pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Jerm
Re: wow
said by Jerm  :I think for Cali having a middle of the road guy at the helm it sure is doing pretty good! Not quite. The fiscal situation in California is now worse than it was before Ahnuld took over.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| I agree... and its getting worse.
Arnie is tax and spend - just differently than the Gray Davis did.
Most schools have been cut, parks are shutting down, as are state beaches. The gov't should have made a killing over the past few years with all the high state property tax collected... I'm just not sure where it has gone.
eg. housing was ~200k in 2001 (~4000/year in taxes), gone up to +650k in 2005/2006 (+10k/year in taxes). Where did it go?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA
| reply to pnh102
Apparently some have forgotten that fiscal issues aren't the sole domain of the executive...oh, wait, that's right: the legislature makes the budget...
--
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Zyniker :Apparently some have forgotten that fiscal issues aren't the sole domain of the executive...oh, wait, that's right: the legislature makes the budget... The only way the governor can duck responsibility for the budget mess in California is if he vetoed each budget sent to him by the legislature and the legislature subsequently overrode his veto.
The governor, as well as the legislature, are responsible for the budget mess in that state. The only reason Ahnuld is being singled out is because he ran on the platform of restoring fiscal sanity to California.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to Zyniker
Yeah, and the Executive signs it. There IS NO BUDGET without the Executive signing off on it.
Auhnold was our last line of defense against waste in Sacramento and he is little more than a speed bump. |
|
The Way Out
join:2003-01-20 | reply to en102
Yup. After Ahnuld came around, my UC college tuition shot up over 125%. I even got retroactively billed for quarters where government funding fell through.  |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | LOL, ECONOMY SONS! |
|
Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
2 edits | reply to en102
I hear that the sate can't actually collect much property tax (compared to their value). I hear they can't raise them over a certain percent yearly assuming that the property isn't sold.
hmmmmmm.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California···_(1978))
»www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A
The "full cash value" means the county assessor's
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
"full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment
...
The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the
inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or
reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for
the area under taxing jurisdiction, or may be reduced to reflect
substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline
in value.
Looks like California can only collect 1% (plus specific additions) taxes based on a value that is based on a 2% a year inflation of the "full cash value" of a piece of property.
so in reality a 200k house bought in 2001 could at best generate 2k of general income in 2001. In 2006 it would be valued at 650k and generate 2.2k
This is a good thing for homeowners in California. They don't have to bleed money just because their how has tripled in price.
This is an insanely good thing for long established companies because they pay taxes at a rate of 1% ancient prices + 2% every year since the ancient pricing |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | 
Of course Medi-Cal doesn't pay the whole bill, hospitals are left paying the rest |
They passed Prop 13 because people were losing their homes to the government.
In your example, a house bought for $200K in 2001 (which there were very few) could pay $2000 in property tax, another $2000 in Mello-Roos fees (like one of mine), plus other small property based taxes.
Now that home is theoretically worth $800K to someone else and if resold would take in $10K a year in combined property taxes. The person who bought it and still owns it is making the same $60K (or close to it) but thanks to Prop 13 he won't lose his house to the government because his taxes didn't go from a few hundred a month which he could afford to a thousand a month which he couldn't.
Meanwhile thanks to the recent appreciation that has also been a LOT of churn so while some homes that were bought in 2001 are still owned by the same people, a lot aren't and pay these insanely high property taxes. Now that $800K house assessed for $10K is worth $500K but the tax assessor doesn't give a crap. Getting it reassessed lower takes an act of God. You want to put in a pool, they're out that day looking for more money.
A perfect example is a cop buddy of mine. Fresh out of the LBPD academy, he bought in the early 90's in Orange County, CA during the last housing depression. He bought a house for $210K, a payment he could barely swing but because he had saved since High School he had enough down to bring the payment down. Anyway thanks to the population boom and limited housing his house would have sold recently for over a million. But he's now a Detective with a local police department not exactly raking in the millions. Prop 13 is the ONLY reason he is able to keep his home.
The system works find so long as you don't have a legislature of drunken sailors increasing spending at rates FAR higher than combined population and inflation increased. They took the money they raked in during the Dot Com boom, created a ton of bloated new programs, now that all the Dot Com companies went bust, they're coming after Joe Taxpayer to fund it.
Also during that time their state union buddies got on the ballot propositions that forced a huge chunk of ANY new revenues to whatever the union brought proposition wanted. So even with new revenue, it couldn't be spent to bring down the deficits or spent on infrastructure. Add to that they want to give away the farm to illegals. According to the LA Times in LA County alone illegals cost the medical system over $300 million a year. The deficits the county system ran were in the $100M-$200M range and that is why they are closing hospitals right and left. It doesn't take a mathematics major to see that the influx of illegals are DIRECTLY responsible for hospital closures (60 hospital closures as of 2006) and everyone here is witnessing the complete decimation of the public school system that started with the first amnesty in the 80's. In some school districts (like Lake Elsinore Unified) they're even coming up with schemes to bus kids 15-20 miles into the schools dominated by illegals to try and artificially inflate the scores so they don't look so bad. Awesome.
This state rakes in over a hundred billion a year in tax revenue, a pheonominal rate of increase year to year. But the whores in Sacramento and their state employee union buddies swipe even more.
There is no revenue problem, it's an spending problem. Auhnold tried to fix it but unions spent millions and millions of their memberships' money on deceitful television ads to defeat the propositions that would have brought the out of control spending under some sort of reasonable control.
So here we are, years after Gray Davis created this latest monster in Sacramento we're still having to borrow to stay solvent with no end in sight. |
|
