U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:08 PM
 
Location: NJ
24,106 posts, read 30,231,951 times
Reputation: 15995

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
At least the 47% of citizens who pay ZERO income tax would pay something.
Isn't that a step in the right direction of defining "fair share"?
"fair share" really means "make the 'rich' pay more"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
I guess the term "relatively low property taxes" is relative. While there certainly are other states with higher rates, the ACTUAL bill is padded with many fees. I just received my property tax bill for a property valued at $190,335 in Sacramento. The "county wide 1%" at $1903.35 doesn't look bad at first. However, after Library Services Tax, Reclamation District tax, Citywide Assessment, N. Natomas Landscape CFD, Neighborhood Park Maintenance, Mello-Roos fees, the total bill is $3843.78. Just my opinion, but that doesn't seem "relatively low" to me.

One final point, California has been cutting itself off at the knees for some time. Maybe it is time to cut spending on entitlements and a corrupt pension system instead of hiding revenue generation in "fees" and pretending they aren't raising taxes.
Yes - those are pretty high property taxes - at least 50% more than I'm paying. At least you're not paying an extra tax for your mosquito control district .

BTW - my perception - as someone who doesn't live in California - is that not only is California not cutting spending on entitlements - it is creating new entitlements - like the "Dream Act".

FWIW - I think most Americans - at least those who pay taxes - would like to see a newer simplified tax code - at least as simple as the code was after the changes made during the Reagan administration. I also think that regardless of what people think of Cain's specific proposals - most taxpayers wouldn't object to throwing out the current code - and starting from scratch. Especially the increasing number of middle-class taxpayers who live in high tax states and are getting caught in the AMT net. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:37 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,487 posts, read 62,120,010 times
Reputation: 32153
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
...tax bill for a property valued at $190,335 in Sacramento.
The "county wide 1%" at $1903.35 doesn't look bad at first.
However, after .... the total bill is $3843.78.

Just my opinion, but that doesn't seem "relatively low" to me.
No; it isn't low. But at 2%... it is within the reasonable range of Par.
Few areas will be less than 1.5%; some net over 3% or even 4%

Quote:
One final point... it is time to (stop) hiding revenue generation in "fees" and pretending they aren't raising taxes.
100% Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:40 PM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,856,103 times
Reputation: 11681
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
And what is the single most common thing required for demand? Hmmm?

Another worthy discussion.

You're right... the references should be the top 5%; maybe even the top 10%
Any one with a pension probably has money invested and that money needs to max the funds return. That is a lot more than 10% of us. It isn't the role of corporations nor is it legal for them to pass our (stockholders) money out as free candy for societal purposes. They could go to jail for that! It might be noble but it would be a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to stock holders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
28,487 posts, read 62,120,010 times
Reputation: 32153
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
That is a lot more than 10% of us.
the **TOP** 10% or the TOP 5%
(vs the top 1% initially referred to)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 02:49 PM
 
29,772 posts, read 34,856,103 times
Reputation: 11681
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
the **TOP** 10% or the TOP 5%
(vs the top 1% initially referred to)
The school system custodian has a pension and that trust fund has their money invested via hedge funds, stock and bond holdings etc. I doubt that custodian is in the top10% of wage earners. Remember it was the dismal returns of 2008 that generated so much of the pension reform discussion. Right now for investment purposes the financial sector sucks and the fear of contagion there from Euro Debacle is holding the market back and that will effect FY 2012 pension trust fund returns. That in turn will impact the sustainability of those pension funds. That being said many of us have skin in the game directly or indirectly hoping corporate American and especially the financial sector have banner years. This is earning seasons now on Wall Street and each day millions of Americans beyond the top 10% hope for the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
Default California property taxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
I guess the term "relatively low property taxes" is relative. While there certainly are other states with higher rates, the ACTUAL bill is padded with many fees. I just received my property tax bill for a property valued at $190,335 in Sacramento. The "county wide 1%" at $1903.35 doesn't look bad at first. However, after Library Services Tax, Reclamation District tax, Citywide Assessment, N. Natomas Landscape CFD, Neighborhood Park Maintenance, Mello-Roos fees, the total bill is $3843.78. Just my opinion, but that doesn't seem "relatively low" to me.

One final point, California has been cutting itself off at the knees for some time. Maybe it is time to cut spending on entitlements and a corrupt pension system instead of hiding revenue generation in "fees" and pretending they aren't raising taxes.
One thing a lot of people don't understand about California property taxes is that Proposition 13 makes it so that property taxes cannot go up more than 2% (I think it is) a year until the property is sold, at which time it is reassessed at the sales price. This results in people who have had their property a long time paying low taxes. This may be unfair but it prevents people from getting huge, surprise increases which tax them out of their homes.

So the appropriate question is how long have you had the property? I bought a town house in a small city in Los Angeles County ten years ago for exactly $190,000. The annual total tax bill is now $2,730.85. Notice I talked in my post about "relatively" low property taxes in California. And your total bill of $3843.78 is indeed relatively low compared to many areas of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,969,510 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
How would a federal sales tax (VAT) impact the states? The various states currently have such a mixture of taxation which differs enormously from state to state. A few states have no sales tax, but they make up for it with higher income and property taxes and fees. A few states have no income tax but they make it up with higher sales taxes and property taxes and fees. California has relatively low property taxes but high income and sales taxes.

^ Right on all. My New England state has no sales tax on food or clothing, but the property taxes are much like CA. New Hampshire is a state with killer property taxes but no alcohol tax; many go over the border to get their fix. I'd rather have low property taxes; you can go over the border to another state to buy food and clothes, or shop frugally or very little. But there's nothing to be done about property tax.

Now what would happen to a high sales tax state like California if they added a 9% VAT on top of the existing 8% state sales tax? People would not stand for that; it would be outrageous. California would pretty much have to cut its sales tax drastically, and the result would be cutting that state off at the knees.

This would ruin business across the country. BTW, if you mail-order outside the country, do the same taxes apply?

The impact of the triple 9 plan on the states would vary tremendously, and in some states (not only California) it would be disruptive with a capital D. And many of those states are already skating on the edge financially.
^ You are right, this could cripple the economy. It is a preposterous idea at at time of downward spiraling state economies and personal incomes as well as for retiree incomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,969,510 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55 View Post
Yes - those are pretty high property taxes - at least 50% more than I'm paying. Robyn
But what are Floridian homeowners paying in house insurance annually, esp near the coast?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2011, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,923,045 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
One thing a lot of people don't understand about California property taxes is that Proposition 13 makes it so that property taxes cannot go up more than 2% (I think it is) a year until the property is sold, at which time it is reassessed at the sales price. This results in people who have had their property a long time paying low taxes. This may be unfair but it prevents people from getting huge, surprise increases which tax them out of their homes.

So the appropriate question is how long have you had the property? I bought a town house in a small city in Los Angeles County ten years ago for exactly $190,000. The annual total tax bill is now $2,730.85. Notice I talked in my post about "relatively" low property taxes in California. And your total bill of $3843.78 is indeed relatively low compared to many areas of the country.
We have the same thing more or less in Florida. The Save Our Homes amendment. I am going on the taxable basis of the house - not the true market value. Your taxes sound a little higher than mine - but not 50% more. I guess - as in Florida - that property tax rates in California vary considerably from place to place - county to county - city to city. Our property taxes would - in most counties in SE Florida - be at least 50% more than up here in our NE Florida county. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top