California recovery? Not. (Los Angeles, Oakland: public school, property tax, living in)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Don't mean to sound too cavalier about it, but if taxes and the cost of living were substantially increased, let alone to compensate for this loss of over half a trillion dollars in lost revenue due to Prop. 13, so what if some folks can't afford it? Where is it written that everyone should be able to afford to live in California, anymore than we should all be able to afford "waterfront property"?

By the same token... so what if we can't pay for all the desired programs demanded... where is it written that goverment should take care of our every need?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

My sister would fall into that category... she's trying to teach here in Oakland but she's only found sub work (and only a little of that).

And I didn't say there was a lack of teachers... I said not too many people would want to be teachers based on the salary alone.


And I didn't say CA was a low tax state. That said, we're not paying enough taxes to even sustain the way things are now. Either the taxes get raised to the point that we can afford what's in front of us or we cut the **** out of services enough that we can afford to pay for a piece of **** public schooling system/PD/etc. I'd rather pick the former... if people pick the latter then what's the point of paying taxes at all? What would be the point of living in CA as opposed to the other 49 states that can actually balance their budget without completely ****ing over the citizens?

Does money grow on trees in California? What do you think will happen if they just raises taxes? California is already one of the most taxed states in the US. Maybe some residents of CA are just jealous that New Jersey is #1 in taxes and also in miserable financial shape!

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

By the same token... so what if we can't pay for all the desired programs demanded... where is it written that goverment should take care of our every need?

Some silly little clause in the Constitution conveniently, loosely and overly-broadly cited and applied by some to whit: "promote the general welfare."

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

By the same token... so what if we can't pay for all the desired programs demanded... where is it written that goverment should take care of our every need?

Agreed, it shouldn't, including "running in the red" to subsidize artificially low taxes for folks who otherwise couldn't afford to live here.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Some silly little clause in the Constitution conveniently, loosely and overly-broadly cited and applied by some to whit: "promote the general welfare."

I know all about promoters... they come to town and leave as soon as things head south

Perhaps it's a difference in denotation... to me the phrase means... get out of my way and don't be a hindrance...

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I know all about promoters... they come to town and leave as soon as things head south

Perhaps it's a difference in denotation... to me the phrase means... get out of my way and don't be a hindrance...

I'm with you, which is one reason why we ended up in the "Show Me" state!

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Agreed, it shouldn't, including "running in the red" to subsidize artificially low taxes for folks who otherwise couldn't afford to live here.

How is it artificially low? The courts have already ruled on constitutionality and equal protection.

I pay the highest tax amount in my neighborhood... well, the second highest since my new neighbor moved in next door.

I bought my home from a retired Navy man that built it in 1955... he lived there until he no longer could and moved to a retirement home. yep... all 1750 square feet of 1955 California Rancher belong to me... minus the mortgage... that includes the 9k I was paying in Property Tax before it dropped several hundred for the current year.

My taxes are 6 times what he payed... being that he was 86 or 87 when I bought... he certainly was not using the public school system... his one child was educated in many different parts of the country as the family changed duty stations... schools are the largest recipient of tax money... so he certainly wasn't using and not paying.

I have no ill will towards him or those like him. They have paid a lifetime worth of taxes into the system and make the neighborhood a place that I "Chose" to buy with my eyes wide open... I knew my property tax would be based on my purchase price.

With a little luck, I hope to live here till my eighties or beyond and eventually I will go from paying the most taxes to one of the least...

It is not unfair, if everyone is treated equally.

Prop 13 has made taxes predictable... and Prop 13 has a built in mechanism to increase taxes by a simply vote of the people... only 55% to build schools and 2/3 for other things...

Since my tax rate is nearly 1.5%... it clearly demonstrates the voters of Oakland willingly vote to tax themselves at higher rates at the polls.

Sounds like a good system with built-in safeguards.

What is often overlooked is the corruption in Assessments that ran rampant under the old system where the Assessor's opinion of property value is the only thing that mattered... I'm sure glad that we are no longer subject to one person's opinion of what my home is worth and replaced it with real market place values based on the price I willingly paid.

[Curmudgeon]

Having owned a home in CA and purchased a home in another state I do have to say that Prop 13 really didn't do the state or the taxpayers/property owners any real favors. We're taxed, here, on 19% of our home's assessed value and the "take" is really negligible, equal to, perhaps, one month's mortgage payment, not counting property tax impounds.

Prop 13 may have reeled-in property taxes, per se, but everything else has gone up because of it and the schools are a shambles, as is the infrastructure.

[smokingGun]

I wonder why California (and other states) haven't tried to implement multi-year budgets that average revenue over an entire business cycle, instead of worrying whether they'll have enough in their coffers during lean years. It's really sadomasochistic the way they go through the tortuous task of trying to balance the budget every single yr.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Having owned a home in CA and purchased a home in another state I do have to say that Prop 13 really didn't do the state or the taxpayers/property owners any real favors. We're taxed, here, on 19% of our home's assessed value and the "take" is really negligible, equal to, perhaps, one month's mortgage payment, not counting property tax impounds.

Prop 13 may have reeled-in property taxes, per se, but everything else has gone up because of it and the schools are a shambles, as is the infrastructure.

My property tax equals 4 1/2 months of mortgage payments...

I would be thrilled with a property tax amount anywhere equal to one month's mortgage payment.

My Pick-up that I've always maintained is a 1991 Silverado... I've recently noticed a slight rod knock coming from the engine... 3 1/2 months of Mortgage Payments would easily cover a new motor...

I've only been to MO once... I have standing invitations from people I used to work with that made the move... might have to take up that offer and have a look.