their job sounds like a good idea, unless
you are one of the many in CA who doesn't like paying for what we
have here.
\_ I for one think welfare queens should start paying their fair
share.
\_ What percentage of the state budget is spent by your
so-called "welfare queens"? Do you even know?
\_ I already pay more than my share for what "we" have here.
\_ If you really fell that way, why not leave?
\_ Ah. "Love it or leave it." If they make me pay even
more for what "we" have then maybe I will. Lots of
Californians are.
\_ Because it only takes 51% to lower them.
\_ Is that true? I thought *all* tax legislation had to be
passed by the same amount.
\_ and when was the last time your state taxes were lowered?
\_ It's sad how easy y'all get brainwashed by right wing talk
radio.
\_ Last fall, by Herr Gropenator.
\_ Case in point. Look for a reference to a "car tax"
before, oh, '96.
\_ In real dollars, property taxes go down every day. Thanks,
prop 13.
\_ Until you move.
\_ Because it is past time that California raised its taxes.
\_ no its past time California lowered its expendatures.
\_ Okay, show me where.
\_ None of this really matters as long as the e-voting machines can be
shown to be easily compromised and voters are not required to show
ID in order to vote. Aargh!
\_ When I was voting this morning I saw an old person asking about
paper receipts and audit trails. It made me happy.
\_ In San Francisco, we vote by filling in lines with a pen on
a piece of paper, which is then read by an optical scanner.
This seems like an ideal solution - not prone to error or
fraud, easy to understand for everyone, leaves a permanent
record for recount, and not labor intensive for the precincts.
Why do other counties insist on using such awful solutions
like Diebold?
\_ Who keeps the piece of paper, the voter or the polling
station? If it's the voter, this system is highly
vulnerable to verifiable vote-selling. If it's put in
a lock-box at the polling place, you're in much better
shape.
\_ The actual ballot with the pen markings is fed into
the optical scanner by the voter themselves - after this
it is locked away for safekeeping. The voter keeps
only the receipt torn from the top of the sheet.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/votetech.htm
Scroll down to "optical scanning."
\_ Wow, that rocks! Thank you! Now if only Alameda
County would implement this. |
| 2004/3/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:12481 Activity:high |
3/2 Can any car/bike racing enthusiasts recommend which nearby track is
better (i.e., Laguna Seca vs. Sears Pt)?
\_ Don't forget Thunderhill
\_ Is that a recommendation?
\_ Thunderhill is the one I would recommend if you are running
and not just watching. It is a great place to learn and
has a lot of run off room.
\_ seconded. Thunderhill is cheaper than Laguna Seca, and
safer than Sears/Infineon. --jwang, ex-AFM#911
e/2 Today is super tuesday. Don't forget to vote. Here's the obPoll:
Kerry: .. (lemmings)
Kerry: ... (lemmings) <-- whatever
Edwards: .
Kucinich: ..
Sharpton: .
Neither: ..
yes on prop 55: .....
no on prop 55: ..
yes on prop 56: ...
no on prop 56: ...
yes on prop 57: ..
no on prop 57: ...
yes on prop 58: ..
no on prop 58: ....
yes on Measure 2: .
no on Measure 2: .
tired of polls: ..
don't care: .
\_ not so. there are several other very important issues on there
even if you think the primary is over.
\_ votes formatted not because I'm anal, but because I'm so incredibly
bored. :-)
\_ No open primaries this year. This sucks if you are an independent
but want to actually have a say in what your choices for the
prez vote are.
\_ You can still vote for Nader...
\_ If you want to have a say, you should have registered as a Dem
for this election, then switched back before November. If you
can't figure out how to game the system, you have no place
whining about it.
\_ Not true. You can request a Democrat ballot if you want. I
am an independent and I voted for a Democrat in the primary.
\_ Yeah, those damn parties thinking they should base the primary on
who the party members choose...
\_ Let the parties hold their own elections then instead of
having the government foot the bill.
\_ The independent in front of me in line asked for a republican
ballot. There's nothing contested in any election for the
republicans. Why would he ask for that instead of the democrat
ballot where he can make a difference?
\_ Which prop is about raising the bridge tolls? I'm so ignorant.
\_ Measure 2, comes with good things and bad things.
Translink would be great, but ferries are a waste of money
as is extending BART to Byron.
\_ The problem with M2 is it raises the bridge toll but uses the
funds for many other unrelated projects. So it taxes a small
number of people but asks a larger number of people if it is
ok to tax that smaller number for the larger group's benefit
without cost to that larger group. This is the worst form of
taxation possible. I voted against it merely on those grounds
even though we need to improve the transit system. And no, I
don't drive the bay bridge regularly. Maybe twice a year.
\_ I agree that ferries suck, but BART builds slowly and it makes
sense to build in the direction of future growth, which is
to the east.
\_ BART is a ridiculous boondoggle, far too expensive and
slow to cover the distances it's trying to cover. The
more we extend BART, the longer it will be until we have
a decent transit system in the Bay Area. That said, I
begrudgingly voted for RM2. -tom
\_ Slow? 32min from Hayward to downtown SF during morning
commute hours seems pretty fast to me. Can't beat that
even if you're carpooling with two passenges.
\_ you *can* beat that if you're using a train system
in any major city in Europe or Japan. And the ride
from Byron is likely to be more than an hour. -tom
\_ How often do those train systems stop? Thanks.
Let's get some apples/apples here. Put away the
oranges.
\_ Heavy-rail systems with stops at similar
distance to East Bay BART are much, much
faster; top speeds 50-100% higher than BART.
In dense areas, systems like the London
Underground do just as well in comparison.
-tom
\_ And cost how much? Are you seriously saying
we should replace BART with a new system
that will cost more to run and run louder
through all the neighborhoods?
\_ No system will cost more to run than
BART--standard rail costs quite a bit
less than non-standard rail. And have
you ever actually been to another
country? The trains are quieter than
BART. -tom
\_ Have you ever been to New York?
You don't have to go to another
country to beat BART.
\_ NY is much better than BART, but
it's not particularly fast or
quiet. -tom
\_ How many trains have to go by before you can be
pushed into one in the Tokyo area?
\_ let me get this straight--BART is better
because it's really slow, so no one uses it,
so the trains aren't as crowded? -tom
\_ No, more like people use trains because the
population density is so insanely high they
live like rats. Is that what you want?
\_ How long does it take to get to the station and find
parking in the morning?
\_ There are always more than a hundred empty spaces
in the parking structure even at 9am everyday.
\_ Which parking lot are you at? If I'm not there
by 8:30, it's completely filled.
\_ 32 minutes? I'm a bit further out on that line and
it isn't 32 minutes for that part of it.
\_ Glen Park BART is 12 minutes to Montgomery, which
is faster than you can drive that route on a fast
motorcycle. I know, I have tried. -ausman
\_ How is a proposition different from a measure?
\_ Prop=Statewide, Measure [1-9]=County, Measure [A-Z] = City
\_ Why are they trying to fund healthcare with a sales tax increase?
It's regressive taxation and falls whenever the economy is in
trouble. Not to mention it harms the local economy more than an
income or property tax because it's easier for people to shop
somewhere else than to move or change jobs.
\_ Because nothing but a sales tax increase will ever pass county
wide. Any policymaker worth their spit would prefer an income or
property tax but they are generally impossible to pass in CA.
\_ with good reason. taxes are already too high.
\_ Where are they trying to do this?
\_ Alameda county. Proposed sales tax increase to 8.75%
It's a worthy cause, being funded in one of the most ass-ways
possible.
\_ So for the "yes on 55" folks, why do you want to add a $12B bond
with $12B interest to the CA finance mess?
\_ Because it is an investment for the future, because I think
education is usually money well spent, because CA spends less
than it should on education, because we are in a recession
and I believe in Keynesian economics. Yeah, I know we will
probably not still be in a recession by the time the money
is spent, but the CA finance mess is not a good reason to
not spend money on worthy causes, since the economy will
be better sooner or later, probably sooner.
\_ We already spend more on education/pupil than most states
and get the least for it. Education doesn't need more money.
It needs a structural overhaul.
\_ Somewhat untrue: Education in CA needs more money AND
they need to spend it more wisely.
\_ I don't think it's a case of "spend it more wisely" but
restructure the entire educational system. The people
in charge from the top all the way down plus the
teacher's unions all have to go. Until that happens,
no amount of money will improve CA education.
\_ Wrong. California ranks 33rd in per pupil spending. We
spend like a poor Southern state and wonder why we get
crappy results. CA needs to spend more on schools.
http://www.edsource.org/sch_expend.cfm
\_ Dump the illegals and then recalculate, or get a chart
that shows absolute numbers which your chart is hiding
or better yet, do both.
\_ Prop 55 includes a $300m grant to build more charter schools.
On this basis alone, I cannot, in good conscience, support
it.
\_ Building schools makes no sense when the kids at the
current schools don't even have books or teachers. This
is money poorly spent in the name of education.
\_ For the "yes on 56" folks, why do you want to lower the number of
legislators needed to increase taxes to 55% from 2/3?
\_ The state budget has been in chaos over not being able to return
tax rates to an equitable level. Giving the legistature the
ability to actually do their job sounds like a good idea, unless
you are one of the many in CA who doesn't like paying for what we
have here.
\_ If you paid the taxes *I* pay you'd think they're already too
high. Go get a real job and pay that shit yourself for a few
years and we'll see what you think "equitable" looks like.
\_ I for one think welfare queens should start paying their fair
share.
\_ What percentage of the state budget is spent by your
so-called "welfare queens"? Do you even know?
\_ I already pay more than my share for what "we" have here.
\_ If you really fell that way, why not leave?
\_ The weather which is not something improved by increased
taxes.
\_ Because it only takes 51% to lower them.
\_ Is that true? I thought *all* tax legislation had to be
passed by the same amount.
\_ and when was the last time your state taxes were lowered?
\_ It's sad how easy y'all get brainwashed by right wing talk
radio.
\_ When was the last time taxes were lowered?
\_ Last fall, by Herr Gropenator.
\_ Case in point. Look for a reference to a "car tax"
before, oh, '96.
\_ No taxes were lowered by the Governor.
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCAVehicleLicense2003.html
\_ I wonder how it feels to be you and be wrong about
everything, all the time.
\_ I see a fee being lowered after it was raised
earlier. Where is your tax? Do you think I was
unaware of the VLF being lowered? You're not even
remotely as clever as you think you are.
\_ In real dollars, property taxes go down every day. Thanks,
prop 13.
\_ Until you move.
\_ Yes, thanks prop 13 or I couldn't afford to own a home.
My parents would already be in the street.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't do anything to help new homeowners;
it only helps people with hundreds of thousands of
dollars of equity in their homes keep from
contributing to the community. The idea of people
losing their homes over property taxes is a myth.
\_ A myth? I was here and saw it happen. It is
real life to me, not some history book lesson.
I lived in pre-prop 13 CA. Did you?
\_ Yeah, I was here too. We used to have good
schools before Prop 13 dried up the revenue
for them. CA has been on a slow downward
spiral ever since it was passed.
\_ Yeah, the state was better bankrupting
families so they'd leave and take their kids
with them. Who wants to spend money
educating all those middle class kids?
\_ Uh huh. Without Prop 13 my taxes would be up
40% over the last two years. Since they are
already $5K now that's another $2K. I wouldn't
lose my house, but I'd suffer. Eventually, I
might lose my house if the taxes double/triple.
\_ So? Suffer away. It's market economics. You
could always move instead. Also, without prop
13 the burden would be spread everywhere.
\_ It's not market economics. What good
does it do me if my house is worth 20x
what it used to be? I should pay tax on it
when I sell and not before, like with stock.
\_ I think Mr. I Hate Prop 13 is just a
bitter apartment dweller who gets off
every night thinking tomorrow will be the
day the housing bubble bursts and he can
finally afford a house.
\_ property taxes pay for the services which
support the value of your house, like
police, fire, and roads. The analogy to
stocks is totally missing the point.
-tom
\_ So if my house is worth 20x what
my neighbor's house is worth then
I should pay 20x more for this?
\_ I think so. -!tom
\_ Even if it doesn't cost 20x to
supply services to his house?
He uses the same amount of road,
fire, police and other services.
His more expensive house does
not put a bigger drain on the
local services. Let me guess,
you're not a home owner and
don't work yet, either?
\_ I am a homeowner, and have
been working for 15 years.
Try again, anonymous coward.
-tom
\_ You 'work' for UC and live
in Oakland.
\_ How do either of these
points matter to the
discussion? And why
do you put "work" in
quotation marks?
Because I didn't get
laid off with the
rest of the dotbombers?
-tom
\_ How much more will you lose if
your block goes up in flames? Or
if property values crash because
of high crime and shitty schools?
-tom
\_ He's getting the same service as
the shitty house next door. Will
the local fire department make
his fire a priority when both
houses catch fire at the same
time? Not a chance. Will the
cop go to his house first? Nope.
\_ You didn't address my point.
If property values drop by
50%, Mr. Expensive House will
lose a lot more money than
Mr. Cheap House; therefore,
Mr. Expensive House has
more personal interest in
services which support
property values. -tom
\_ You think this
relationship is linear?
When the house price
doubles, does the cost
of these services also
double?
\_ Because it is past time that California raised its taxes.
\_ no its past time California lowered its expendatures.
\_ Okay, where? (And no, deleting my question does not count
as a win.)
\_ I wasn't here when your question was deleted. Where?
2 things for starters: revamp the educational system,
and stop spending money on illegal aliens, then we'll
have a chance to see what The People's real needs are
and go from there.
\_ California already spends less on education than
most states. This has been the case for a very
long time.
\_ I didn't say spend less. I said revamp. The
entire system is broken and needs to be redone.
\_ illegal alien is a federal issue, not state one.
I think it's unfair to ask California to bear the
burden of Federal government's failure to guard its
borders.
\_ None of this really matters as long as the e-voting machines can be
shown to be easily compromised and voters are not required to show
ID in order to vote. Aargh!
\_ I had to show ID this morning.
\_ Where did you vote? (City, County)
\_ Dublin. They asked everyone for ID.
\_ When I was voting this morning I saw an old person asking about
paper receipts and audit trails. It made me happy.
\_ In San Francisco, we vote by filling in lines with a pen on
a piece of paper, which is then read by an optical scanner.
This seems like an ideal solution - not prone to error or
fraud, easy to understand for everyone, leaves a permanent
record for recount, and not labor intensive for the precincts.
Why do other counties insist on using such awful solutions
like Diebold?
\_ Who keeps the piece of paper, the voter or the polling
station? If it's the voter, this system is highly
vulnerable to verifiable vote-selling. If it's put in
a lock-box at the polling place, you're in much better
shape.
\_ The actual ballot with the pen markings is fed into
the optical scanner by the voter themselves - after this
it is locked away for safekeeping. The voter keeps
only the receipt torn from the top of the sheet.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/administration/votetech.htm
Scroll down to "optical scanning."
\_ Wow, that rocks! Thank you! Now if only Alameda
County would implement this. |
| 2003/10/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:10486 Activity:high |
10/5 Arnold's Enron Secret
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16902
\_ That guy sounded compelling except a) no references and b) the
"Hitlerian mustache" comment at the end.
\_ and umm, isn't the state budget deficit more like 36 billion?
\_ Thanks to cuts, cuts, cuts, and the car tax, we're passing
$8 billion to next year.
\_ I believe there were something like $11B in loans to get
through the year. That's going to hurt, especially with
the piss-poor bond rating CA has now.
\_ The courts over turned the loans as illegal. No loans to
carry over into next year. The budget is busted. Now
they *must* raise taxes or cut all the stuff they added in
last 5 years. If we have 1994 levels of income we should
roll back spending to the same level. End of story.
\_ They're doing this in Alabama. Its great! High school
kids are paying textbook fees and they've fired half
the bailiffs in the state, among many other instances
of "fraud and abuse" ferreted out.
\_ Kids here already didn't have books. They need to
break the teacher's union so the money being dumped
into education will actually get to the kids.
\_ GAH! More like they need to break the text
book oligarchy's stranglehold and move to
free Internet-published text books. Need
chapter 7? Print it out on recyclyed paper.
\_ Yeah, we all know how accurate the information
on the Internet is.
\_ You'd be surprised at how bad some
textbooks are.
\_ If the state can dictate curriculum, why
can't it write and publish online text-
books?
\_ Do both. I had forgotten about the textbook
industry's crimes. Bust the teacher's union
and the textbook industry as well. Works for
me. --guy you replied to about unions
\_ Just raise property tax to levels similar to other
states.
\_ Then the only people left in the state would be the
rich you hate so much and the illegals tending their
gardens and raising their children. The only way to
pay property tax on a home that's gone up in price
in a state where income increases don't match
housing value increases is to sell your home and
leave the state. That's why we had prop 13 in the
first place. I'm trying not to be overly rude here
but other states don't have our whacked out property
value rate of increase vs. income rate increase #s.
\_ That income and property values are so out of
whack is indication that something is wrong with
the property values. Don't worry, lots of people
would move in from out of state to take over once
the property values go down. Stupid Californians
fucked up their state. They don't deserve to run
it anymore. Get the heck out.
\_ More people are already moving in, right now.
That's what makes property values so high. It
isn't something you can legislate away and any
_public_ official who tried to destroy property
values would be hung in public and rightly so.
\_ Actually there is a net outflow of people
to other states.
\_ But total increase in population due to
immigration.
\_ Property values held up well in all the
US metropolitan areas even though they have
higher property taxes. Seems like there
is a lot of worry about property values in
California. Smells like a bubble to me.
It's going to be pricked one way or another.
Crappy economy, high crimes, lousy
educational system, lack of business
investments, high income people from other
states not moving to California because
of expensive houses, and high income taxes,
etc., bankrupt state government. None of
the above will help with property values
\_ So many times people have predicted this
for the very same reasons, since at least
the early 60s. So many times they have
been wrong.
\_ If that happened probably 1/2 the state would have to
sell their houses tomorrow and go back to renting..
property values would plummet plummet, markets would
crumble crumble... sorry, Hudson Hawk moment. But
it's true.
\_ Raise property tax while reducing income tax.
Burst the housing bubble. This will attract
lots of high income people from out of state to
come to the state, and attract business
investments too.
\_ Reduce income tax? How exactly is that going
to help all the old people living in their
home for the last 40 years which is now worth
so much on paper that their social security
can't cover even a small part of the tax
without prop13 laws to protect them? You
either weren't here when prop13 was passed,
you're too young to remember, or you're a mean
vicious person who wants to destroy people's
lives. I prefer to think you're just young.
It makes me feel better to think the least
worst thing about you.
\_ Arnold and Buffett are going to repeal
prop 13.
\_ Heard of home equity loan? What about
old people who rent, or who live with
reason I will not vote for him. there's just too many others.
their relatives and are still working
to make ends meet? Or old people who
depend on their children (who pay
income taxes) for support?
\_ I heard about it last week. Sounds credible but that's not the
reason I will not vote for him. there are just too many others.
The main reason is that he's clueless based on what he said
he will do. For example, he wanted to open the book and audit
everything. That sounds good to uninfomed Californians, but CA
already has independent auditors to do that (according to SF
Chronicle) and the state budget is online for anyone view it
Second example, he wants to repeal the VLF. (It's nice for me,
since I drive an expensive car.) The problem is he couldn't
explain how he'll get the $4B to replace the VLF. Repealling the
\_ they should roll back to 1994 population, housing
prices, gas prices, etc.
sources of revenue to fill it.
Arnie will provide.
VLF is devasting to the local governments if he can't find other
sources of revenue to fill it.
\_ Don't worry your pretty lil head about such complex things.
Arnie will provide.
\_ You misspelled "hooters."
\_ If you're truly concerned about the economy, you should be
voting for Tom.
\_ Guess how much of California's energy Enron supplied during the
summer of 2001 - less than 4 %.
\_ I don't see how that makes them any less sleazy, or how it
changes Arnold's intent in participating.
\_ There was no fraud accusations against Enron until the fall,
the company was solvent. Gray Davis had many of these
these meetings with Enron, as he should have, Enron was
the largest energy company in the nation. Davis has yet
to return 100's thousands from Enron.
\_ I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than this. There were
several suppliers taking advantage of the badly-deregulated
system to gouge us. |
| 2003/9/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:10372 Activity:very high |
9/29 My father told me over the weekend that he had told the RNC to take
his name off of all their lists, and that he was changing his voting
registration to undeclared after 40 years of registering R. This is
a man who was in the Navy 25 years, and is very proud of his service.
He has become disgusted with the current administration, not to mention
the circus that is California. I'm astounded that the conservatives
speaking here have not been more introspective themselves about their
convictions, and where their alignments lie. --scotsman
\_ I cannot speak for other conservatives, but I gave up
discussing political issues on the motd because it
was impossible to have a decent conversation due to
the censors, trolls and flamers (right and left are
both guilty of this).
BTW, your father isn't the only Republican who is
upset with the current state of the party and its
leadership. My family has voted Republican since
we first immigrated to this country (~ 30 yrs ago).
For the last year or so we have been considering
changing our registration to undeclared.
\_ Wesley Clark is also proud of his service. What that has to do
with R or D is beyond me. --dim
\_ Clark's history as a Democrat goes back about 6 months. I don't
count that against him, and I'd vote for him if he were
nominated, but I'm just saying. If you're considering Bush,
you need to really look at what has happened in a 4 year term.
\_ you're dad is a twit
\_ This one's truly beautiful. --scotsman
\_ Why do you assume that being introspective "about [your] convictions,
and where [your] alignments lie" means we'll come to the same
conclusion as your father? While I don't think he's a twit, I'm
rather surprised at his conclusions.
\_ I'm not saying you should arrive at the same conclusions, but
the responses I see here are kneejerk, lopsided, and often
uninformed. I think there's a lot to think about that many
here have rejected flat out. --scotsman
\_ I see the same among the liberal views here except they're more
emboldened. Practically every conservative response in the
motd or wall is just an invitation for a pile-on. We thinking
conservatives have given up putting our comments up for the
inevitable liberal spin/lie/pile-on that follows. And of
course there are also the outright deletions. Please don't
make the (very poor thinking) assumption that the motd is a
realistic slice of the philosophical spectrum.
\_ Funny that the deletions I've seen come shortly after a
salient point by a lefty gets posted. I think there are
people on both sides lying to themselves. --scotsman
\_ I think *both* sides get deletions.
\_ How in the world can he blame CA on the RNC? Democrats hold *every*
statewide office, and have dominated for decades.
\_ Mmm.. logical leaps. Look at prop 13.
\_ I think he meant more the current electoral joke. --scotsman
\_ What electoral joke? Hint: just because some call the recall a
joke doesn't mean that it is. The number of people signing the
petition is a massive showing of democracy in action.
\_ Massive? perhaps when we get a turnout >30% in an election,
you can call it a "massive showing of democracy".
\_ Massive? perhaps when we get a turnout >30% in an
election, you can call it a "massive showing of
democracy". Anyway, I'm the one calling it a joke.
Take it or leave it. --scotsman
\_ son of a twit
\_ When have you ever seen ~2x10^6 people sign a petition?
It's amazing. Please detail why you think it's a joke,
and why you yourself are not a twit.
\_ Did you sign it? Are you voting yes? Why? --scotsman
\_ After carefully reading your comments, I've concluded that you're a
twit. And so is your dad.
\_ Then I'm glad we'll likely never meet. --scotsman |
| 2003/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:28485 Activity:very high |
5/18 Thank you Gray Davis, who increased state employement by 30%, and
who rewards his primary contributor, the Prison Unions, with fat
pay raises.
Vehicle-tax plan praised - Fee hike would spare drastic local cuts
http://www.recordnet.com/daily/news/articles/051803-gn-4.php
\_ I'm really tired of all this budget bullshit. Is there not a
single state that believe in fiscal responsibility? Any state
that require balanced budget in their constitution?
\_ The last time California ran budget surpluses during a boom
time, we had a "taxpayers revolt" and ended up with Prop 13.
We get what we deserve here. Every recession is like this.
Remember Pete Wilson's big round of tax increases?
\_ No, we had prop 13 because people were losing their houses.
I was here and I remember it.
\_ People were not losing their homes. That was all
bullshit.
\_ Idiot. I was there. Get out of the ivory tower and
join the real world where real people are hurt or helped
everyday by the real decisions real politicians make.
\_ I was there too. Everyone wants to pay
less taxes, but the money for things like schools
has to come from someplace. School quality in
California, which had been in the top 10% of
the country, plummeted and has stayed low since.
How old were you when this happened? No way can
you remember what was really going on. If you
go back and look at the newspaper archives, you
will find one or two people on fixed incomes who
supposedly lost their homes, out of a state with
a population of 20M. You live in a fantasyland.
\_ Yeah all the neighbors who put their houses up for
sale and left the state were just figments of my
deranged and aged mind. CA has many reasons for
being at the bottom of the school rankings, not
teaching the "three Rs" anymore is the primary
reason.
\_ And now people are losing their houses because they can't
afford the property tax that's subsidizing the people who
are benefitting from prop 13. Irony is delicious. Munch.
\_ The problem with prop 13 is that while it was
motivated by a need to protect a primary residence
from fluctuations in the real estate market, it
was written to include *all* property. For humans,
frozen contribution rates on a primary residence
are a good way to apportion the total tax burden
over the life of the taxpayer. For coporations and
other entities that never die, Prop 13 is a nightmare
that has only just started crushing our economy.
\_ Actually it's been crushing it a while. Each
economic downturn just emphasizes it. When the
economy recovers, it'll be forgotten again. After
you finish the cookie, you'll feel right as rain.
\_ Can someone explain what prop13 is?
\_ Quickie version: In 1978, property taxes
assessed according to 1976 prices with a max
+2% change until prop sold. Then it's
reassessed and taxed at current price. Note 2%
is below COLA and certainly way below real
estate increase. Plus, to raise taxes takes
2/3 vote of the legistlature.
\_ Only because we learned the term "double
digit inflation" under Jimmy Carter. In any
sane world, the COLA would be about 2%.
\_ Communist!
\_ Ford invented double digit inflation.
Carter just carried on the tradition.
\_ Ford? Oh pleeeeeaaaaase. It's the
only thing the news talked about for
his entire term. Oh yeah, that and
the Hostage Crisis. |
| 2003/1/17-18 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:27137 Activity:high |
1/16 There was talk about prop 13 and how the property tax is based on
the selling price of the home. Is the following legal? I have a
1 million dollar house I want to pass on to my kids, I sell it to
them for $100 bucks or some other artificially low number. Their
property tax would then based on this $100 transaction. Would this
also be a way around inheritance taxes? If I sell all my property
to my kids at below market value?
\_ http://www.irs.gov has all your answers.
\_ of course it's not legal. don't be a moron. -tom
\_ Hey tom, Tolkien named a troll after you.
\_ and so the logical question is, who determines how low a price
one can sell? Houses sell for below appraised price all the
time. Is there a law saying that one cannot sell $X amt below
appraised price if it's to a family member? I can see loop
holes if I use a third party. I sell to a friend for below
market value. He then sells to my kid for an even lower amt.
So on and so forth.
\_ it doesn't matter how much you sell it for, it matters how
much the house is appraised for
\_ Exactly right. The city/county assessor does this task.
In CA, when the property changes ownership, it gets
reassessed.
\_ the difference between appraised value and sale value in
these case is treated as a gift and subject to the gift
tax. i think this would imply that you (and your spouse)
can sell the house for $10k/20k under market to your
children.
\_ You can give even more than that, but it counts against
your estate tax limit later.
\_ only if you subtract from your Unified Credit limit.
\_ Appraisers (at least in CA) are licensed and certified.
And are liable if their appraisal of a home turns out to
be way out of line with the "true" market value.
\_ Would this work? You add your kids' names to the house, so you and
your kids are co-owners. Then some years later before you die, you
remove your name, so only your kids alone are the co-owners. Would
this avoid re-assessment in CA? |
| 2003/1/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:27108 Activity:insanely high |
1/15 Anybody lived and worked in Nevada (or another state that has no
income tax?) I'm wondering if it's just a gimmick and they get
your money in some other way. E.g., higher property tax or payroll
tax, etc. Does one really come out ahead compared to CA? I'm
thinking of moving to another state to escape the perpetual fiscal
nightmare CA experiences. Thanks.
\_ I worked in Alaska. There are no taxes of any kind except
\_ In terms of overall tax burden, CA is about average. If you want
to be taxed move to Massachusetts. --dim
\_ California is unique because of Prop 13. Long time property owners
see their tax burdens drop over time in real dollars. So it is
a relatively expensive state to be young or new in, but much less
not some kind of ascam. there just aren't many people and
expensive (tax-wise) to grow old in.
\_ URL?
\_ http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal01.html
\_ This isn't believable. Oregon has no sales tax yet this
claims the state/local tax burden is over 9%.
\_ Yes, genius. There are other state/local taxes, like
taxes on gasoline and property tax. --dim
\_ Ok then this *isnt* the total tax burden and does
*not* answer the OP question about other gotchas and
hidden fees/taxes/whatevers which California is just
chock full of. This isn't a middle of the road tax
state. It's a high tax state and your little chart
hides the fact. --Genius
\_ Yes, it is the total tax burden. Oregon also
has an income tax. Please go away. --dim
\_ CA has both a sales and an income tax. Oregon
does not. Your link is just wrong. --Genius
\_ Please refer to the URLs below. You need
to use your brain to combine a few
different sources of data here. I know
you can do it. Think. Sales tax is 8%,
but what percent of your income is spent
on sales tax? --dim
\_ Hmmm, let's see... I pay out over 40% of
my income in taxes, I put another 20%
away and the rest is spent. So ~1/12th
of 60% is roughly 5% of my income. And
what value does this have to this topic?
\_ You can't even do simple math, moron.
\_ Uhm, ok, whatever you say.
\_ How much is 100 - 40 - 20? Hint:
it's not 60.
\_ Hint: I pay taxes on the 20%
put into savings. I don't
put it under my pillow.
\_ you don't pay taxes on
that 20%, already inc in 40%
and wouldn't be sales tax.
None on rent or food too.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/sltxlvls/index.htm
http://www.vermontgop.org/tax_burden.shtml
http://www.daveross.com/taxburden.html
\_ I worked in Alaska. There are no state taxes of any kind except
I think Anchorage may have some city taxes.
In fact, if you live in Alaska, you get a check every year,
as a sort of negative tax. on the other hand, the cost of
living is above average in alaska. and no, the tax thing is
not some kind of a scam. there just aren't many people and
oil pays for alot.
\_ I think Nevada is a special case because of the massive
revenue influx due to gambling.
\_ Yep, gambling & mining. When I lived there most other
taxes (sales, etc.) were lower than California.
\_ Still, New Hampshire apparently has the lowest overall
tax burden. Maybe they include taxes on corporations?
\_ Most states get tax income from business tax, property tax, sales
tax, income tax, and a whole bevy of fees. CA's big problem is
property tax. It's figured by the local city or county assessor.
Thanks to Proprosition 13, that assessment is only done when a
building is built and when the property changes ownership. The push
was to save LOLs living in the same place for 30+ years from being
forced out (ie. fixed income). It also means that companies in the
same location don't pay higher prop taxes. Poof. Less tax for the
state. Note: You can always ask to have your property reassessed if
you think it was listed too high a price, so you can pay less tax.
\_ I was here when prop 13 passed. It wasn't just LOLs that were
losing their homes. Roughly 40% of my middle class neighborhood
was getting killed and was forced to sell. Kill Prop 13 and
you'll kill the state for good. There's a damned good reason
for Prop 13 to exist.
\_ When was it passed?
\_ 1978
\_ The problem was inflation. Local governments assessed
property whose worth was climbing 12-13% due to inflation.
Thus, much higher property taxes. Prop 13 forced a solution
that should have been dealt with on a local level (ie.
lowering property taxes in the face of high inflation).
\_ I know a few people who moved to Nevada before they cashed out
their options to avoid CA income tax.
\_ tangent, would this be feasible: own home/residence in NV,
have all HR related things sent there, but live in rented
apt in CA?
\_ you make too much money
\_ no such thing. he earns it.
\_ More than feasible. There are a good number of professionals
in SV that live in Portland, AZ, CO, NV who fly in, work 10,
then take 4 days off (or do the 4x10 work week). The problem
lies with the dealing with flying and family. It can suck...
CA.gov figured this out. You still have to pay CA income tax
for work done here, despite your residence.
\_ I knew a guy working at Intel who had multiple homes
around the country, including Oregon. When he wanted
to cash out his options, he'd change his primary home
address to the one in Oregon.
\_ Oops, I meant Washington. He had a home in both, in
addition to few others.
\_ I wonder if it is worth it to him in this economy
to continue with this behavior? Did he rent out
the fake primary homes or are they empty when
he doesn't live there?
\_ I think these were his vacation homes and were
left empty.
\_ I know a guy who moved to Seattle several years ago to avoid state
tax. He was making so much money from stocks (not his own options)
that the pre-tax salary from his engineer job couldn't even cover
his tax. And that was before the dot-com boom even started. |
| 12/24 |