First of all, to your last statement :321GFY Screw you and your racist Nazi pig views


Secondly, businesses and HNW Individuals are ALREADY leaving Cali, as well as hiding assets outside the state. If you don't think that additional tax raises on both corporations and individuals have an affect on lowering job availability and overall income to a state, then you need to re-learn modern history and economics. Why do you think states offer huge tax breaks to get corporations to move in? It is because they know that the offsets of that tax revenue will still result in a net gain in terms of returns to the state gov.


.

Looks like we got a bigot here.

I bet you your right.

My home town here in NorCal is pretty smart and pretty fair. They started merging positions that did similar things - They took two jobs that each made $80k a year, merged them together, and then reduced the pay to $70k - saving $90k per year.

In one respect we are lucky that we are a new town, and most of our parks are maintained by the HOA. However, the city recently announced that they were canceling both the July 4th parade and the fireworks. The parade is back on because most of the officers involved will be volunteers and the fireworks are on because a bunch of people got together and blanketed the small town with donation requests, and local businesses stepped up to pick up the tab.

Spend money on fireman and police. That's it. Problem solved. Everything else should be run by private companies. Roads and schools would be much better off if they were run like a business instead of the current idiocracy that has a track record of dismal failures.

It's funny how the media tries to use scare tactics when it comes to budget cuts.

"They're going to close 250 colleges and empty the prisons!"

Nobody in California goes to jail for smoking pot.

The reason our jails are full is because we've imported millions of criminals from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Our prisons are full of gangbangers, not pot smokers.

The states at the top of welfare spending are there because they can pay it. New York can afford more in social services because it's an extremely wealthy state. Alabama can't because it's an extremely poor state.

Sorry, but with a few exeptions, the more Democrats in a state means the richer it is. The more Republicans in a state means the poorer it is. That can't be a coincidence.

Nonetheless, it was arguing the point about personal responsibility. If it was about that, people in states like Alabama and Mississippi who elect Republican Senators would demand that they would not take more money than they pay in. But they don't, and thus are welfare states.

States that close are called purple or swing states.

I'm saying that if the statement that was made earlier about Democrats being poor and Republicans being rich was true, states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York would always be electing Republicans. They have the riches people.

With the expansion of the lower class all accustomed to, and wanting, government freebies, I wonder if it is reversible. Successful, wealthy people will move out because of the high crime and high taxes. Businesses will relocate. Money will continue to flee. What will be left?

Taxes and crime are at historic lows for our country. If they would have left over that, they would have done so decades ago when tax rates were at 90% for the rich.

Pick up a history book.

And I think that is the way it should be in many cases. If the people of a city really want a parade, they will find a way to make it happen and either get donations to pay for it or volunteers to work it and clean up after it. Same with the fireworks, if people really want them, cool, nothing wrong with collecting a few bucks in donations from a lot of different people and paying for it.

The town I grew up in started doing the same thing. They had fireworks every 4th of July and the it was nice display, but it was expensive. That town had a lot of people who lived out of town and would never see the fireworks. They complained about having to pay for them even though they never see them. Eventually the mayor caved in and got rid of them. The people who live in town took up collections and got them back (oddly enough at a huge discount, because as per normal the city was way overpaying) and everyone was happy.

So many people here are off the mark here as to what caused the problem. California is the victim of a wacky conservative economic experiment called Proposition 13. It forever hampered the state?s ability to raise revenue the way most other states do. That is why there are so many high fees and other things in California because they simply can?t generate revenue the way most of the other states in the country do through property taxes.

There are people that have multi-million dollar homes that get taxed on what the property was valued at 30-35 years ago. For example if you purchased a home that was valued at 100k in the mid 70s that is worth 10 million today you would only pays taxes on the 100k value even though you now rent the home out based on the 10 million dollar value. The same goes for commercial real-estate if a developer built an apartment complex for a million dollars in 1975, but because of location and inflation the complex is now worth 30 million dollars the developer still only pays taxes on the original value of 1 million dollars even though the rents he collects in 2010 reflect the 30 million dollar value.

The free riders are the long term residential and commercial real estate owners.

So what happens to the person who buys a home and eventually retires with a modest income at 70. If they live in a nice neighborhood that went up in value over the years you're advocating they need to hike up the property tax to the point where the retired 70 yr old would have to sell the home and downgrade. all became the neighborhood went up in value over time . The home may be worth more but that doesn't change what the owners income level . Once the home is sold they would need to pay capital gains on the profit but as long as they live there they shouldn't get fleeced on property tax.

Rental/Commercial property I can understand your point to an extent but when applied to a regular residential owner I don't agree.

Most every other state does that. Value is reassessed and you are taxed at current value, not purchase value. Surely you aren't suggesting that California has magical 70 year olds that the rest of the country does not?

Now granted, they couldn't just come out of the blue and raise the property tax. California has too many other taxes that are meant to help balance that out. A sudden raise that nobody planned for would be disastrous.

With that said, I am very rarely in favor of raising any taxes. :-)

Yeah...Buffet once said the same thing...and that the property taxes are ridiculously low.

I think people must go to the public library to read books for free.

Gotcha. Didn't realize how other states do it. So I take it that in most states when older people retire they better be able to afford there increasing property tax or be forced to downgrade. Kinda sucks for someone that lives in a home for 50 years and eventually has to sell cause the properties taxes just got too high. Home all paid off but just cause the neighborhood does well you're screwed at 80

That is how it works all over America with the exception of California. It has its drawbacks, but it is better than the alternative. And the truth of the matter is in most cases even in California the 70 year old still downgrades, but rather than selling the home he rents it out or transfers it to a family member (to avoid reassessment) who rents it out . This dynamic lead to the rapid escalation or real estate prices as people had to pay a large premium to get someone to give up their basis in a home.


Furthermore conservatives broke the system for good as most property owners are voters and having been given a free ride for numerous years they don?t want to start suddenly paying taxes on the current market value of their homes or real estate investments. That?s why you hear so much propaganda being put out blaming it on other things because the property owners simply don?t want to pay the piper. Honestly, to fix the system the state will probably have to file bankruptcy and write a new constitution. If the Feds bail them out it will only prolong the structural problem as the state still won?t be able to raise adequate revenues to cover their expenses no matter how much they cut those expenses.

Gotcha. I don't know, maybe I'm just bias cause I live in California and am also a property owner but I like the property tax the way it is.

In your scenario about buying a 100K home that is being rented at the new 10 mill price you're leaving out the fact the owner still pays income tax. Seems like in other states the taxes will just be that much higher. Basically your cost of doing business (property tax) keeps increasing to the point you may one day have to sell.

While I do think lots needs to be fixed here, I personally like the property tax part .

Well that?s why the system can?t be fixed the voters and residents of California don?t want to give up the low property taxes. But the high fees/other taxes the state charges businesses and residents to try and pay for the shortfall (it is still not enough) drive new businesses and new residents away as they are the ones paying for it.

Good posts Kingfish.

Well in my case I live in an apartment building I bought 8 years ago (with a mortgage). The place was not cheap and my property taxes are $13K per year. It barely turns a profit and the rents basically pay the mortgage.

So in any other state I would need to sell off early cause the property tax increases would eventually eat away at my profits.

So while there are people that bought 35 years ago that fit into your scenario, there are plenty like me that bought within the last 10 too. And California properties are not cheap.

So not sure what the best solution is.

well the property taxes are really not all that low being that the price of the house/land is inflated 5 times what it should be. It pretty much is a break even with other states.

Here's a question for everyone:

Have most other states seen the same massive state wide home appreciation jumps that California has seen over the last 40 years?

My mom bought her home back in 1977 for $54K and it's now worth close to 1 million. She has never made a lot of money and still barely gets by. Sounds like in any other state she'd be screwed having to constantly sell and downgrade with every appreciation. Starting off with a home and ending up in a studio at the end.

Basically in any other state you better hope your home doesn't appreciate 20 fold or you're screwed.

My state is one of those that taxes on the properties value and the reassess every year or two. About 10-12 years ago we passed a measure that capped the percentage of the value of your home they could charge in property taxes without a vote allowing an increase. Ever since then property values have gone up and up and up. While part of this is attributed to the rapid growth in the area, I'm sure a decent amount of it is the government simply increasing the value of the home so they can charge more taxes.

Your worry about people retiring and affording a house is something I saw with my own two eyes. One of my best friend's grandparents bought a house in the 60's and lived there until about 6-7 years ago. It had long since been paid off, but they retired and were on pension income so they didn't have a lot of money. Every year their property taxes went up and then their neighbor died. The neighbor owned all the land around them and his kids sold it. The new developer was going to build 300k+ houses in there. My buddy's grandpa knew he couldn't afford to live there once those houses went in so he sold the house to my buddy and his wife. They lived their 5 years and saw the value of the house go up by 50% once the development was done and their property taxes went through the roof. They eventually sold the house because they outgrew it, but it was sad to see his grandpa who had worked his whole life to build a nice home for himself have to move into an apartment because of taxes.

While it hasn't been that crazy where I live there has been a huge jump. The house I grew up in my mom bought in 1979 for 32K. It was a killer house to grow up in. Big back yard, right on a creek that you could swim and fish in and the house had 4 bedrooms, 2 baths and was a decent size. She sold it in 1990 when I got out of high school for about 45K. It was actually on the market about 2 years ago and the new owners wanted 210K for it.

Bingo and there you have it.

Forcing old people to sell there long paid off home is not the way it should work.

I think California has is right when it comes to property taxes.

I agree those who bought in fairly recently don?t get as much of a benefit from the low property taxes. But you are incorrect about being priced out of your complex. If the value of you real estate goes down your property taxes go down in a market based system. With an apartment complex your rental income largely determines the value of you complex so as long as you didn?t overextend yourself to start with you wouldn?t be taxed out of your complex. To answer a point you made earlier about income taxes on increased rental profits making up for it that is not the case. If we look at what typically happens in CA when the 70 year old dies he transfers his basis in the home to his kids. The kids seeing dad had such a low basis in the home decide to rent it instead of sell it, but to get their money out of the home they refinance it for its current value less whatever deposit the bank requires and vola since what it takes to make profit is much higher with the new debt they don?t turn a lot of paper profits on the real estate and don?t end up paying much of anything in income taxes. What income taxes they do pay go mainly to the Feds not the cash strapped State Gov. I don?t deny working this system made people a lot of money, but like any pyramid scheme those who buy in late usually get the shaft.

As to your mom they have things called reverse mortgages for people in your mom?s situation. Hell if I was your mom I?d sell or rent the place and take the cash and move to a state that has a low cost of living where she could live like a queen for the rest of her days, and not have to worry about just getting by.

Many states...if not all...based upon income...have an exemption for the elderly...that allows them not to pay any property tax...but the annual unpaid taxes goes towards a lean against the home. Oregon is one of those states.

But that is the way it works everywhere else, and it is the natural progression of life. Typically the elderly don?t need as big of a home, as their kids have moved out, it becomes difficult for them to physically take care of or they simply can?t afford to maintain it. There is nothing wrong with that system. Yes as we get old things in life change and sometimes it is sad, but that is the way it is. For those determined to stay in their homes there are reverse mortgages, special state programs as others have mentioned and a variety of other vehicles to assist them. Bottom line is California is bankrupt because of their unique property taxation system how to you propose to solve the problem?

I don't really follow you there. It is sort of a national progression of life. As you age, you don't need that large home. Why should the rest of the state shoulder that financial burden so an older couple can hold onto the memories? Yeh, it's sentimental and romantic and all that... but practical? Hardly.

Nobody wants to move into a retirement home either, but it happens. It's practical.

So it sounds like what everyone is saying is getting royally fucked when you're old is just part of life, so tough just deal with it.

Or they should sell off, move away, leave all there family and friends behind and live the good life all by themselves but with more money.

Or take a huge reverse loan and the bank takes the home after death. Sorry no inheritance for any children, the bank has the home now.

Btw, my moms 1 million dollar home is barely 1200 square feet in a working class neighborhood. She's 70 and is able to take care of it no prob. it's not that big.

Sorry I disagree with most points in this thread.

Well...if one qualifies and takes the exemption that many...if not all states offer the elderly...then no one takes the home unless the lean exceeds the value of the home when they die. The inheirter...inheirits the home and its value...minus the amount of the lean.

Again that is why you state is bankrupt. You and your fellow residents disagree. What are you going to do about it?

It?s not about getting fucked it is about accepting getting older. My two oldest kids moved out a couple of years ago to go to school and start their own family. It made me sad for a long time, but it was time for them to move on and become adults. I have accepted it as it is a natural part of life and getting older. I don?t understand why you have such a hard time accepting it. The other way to look at it is how fortunate your mom is she can retire a millionaire and move someplace that is a short plane ride to SF so you can visit her often.

BTW The reverse mortgage works the same way the bank wouldn?t get the entire value of the home just what you mom took out of it in equity.

1. For one I don't believe our property tax laws are our sole reason for the current financial problem

2. I don't have any solutions. I don't really follow politics enough to really understand why we're in this position to being with. But i do know that 10 years ago we had a budget surplus. What happened between then and now? Our property tax laws weren't any different.

And my mom is in poor health & uneducated. There's no way she could go move away to some state by herself. All her friends and family are close by. So it kinda sucks hearing that the solutions the 49 other states have basically would screw her.

It isn't the sole reason but is a primary reason. The State Legislators providing generous services for an ever growing population and not inceasing the tax base enough to pay for this is a primary cause where as in most states property taxes are increased to help provide the tax base necessary to pay for the services provided.

I suppose that you also believe that adding 30 million deadbeats to the health care system will "lower costs."

And that you believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Have you ever been to Stockton CA? There are gunshots every night.

And, there are hundreds of other cites as bad or worse: St Louis, Killadelphia, Camden, Detroit, etc..

I hope California pulls through this relatively unscathed. It really is quite a beautiful state. The variation in terrain, weather and even people makes it a neat place to be. I'll go back, eventually. Lie on the beach for a week, probably :D

Well...I read somewhere that the current deficit is 19 billion which is down from 26 billion but that next years deficit will be in the vincinity of 37 billion...so I think California will be "scathed".