Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [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 11-13-2016, 04:24 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,481,229 times
Reputation: 23225

Advertisements

Endangered Species Act...

Case in point... a rancher in Contra Costa runs cattle every year and has done so over 120 years...

A few years back much of the land was deemed critical habitat of a snake which severely restricts what he can do with his land.

He does have the expensive option to petition out by submitting scientific data to refute... costly proposition.

Common sense would say if the snake and cattle have got along for 120 years why is there even an issue?

I have friends that wanted to rebuild the existing deck and learned the wetland buffer was greatly expanded so now permitting is a long process...

How do these things happen... like having land zoned for houses changed to one home... maybe all because someone deemed it so.

Federal Land is Federal Land... private land should remain private with all that entails and if a mouse or snake is deemed to supercede that the owner needs to be compensated for the taking of or loss of use.

My friends on Last Chance Road in Santa Cruz now must drive almost an hour more since a road that has existed for since before California became a State was obliterated... by the park system stating they lacked funds for maintenance and the kicker is the local ranchers and loggers did the maintenance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2016, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,757 posts, read 26,009,001 times
Reputation: 33869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
...a rancher in Contra Costa runs cattle every year and has done so over 120 years... A few years back much of the land was deemed critical habitat of a snake which severely restricts what he can do with his land.
Are you sure the rancher owned that land? As far as I know most ranchers grazing cattle in that area lease grazing rights from EBMUD the local water district, not BLM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
I have friends that wanted to rebuild the existing deck and learned the wetland buffer was greatly expanded so now permitting is a long process...
Again, it doesn't sound like we are talking about the seizure of land, but rather a complicated permitting process. I guess there's an argument to be made that wetlands is not valuable enough to protect but that's probably a topic for a different thread. But if you want to deal with a complicated permit process for a deck, buy a home in an HOA ugh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Federal Land is Federal Land... private land should remain private with all that entails and if a mouse or snake is deemed to supercede that the owner needs to be compensated for the taking of or loss of use.
There is a difference between regulations on land use and the seizure of property. I can't have a rooster in my backyard but last year I could have had one, but that doesn't mean my property was seized and I don't think I would have much of an argument if I tried to claim damages for not being able to own a rooster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
My friends on Last Chance Road in Santa Cruz now must drive almost an hour more since a road that has existed for since before California became a State was obliterated... by the park system stating they lacked funds for maintenance and the kicker is the local ranchers and loggers did the maintenance.
I don't think it's federal land, I believe that it's part of California state park service. But since the state would be liable for accidents occurring on a poorly or improperly maintained road, then turning it into a trail was probably rational. Again..no private property to be restored since none was seized.

I would never want to see anyone's private property seized by the Government, if that has been done then it definitely be returned to the rightful owner, but I don't see that here and I'm not aware of any place where it has happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2016, 10:00 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,481,229 times
Reputation: 23225
The Contra Costa Ranch has been in the same family since 1860... nothing leased. Out of nowhere it popped up on a map of critical habitat...

True the problems of one family normally are insignificant but when you hear others in the same predicament it is easy to see a pattern...

The Dairy Farm industry is again under the microscope... one side of my family have been Dairy farming for generations... small family farm that is certified organic...

Last Chance Road is interesting as the push is for all private parcels to eventually be government owned... some have willing sold with lifetime estates... upon death the home will be razed and all trace eliminated...

These home are off grid but all have landline telephone service... go figure... even many miles from the nearest paved road.

The issue with obliterating the road is one of fire and general safety....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 01:15 PM
 
882 posts, read 685,329 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Don't spend all that money just yet: From Forbes:

"On average, Trump would cut taxes for middle-income households making $48,000 to $83,000 by about $1,000 or 1.8 percent of their after-tax income. But he’d give those making more than $3.7 million (the top 0.1 percent) an average tax cut of more than $1 million, or 14 percent of their after-tax income".

The most unfortunate thing here is it appears you rely on the media to spoon feed information to you instead of just doing some simple math that someone with a 5th grade level of education could accomplish (it's really that easy). The other concern I would have is that many people simply don't look at things like a candidate's tax plan (which I would think would be pretty important, especially for many that consistently complain about a high cost of living here).

So, in a nutshell....

Trump's plan (which can be easily found on the internet) would be to take that $75k in income, reduce it by a standard deduction of $15k (giving you $60k) and multiplying it by 12%. That gives you taxes owed of $7200.

Looking at our current system. That same individual would be able to deduct $4k for a personal exemption, and $6300 for a standard deduction (Trump has removed the personal exemption and upped the standard deduction). That leave taxable income of $64,700. The tax rate for that level of income is:

$37,651—$91,150 $5,183.75 plus 25% of the amount over $37,650

So that would be 64,700-37650 = 27050 x .25 = 6762 + 5184 = 11,946

Subtract $7200 from $11,946 and you get $4,746

It's really not that hard to figure out.

If that same person earned $50K, they would get a net benefit of a little over $2100. I can't help the other poster that thinks people earning this amount of money are "rich" (don't have time for the class envy, nor do I believe that puts someone in the "rich" category). Nor can I respond to people that are bothered that others get a better benefit than them (they also pay more).

There you go. Hope that answers your question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,757 posts, read 26,009,001 times
Reputation: 33869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
The most unfortunate thing here is it appears you rely on the media to spoon feed information to you instead of just doing some simple math that someone with a 5th grade level of education could accomplish (it's really that easy). The other concern I would have is that many people simply don't look at things like a candidate's tax plan (which I would think would be pretty important, especially for many that consistently complain about a high cost of living here).
So, in a nutshell.... .
You offered an example of a single taxpayer earning $75,000 but you made the assumption that they are not currently itemizing deductions, why did you choose to do that? And there are several scenarios where the people who can afford it the least will be paying more tax.
  • A single parent with $75,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of around $2,440.
  • A single parent with $50,000 in earnings, three school-age children and no child care costs would also face a tax increase of around $1,188.
  • A married couple with $50,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of about $150.
  • Other married couples would get almost no benefit.
What Is Donald Trump's Tax Plan? An Analysis Of Whom It Will Benefit : NPR

FAMIILIES FACING TAX INCREASES UNDER TRUMP’S TAX PLAN

PS I do not appreciate the snide remark alleging that I relied upon "spoon fed information by the media" I research what I post. Insults do nothing but demean your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,757 posts, read 26,009,001 times
Reputation: 33869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
The Contra Costa Ranch has been in the same family since 1860... nothing leased. Out of nowhere it popped up on a map of critical habitat..
I would like more information on this, it is unprecedented to forbid grazing on private land, at times it is suggested that a rancher graze fewer cattle for an endangered species that relies upon the habitat that is damaged by grazing could you ask your friend for more details?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:48 PM
 
882 posts, read 685,329 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You offered an example of a single taxpayer earning $75,000 but you made the assumption that they are not currently itemizing deductions, why did you choose to do that? And there are several scenarios where the people who can afford it the least will be paying more tax.
  • A single parent with $75,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of around $2,440.
  • A single parent with $50,000 in earnings, three school-age children and no child care costs would also face a tax increase of around $1,188.
  • A married couple with $50,000 in earnings, two school-age children and no child care costs would face a tax increase of about $150.
  • Other married couples would get almost no benefit.
What Is Donald Trump's Tax Plan? An Analysis Of Whom It Will Benefit : NPR

FAMIILIES FACING TAX INCREASES UNDER TRUMP’S TAX PLAN

PS I do not appreciate the snide remark alleging that I relied upon "spoon fed information by the media" I research what I post. Insults do nothing but demean your argument.
I happen to feel my example of a single taxpayer in the $75k range (and I also gave $50k) is a realistic example for this area (apparently you don't). And yes, of course, I made the assumption that they are not itemizing since a taxpayer in that range in all likelihood would not have a mortgage interest deduction. I showed you the math instead of being lazy and relying on a generic article (which you seem to be doing again), and mentioned that someone with a 5th grade level of education could solve (which was factually correct). I'm sorry if you felt insulted by it.

I would be happy to run numbers again if your cherry picked examples weren't completely absurd. So you honestly believe that we have a large contingency of single moms or married couples with 2+children earning $50K do you? Where exactly do they live on that kind of a gross income amount and prices like those that we have in the Bay Area? Honestly, I think most people would find my example more realistic to this area. But it's seems apparent you're more content in finding unrealistic scenarios to argue with. Not worth my time. When you can provide a realistic example and break it down like I did, I'd be happy to look at it. I already proved your generic magazine article wrong based on my example, and I'm not in the mood to continue on with someone that chooses to rely on these type of sources instead of actually running numbers with realistic examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 04:07 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,481,229 times
Reputation: 23225
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I would like more information on this, it is unprecedented to forbid grazing on private land, at times it is suggested that a rancher graze fewer cattle for an endangered species that relies upon the habitat that is damaged by grazing could you ask your friend for more details?
It is not forbidden... just full of new restrictions since listed as critical habitat for a snake.

Prior to the designation the land was a candidate for development... although the owners have no intention and have lived and worked the land since the 1860's... city limits front one side and high end residential another with Parkland the remaining sides... it is kind of an Island and still has the 1860 barn.

I can ask if they mind me posting more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,757 posts, read 26,009,001 times
Reputation: 33869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It is not forbidden... just full of new restrictions since listed as critical habitat for a snake.

Prior to the designation the land was a candidate for development... although the owners have no intention and have lived and worked the land since the 1860's... city limits front one side and high end residential another with Parkland the remaining sides... it is kind of an Island and still has the 1860 barn.

I can ask if they mind me posting more.
Thank you, it's an interesting topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,757 posts, read 26,009,001 times
Reputation: 33869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independentthinking View Post
I happen to feel my example of a single taxpayer in the $75k range (and I also gave $50k) is a realistic example for this area (apparently you don't). And yes, of course, I made the assumption that they are not itemizing since a taxpayer in that range in all likelihood would not have a mortgage interest deduction. I showed you the math instead of being lazy and relying on a generic article (which you seem to be doing again), and mentioned that someone with a 5th grade level of education could solve (which was factually correct). I'm sorry if you felt insulted by it.

I would be happy to run numbers again if your cherry picked examples weren't completely absurd. So you honestly believe that we have a large contingency of single moms or married couples with 2+children earning $50K do you? Where exactly do they live on that kind of a gross income amount and prices like those that we have in the Bay Area? Honestly, I think most people would find my example more realistic to this area. But it's seems apparent you're more content in finding unrealistic scenarios to argue with. Not worth my time. When you can provide a realistic example and break it down like I did, I'd be happy to look at it. I already proved your generic magazine article wrong based on my example, and I'm not in the mood to continue on with someone that chooses to rely on these type of sources instead of actually running numbers with realistic examples.
Yes, I do think we have a large number of families and parents with children earning $50,000 a year, there are places like Fairfield, Vallejo, Richmond and Pittsburg which as far as I know are still considered to be in the SF Bay area. I know of at least one single mom with a 13 year old who earns just under 50k and lives in Dixon, she's a good person and works hard I would hate to see her negatively impacted by changes to the tax code so that we could afford to give LeBron James a 15 million tax break.

But please, don't waste your time responding to me, I don't want to argue with you, but I do have a right to offer a different point of view.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top