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.
B/c the CA govt spends a lot when times are good and can't adjust when the economy tanks, which is due to the swings in revenue. If revenue was more predictable and constant you wouldn't see so much spending in good times then get screwed as much in bad times.
Well once upon a time, I remember budgeting where when things are good, you SAVE money in a rainy day fund so when things are bad you don't have a deficit. DON'T BUDGET BY SPENDING EVERY DIME YOU HAVE FOR THAT GIVEN YEAR!!! Am I the only one who thinks like this? Evidently, for many people, this concept goes by their head like an SR-71 with full afterburners.
The way CA currently budgets is insane. For example, do you realize local schools have cost of living adjustments (COLAs) built into their budget where they allocate expenditures on that? You know what another name for COLA is? A BUDGET INCREASE! That's right! Schools are spending money WITH THE ASSUMPTION THEIR REVENUE IS GOING UP NEXT YEAR?!??! Every year! When you hear them say they are cutting the budget, they are eliminating the COLAs (the increases). THIS IS EVEN WORSE THAN SPENDING EVERY DOLLAR YOU HAVE THIS YEAR, NOW YOUR SPENDING EVERY DOLLAR FOR FUTURE MONEY, no matter if you have it or not! How many average people budget this way and get away with this? This is budgeting insanity!
Guess what happens when the economy goes south? This is why the budget swings.
<sarcastic tone>Gee, I wonder why we have Prop 13? I mean, cant we just trust legislators to do the right thing?</sarcastic tone>
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I don't necessarily disagree that we have too many freeloaders b/c we do, but their impact on the budget is overblown imo and getting rid of all of them wouldn't solve our budget problems. We rank 46th in per pupil spending and you advocate to spend even less? Yeah that would do wonders for CA's pathetic public school system. Go ahead and get rid of every state worker and you still couldn't even come close to closing the budget:
"According to the state budget document, there is the equivalent of 205,000 full-time jobs controlled by the governor. There actually are more workers than that because some are part-time. Do the math based on 16 months, since that's now the time frame of the projected deficit, assuming a balanced-budget package could be implemented by March 1.
You could lay off all those state workers -- rid yourself of their pay and benefits -- and save only $24.4 billion.
Meanwhile, you would have dumped 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets because all the prisons were closed after the guards and wardens were fired. There'd be no Highway Patrol because all the officers were canned. State parks would be closed because there were no fee-collectors or rangers.
Truth is the savings wouldn't even add up to $24.4 billion because some of those employees are paid out of small special funds that are self-sustaining. It's the big general fund that suffers the deficit. But let's say the books could be shuffled mysteriously and all that savings realized. You'd still need a lot more."
God I can't stand that Skelton and his stupid "straw man" arguments. I cannot STAND when someone takes ONE LINE OF THE BUDGET, says "see if we eliminate this, we still won't have a balanced budget", therefore we need to continue doing what we are doing! That argument is so f'ing stupid.
No. Take one thing to cut that's say $20 Million, multiply that by 1000, there, you have $20 Billion in cuts right off the bat. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS!
I'll give you just one out of probably tens of thousands of examples one can dig up! While my kids teachers beg for school supplies every year, one of our local school districts built a BRAND NEW CONFERENCE CENTER for AT LEAST a few Million A YEAR AGO, and that building IS EMPTY 90% of the time! I know becuase I drive by it every day. APPARENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THIS SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT ALSO SPENT MORE FOR NETWORKING UPGRADES, THEY APPARENTLY NEVER HEARD OF Microsoft NETMEETING instead of building this albatross!
Tell you another thing we need to do. STOP PUTTING OUT PROPOSITIONS FOR BORROWING!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Why should I accept a horrible law that has contributed significantly to the deteriorating quality of life in Ca? One that is incredibly unfair too, no state has enacted something as extreme as Prop 13.
Becuase the majority of taxpayers in CA voted for it. And the proposition culminated as a result of pushback against a redistribution agenda of Serrano vs. Priest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
ah I see "socialism" is the new buzz word since everyone and their mother seems to be throwing it out there w/o knowing the definition or how to use it. A progressive tax system is NOT socialism.
Part of Dictionary.com's definition of socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole (emphasis mine).
Read the book "California School Law
By Frank R. Kemerer, Peter Andrew Sansom, Jennifer Kemerer" for background on Assembly Bill AB 65, the direct result of Serrano vs. Priest and the spark for Prop 13 (damn I wish I could quote it):
TO PARAPHRASE from page 101 about two thirds down the page in this book, Assembly Bill AB 65 (a result of Serrano vs Priest activists) IS REDISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL PROPERTY TAX MONEY FROM RICH LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO THE POOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS. BY. THE. STATE. Look it up. It's no f'ing buzz word. It's the truth! And it was the spark that started Prop 13. (http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/ftw/serrano.html - broken link)
To me, Prop 13 is going to be needed even more than ever now. For example, are you aware that CalPERS and CalSTRS lost anywhere from $40 billion to $70 billion (depending upon who you read) all by itself? These pensions are about to kill us, and the Democrats will not touch this subject. Guess who is going to have to make up that loss anti-Prop 13 Einsteins? That's right, you the taxpayer. You think this budget mess is over? IT HAS YET TO BEGIN! Prop 13 is the only thing that is standing in the way of me and a cardboard box for a home and thank God it's here...
Exactly. State, county, local governments share their stories. When one finds something that works, a lot try to copy the formula for success. One state tries a lottery and figures out how to make money.... everyone else jumps on board with their own. Indian gaming? Same thing. Everyone jumps on board.
In 30 years no other state has jumped on the Prop 13 boat. We're going to ride that one down to the bottom all by ourselves.
Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado and Florida all went on to copy key provisions of the Proposition 13, while voters in 18 other states passed nearly 40 statewide tax-limiting measures.
On a separate note... California has had the 2/3 vote requirement to pass it's budget for about 75 years... it was approved by the voters in 1933.
Proposition 13 2/3 vote requirement to increase taxes is 30 years old... and there is an exception that only requires 55% voter approval for School Bonds.
The 2/3 budget requirement is not something new and pre-dates Proposition 13 by 45 years...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 02-25-2009 at 10:37 AM..
Reason: Budget 2/3 requirement added.
Proposition 13 came about because nearly 2/3 of the electorate came together to stabilize property taxes and rein in out of control tax increases after years of legislative inaction. Prop 13 is and was a Grass Roots Initiative.
At one time, California's Home Owner Tax Exemption was meaningful.. it protected a portion of one's home from taxation. I believe Proposition 13 would never had come into being if the Home Owner Exemption had been indexed to housing prices instead of regulated to near obscurity.
Since it's inception in 1978, Prop 13 continues to provide Property Tax predictability. State Property Tax is set at 1% of value at the time of transfer and yearly increases are limited to 2%... It matters not if you bought your home last week or 25 years ago... the formula is the same... every Home Owner benefits by limiting tax increases.
Prop 13 also requires a 2/3 legislative vote to increase state taxes... protecting all taxpayers.
City and Counties can and do tax in excess of the State 1% with voter approval... my city has an effective tax rate of around 1.4%
Can you imagine what taxes in California would be it Prop 13 had never been enacted? Don't forget that California is also a leader in collection Sales and Income Taxes... unlike neighboring States.
I would not want to return to the old days where property owners were at the mercy of tax collectors each year depending on the Assessor's "Fair Opinion of Value"... each year home owner's in mass would petition to appeal inflated assessments only to have to repeat the process all over again the following year.
Despite what many believe... total property tax revenues have continued to increase almost every year exceeding the rate of inflation.
Many of those questioning Prop 13 really should take a look back to learn the hows and whys nearly 2/3 of California Voters came together and sent Government a message that has since been adopted in other states.
The Real Value of Prop 13 in addition to requiring a 2/3 vote to increase taxes in most cases is that it provides Real Protection against being taxed on "Paper Profits". Home owner's can't pay their taxes with paper profits so why should Paper Profit be used as the basis to increase their taxes?
I disagree.
Services still need to be provided and paid for. Someone who is limited to a two-percent increase every year isn't expected to accept a mere two-percent increase in services. Police, fire protection and teachers still need to be paid. If the property owners and NOT just the proverbial 'little old widow' are protected from paying their fair share for the services they expect, then someone else is paying. That makes it inherently unfair.
Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado and Florida all went on to copy key provisions of the Proposition 13, while voters in 18 other states passed nearly 40 statewide tax-limiting measures.
On a separate note... California has had the 2/3 vote requirement to pass it's budget for about 75 years... it was approved by the voters in 1933.
Proposition 13 2/3 vote requirement to increase taxes is 30 years old... and there is an exception that only requires 55% voter approval for School Bonds.
The 2/3 budget requirement is not something new and pre-dates Proposition 13 by 45 years...
This can only work is spending is limited by the same amount, which is unrealistic and has not occurred. It's part of why CA is in so much trouble. It was probably a worthy experiment at the time but it's time has come and gone. Time to close the loopholes or rescind it altogether.
I guess the fundamental difference is I believe taxes would be much higher without Prop 13 protection.
My point exactly... the legislature is incapable of setting aside revenue in good times... everything is spent and then some by borrowing. So why add fuel in the way of higher property taxes when the legislature has proven it's inability to budget.
When Prop 13 passed in 1978, many renters either had their rent reduced or increases cancelled... Part of the reason I'm able to fore go rent increases to my tenants is because my cost increases are relatively consistent. This would not be the case if property taxes had double digit increases like other states. Prop 13 also benefits business and farmers every bit as much as home owners.
How is it some Public School Systems are able to have highly schools and thrive under Prop 13? Some of these cities have little or no industry to tax and very little retail.
Schools funding does not require Prop 13's 2/3 majority... and even before, with a 2/3 majority... the voters in my city of Oakland have approved just about every property tax measure on the ballot.
I bought a median price Oakland CA home and pay over $750 dollars a month in property taxes. I don't use the schools and there are no school age children on my entire street... just how much more should we be paying for a service we don't use? Oakland has top performing public schools and others rated in the lowest percentile. Cost are allocated on a per pupil basis... so it's not lack of funding.
Many states offer provisions for homeowners on a fixed income and for income-related property. People in your situation can be protected against hurtful property tax increases.
As long as Couple Number One, who bought their house ten years ago, had two kids and pay $1,500 in annual property taxes live next door to Couple Number Two, who bought their house a year ago and pay $10,000 in property taxes, with all or most of it going toward the schools, it is UNFAIR. The cost of educating the kids will be the same, regardless of who is paying the property taxes. Why on earth should Couple Number Two be subsidizing the education of Couple Number One, to the detriment of their own children? How, please tell me, is that fair?
Services still need to be provided and paid for. Someone who is limited to a two-percent increase every year isn't expected to accept a mere two-percent increase in services. Police, fire protection and teachers still need to be paid. If the property owners and NOT just the proverbial 'little old widow' are protected from paying their fair share for the services they expect, then someone else is paying. That makes it inherently unfair.
Simple stuff.
Absolutely... that is why every Police, Fire and School ballot measure to override Prop 13 limits has passed in my city of Oakland CA... we also pass increases for library, public transit, parks, fire suppression, parks... etc.
It's key to remember that voters can and regularly do override Prop 13 limits when they believe the value is there.
Also, Property is reassessed upon transfer, with limited exception, and CA traditionally experiences a greater rate of home turn over as people up size and down size.
This can only work is spending is limited by the same amount, which is unrealistic and has not occurred. It's part of why CA is in so much trouble. It was probably a worthy experiment at the time but it's time has come and gone. Time to close the loopholes or rescind it altogether.
I believe the voters that approved Prop 13 did so to send a clear signal to government to limit spending... Even with Prop 13 the CA budget has come in on time on occasion
A two/thirds vote is a safe guard to insure against mob rule and gives the minority a voice against the majority.
Many states offer provisions for homeowners on a fixed income and for income-related property. People in your situation can be protected against hurtful property tax increases.
As long as Couple Number One, who bought their house ten years ago, had two kids and pay $1,500 in annual property taxes live next door to Couple Number Two, who bought their house a year ago and pay $10,000 in property taxes, with all or most of it going toward the schools, it is UNFAIR. The cost of educating the kids will be the same, regardless of who is paying the property taxes. Why on earth should Couple Number Two be subsidizing the education of Couple Number One, to the detriment of their own children? How, please tell me, is that fair?
The courts have ruled Prop 13 does provide equal protection under the law...
The difference is not quite as extreme as 1,500 vs 10,000... in my area the difference between 1999 and 2009 is closer double... and I'm speaking as the the one on my block paying the highest property taxes because I bought near the market peak and many of my neighbors built their homes in the 50's and 60's.
Your point can be taken further... why should someone not accessing public schools have to pay for those that do or why should someone living in a modest home with 4 children be subsidized by someone with no children living in a mansion?
Why should buying a home be treated differently that buying anything else? My car registration is based on purchase price as is rare/valuable art objects or stocks. Why should my home be taxed based on a price I couldn't afford to pay?
To expect someone to pay taxes with real money on paper profit that they may never realize seems extremely unfair. I bought my home knowing what I was getting into and it made sense for me... would I like to pay less... sure, but I don't think my willingness or foolishness to pay a high price should be the basis to punish my neighbors.
You do make an excellent point regarding elderly homeowners... I've said before Prop 13 would have never come into being had the legislature choose to index the home owner exemption...
A $7,000 dollar home owner exemption was meaningful when median homes cost 15k. $7,000 means next to nothing when the median home price is 375k
Your posts do address questions many have and I know Prop 13 isn't perfect.
What is Prop 13? Could someone explain this in "dumb" terms for me? (haven't lived here long)
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.
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.
Am I the only one who thinks like this? Evidently, for many people, this concept goes by their head like an SR-71 with full afterburners. 
