Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [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)
 
Old 04-23-2017, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That's an odd thing for a free market advocate to say. Businesses currently benefiting from prop 13 are artificially enjoying a huge advantage over new businesses, how can that possibly be ok with you?
I didn't say it was OK. What I said is "it's not a loophole." With all tax policies there are winners and losers.

In point of fact, I don't think businesses should be taxed, period. Taxes collected from businesses actually are borne by a combination of customers, business owners, employees, and suppliers. It is much more efficient to just tax those customers, business owners, employees and suppliers directly.

More importantly, government just costs too damn much. We had plenty of government 20 years ago. We are not better off with the incremental governmental expenditures that have occurred since then..

Last edited by SportyandMisty; 04-23-2017 at 02:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2017, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Another EXACTLY. (Can't rep you again.)

They may call it what they like, a loophole, "a magnet as an incentive for business" (come on), but the fact is that it's a means of avoidance that commercial property owners have, which residential property owners do not. And I disagree with the idea that any person can incorporate, because there are ramifications that are NOT beneficial, but I've expressed that earlier on this thread and won't repeat myself.

Why, in fact, should residential property be taxed at all? If we wish to allow property taxes on residential property, shouldn't only the owners of the property be allowed to vote on it?

Why tax commercial property at all? If so, shouldn't only business owners be allowed to vote on it?

At the end of the day, taxing commercial property (or more broadly any business at all) is inefficient. Businesses collect the tax, but it is borne by a combination of customers, suppliers, employees and business owners. It is more efficient to just tax those customers, suppliers, employees and business owners directly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,872,320 times
Reputation: 15839
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsnicker3 View Post
i have thought of a fair solution to it all:
I don't see your proposal being fair. "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree."

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsnicker3 View Post
... gives municipalities the ability to raise as much ... revenue as they see fit.
Wait. You think that's a good thing???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 02:45 PM
 
Location: So Ca
26,739 posts, read 26,828,098 times
Reputation: 24795
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
Looks like they are fighting for home owners, right? Wrong. Does anyone believe that after they collect more money from corporations, they would lower your property taxes? Not in a million years.
Residential property owners aren't asking for their property taxes to be lowered; they're asking that commercial properties not continue to be able to avoid re-assessment.

Quote:
"Back in 1978, corporations paid 44 percent of all property taxes and homeowners paid 56 percent. Now, after exploiting this loophole for years, corporations pay only 28 percent of property taxes, while homeowners pick up 72 percent of the tab.
You see nothing wrong with this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:03 PM
 
8,943 posts, read 11,788,390 times
Reputation: 10871
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Residential property owners aren't asking for their property taxes to be lowered; they're asking that commercial properties not continue to be able to avoid re-assessment.



You see nothing wrong with this?
If you are a home owner, then post what you want, but don't pretend to speak for other residential property owners. I am one. And that's not what I want. In fact, more than a few posters here have said that's not what they want.

I am asking as a home owner, since the government say they care so much about home owners that they want corporations to pay more to ease the tax burden for home owners, for some of that money in the form of lower property taxes. If they say they care, show me the money.

No I see nothing wrong that because taxing corporations more won't ease my property tax burdens one bit.

Again, smoke and mirrors for their disgusting money grab.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Unhappy Valley, Oregon
1,083 posts, read 1,037,138 times
Reputation: 1941
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
I don't see your proposal being fair. "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree."



Wait. You think that's a good thing???
My proposal taxes people's property at a state level based on the type and use of the property. That is completely fair and equitable. Since California is such a large and diverse state, I don't see a property value based property tax system as being fair at the state level.

I do think it is a good thing. The current system locks the property tax rate across the board regardless of the city and municipality. This strips control out of the locality and shifts it to the state. It also forces sales taxes up. I would want power to return to the municipalities by allowing people to make decision regarding their city's tax rates. It also doesn't make sense that the property tax rate be same in a high real estate market to have the same municipal rates as a low real estate market. Property taxes should be set such that it fund municipal services such as schools, fire departments, police, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:38 PM
 
8,943 posts, read 11,788,390 times
Reputation: 10871
No, thanks. Yeah, leave it to corrupt and greedy local politicians to set your property taxes. Have we learned nothing from the city of Bell scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal

Bell Scandal: A Times Investigation - LA Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:46 PM
 
Location: So Ca
26,739 posts, read 26,828,098 times
Reputation: 24795
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
If you are a home owner, then post what you want, but don't pretend to speak for other residential property owners. I am one. And that's not what I want.
Of course I'm a homeowner if I'm for Prop 13. And re-read the title of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
I am asking as a home owner, since the government say they care so much about home owners that they want corporations to pay more to ease the tax burden for home owners, for some of that money in the form of lower property taxes. If they say they care, show me the money.
"The government" has said no such thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:47 PM
 
Location: Unhappy Valley, Oregon
1,083 posts, read 1,037,138 times
Reputation: 1941
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
No, thanks. Yeah, leave it to corrupt and greedy local politicians to set your property taxes. Have we learned nothing from the city of Bell scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal

Bell Scandal: A Times Investigation - LA Times
Dang, that is an awful story. Maybe residents should have the ability to actually vote on tax rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
22,146 posts, read 33,552,235 times
Reputation: 35437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
A lot of my retired California Law Enforcement friends from the SF Bay Area have retired to Nevada... they say no income tax makes it a no brainer...

I don't have a 100 to 180k pension so I will never know... but this is the range of pensions my friends have.
Retirement is one thing. When I retire I'll be taking quite a bit of money with me if I decide to get out of Ca. So for me to move to lower col area is a no brainer. Right now there really isn't any reason for me to move.
If I did I would have to hire a pmc. That would take a lot of money and put it n someone else's pocket. For something I can diy.

Last edited by Electrician4you; 04-23-2017 at 05:24 PM..
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

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