Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [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 04-17-2016, 01:12 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,410,741 times
Reputation: 23222

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
I was in CA for Pop 13. It's a hideous law. You want to compound that mistake? Such shenanigans should have been made unconstitutional.

Do you feel sorry for someone people whose RE skyrockets in value so much that their meager salary has trouble paying the property tax bill? They just won the lotto, and they are crying for extra concessions!
The only way to collect is to sell... so it is hardly winning.

The US Supreme Court ruled on Prop 13...

It is based on the value at the time of transfer... nothing more or less... just like buying a car of computer.

Prop 13 doesn't prohibit increased assessments... it only requires voter approval and the voters in my city have been most generous with the rate now hovering around 1.7%...

Prop 13 does not exist in a vacuum... Californians already pay high sales and income taxes plus many other things are quite expensive like utilities and gasoline.

The beauty of Prop 13 is that is applies equally to every taxable property in the State...

No need to feel sorry for anyone... each transaction stands independently thanks to Prop 13.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2016, 08:46 AM
 
2 posts, read 1,789 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanokie View Post

...I don't have to prove anything because this right here




is a fact.

The problem we have isn't the result of a minimum wage that is to low. Its the result of political corruption where our so called representatives no longer look after our best interest and instead look after the interest of the hand that feeds them, large corporations. They have steadily dropped barriers to exporting our jobs and now that they have saturated that trade they have now moved to importing more and more immigrant workers, flagrantly violating laws that are supposed to protect American workers from getting displaced by cheap imported labor. Now they will begin another phase with this $15 hr nonsense, they are going to replace anyone they can with robots and self service kiosks. They will leverage this to cut more workers and hours.

The regulatory agencies have been turned into toothless jokes. The only reason people work for them is so they can get the high paying job (payoff for looking the other way) working for the very people they were supposed to be policing. This is rampant in Banks/Wall St and the SEC. Big AG, Big Pharm and the FDA.

Minimum wage hikes aren't going to solve any of that. Its just going to lead to more H1-B visas, more robots, and layoffs. Its just another pointless disagreement that accomplishes nothing but distraction from the real issues.
While i don't necessarily disagree with most of what you're saying, i'm just pointing out that it doesn't do much adress the merits of minimum wage. All the things you have said could be true or false, and the minuimum wage could be a great thing for workers and the economy, or a terrible thing. For instance, I just don't see how a corrupt congress means minimum wage is bad.

Let me put this whole thing another way.
Other countries have a minimum wage around that of 15 USD, Germany, Australia, and New zealand for example. Those countries all have similar unemployment rates to the US. They seem to be prosperous countries. They haven't experienced median wage stagnation since the 70s Like the US. So perhaps the burden of proof is on the position that minimum wage is bad for workers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,044 posts, read 13,789,090 times
Reputation: 15837
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansProof View Post
Everyone thinks of fast food when it comes to minimum wage but there are vast sectors out there that just can't pay $15 hour. Lifeguards at community pools...
Kinda like this?

Lifeguards Get Pensions? At Age 45? They Do in Atlantic City - Bloomberg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 06:27 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,315,644 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
The only way to collect is to sell... so it is hardly winning.

The US Supreme Court ruled on Prop 13...

It is based on the value at the time of transfer... nothing more or less... just like buying a car of computer.

Prop 13 doesn't prohibit increased assessments... it only requires voter approval and the voters in my city have been most generous with the rate now hovering around 1.7%...

Prop 13 does not exist in a vacuum... Californians already pay high sales and income taxes plus many other things are quite expensive like utilities and gasoline.

The beauty of Prop 13 is that is applies equally to every taxable property in the State...

No need to feel sorry for anyone... each transaction stands independently thanks to Prop 13.

dirty little truth is that if CA had split roll, voters would be happy to vote higher taxes on Someone Else's Property while rejecting higher taxes on their own homes.

the ugliness of Prop 13 is that it applies unequally to owners and renters - the owner who lives in his home for 30 years is fully protected while the renter who lives in his home for 30 years has squat for protection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 06:37 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,315,644 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
No mention of Prop 13 limit of new assessments unless the voters approve?

This is just as much a cornerstone of Prop 13 as anything else... voter approval.

Liberals will often vote to increase their assessments, while conservatives usually won't unless it's dedicated for a "good" purpose like police and fire.

Michigan has split roll taxes and a tax limitation cap which voters can override. So voters are always happy to override the cap on "nonhomestead" property taxes and never ever willing to override the cap on their own property taxes. (In fact, school boards understand it would be political suicide to ask homeowners to override the cap on their own taxes so they never even ask.)

So the Prop 13 limit on assessment increases is just one more example of homeowner selfishness and greed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 08:10 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,410,741 times
Reputation: 23222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
dirty little truth is that if CA had split roll, voters would be happy to vote higher taxes on Someone Else's Property while rejecting higher taxes on their own homes.

the ugliness of Prop 13 is that it applies unequally to owners and renters - the owner who lives in his home for 30 years is fully protected while the renter who lives in his home for 30 years has squat for protection.
Just like the Renter's credit... only available if you are renting.

Many laws are targeted... import, export, key industry.

At least Prop 13 doesn't exclude anyone... it applies to all property... so the key would be becoming an owner... many ways to own... invest with others, sole owner, married... you get the idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,667 posts, read 6,549,356 times
Reputation: 4817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
The only way to collect is to sell... so it is hardly winning.

The beauty of Prop 13 is that is applies equally to every taxable property in the State...
You can get a 2nd mortgage... live it up, fund your retirement, and pay your property taxes.

It doesn't apply "equally". Someone living in a shack can be paying more than someone with a property that is worth 10x as much. It's a great example of current voters passing a law to favor themselves and stick it to newcomers.

If the taxes are too high, then just pass a lower % that applies equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2016, 08:29 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,410,741 times
Reputation: 23222
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post

So the Prop 13 limit on assessment increases is just one more example of homeowner selfishness and greed.
There is a satutory inflation factor of 2%.

Voters can and do vote for increased assessments... Prop 13 sets the Statewide rate at 1%.

I live in Oakland California and my rate is just about 1.7%... lots of greedy people here for sure paying 70% over Prop 13

Then there are the things I pay for... lucky me... I get to pay a city and a country assessment for the Oakland Coliseum to underwrite the construction to bring back the Oakland Raiders... and with years left for Property Owners to pay... the Raiders, A's and Golden State Warriors are all looking to leave

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried... sure is a lot of greed and it is not from the property owners paying the bill...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 12:06 PM
 
17,384 posts, read 11,896,176 times
Reputation: 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Liberals will often vote to increase their assessments, while conservatives usually won't unless it's dedicated for a "good" purpose like police and fire.

Michigan has split roll taxes and a tax limitation cap which voters can override. So voters are always happy to override the cap on "nonhomestead" property taxes and never ever willing to override the cap on their own property taxes. (In fact, school boards understand it would be political suicide to ask homeowners to override the cap on their own taxes so they never even ask.)

So the Prop 13 limit on assessment increases is just one more example of homeowner selfishness and greed.
Can you please show me proof of both of these allegations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 01:12 PM
 
17,384 posts, read 11,896,176 times
Reputation: 16121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post


In this context, which do you think is relevant? Shifting money to lower income workers will increase demand.
If that's the case, why don't we steall ALL the money from those that have earned it and give it to the poor?
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 > Economics

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