Support FR
Posted on 08/12/2013 7:22:27 AM PDT by Texas Eagle
By PAUL PRESTON The new motto under the bear on the California State flag is going to have to be revised from “California Republic” to California Soviet Republic” if proposed Senate Bill 1 by State Senator Steinberg is passed and signed into law. SB 1 came about following the massive defeat of Prop. 31 in last November’s election which was defeated by California Voters 61% to 39%. Cal Watch Dog’s Wayne Lusvardi in his November 9, 2012 article tilted :http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/09/prop-31-would-have-ended-californias-republic/“>Prop. 31 would have ended California’s republic”, commented “Republicanism Upheld Only by Accident: The reason attributed to Prop. 31 losing by most sources was not that it would have replaced a republican form of government with unelected regional councils controlled by the Legislature The only opposition George Skelton and the Los Angeles Times had to Prop. 31 was that it was “long and complex.” TV station KQED in Northern California said it was just “too complicated.”
(Excerpt) Read more at agenda21radio.com ...
True enough. Got the red star going and The Soviet Unions used to be referred to as The Bear.
This hits very close to home for me. My father worked at one such redevelopment agency in San Diego. I worked there for a couple summers myself. The president (Carolyn) and head accountant (Dante) were recently convicted of giving out crazy bonuses and pay increases to staff and themselves. I knew both of these individuals and they were nice normal people just like everyone else. It all started out harmless when they were giving everyone large pay increases. I remember my father commenting at how absurd the pay was for many of the staff. Many were making 50-90k and only had high school diplomas. Carolyn was very generous to everyone and I do believe everything started with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, once you start dipping into the bowl, it gets too hard to stop.
No accountability will ruin the best of people. Below is a link for more info. for those interested in a great example of why these kinds of things shouldn't be established.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jan/20/sedc-pair-get-probation-must-pay-435000-city/
When taxation is decided at the state level, then everything else will ultimately be decided at the state level.
People wanted security over freedom. Security that their property taxes would not rise too fast no matter where they lived in CA, rather than the freedom to move to cities where the taxes were lower.
We were sold a bill of goods by Jarvis and we took the bait hook, line, and sinker.
Why even bother having “elections” in CA? In recent years, what the people vote for is eventually overridden by corrupt officials and/or liberal groups who conspire to overturn the peoples’ decisions.
Better question is when do freedom-loving people still left in CA finally say enough and leave?
They are cesspools of corruption, robbing people holding land for speculative purposes so that the big players can buy at below market.
While I understand what you are saying and agree with it in principle, people who have multigenerational investments in land don't just pick up and move. In our county, property taxes were at 8.5%. I want you to imagine an $85,000 tax bill every year. It was robbery. Of course, all property taxes are robbery in principle.
The damage that Proposition 13 really did is that it made it tolerable to allow Democrats to remain in power.
Wow...I thought I was one of the few conservatives that saw Prop 13, as noble as it may have been, to be the antithesis of conservatism.
In a perfect world, most taxes should be local, since they have the most direct impact on the quality of life of the taxpayer.
Prop 13 gave the State all kinds of excuses to encroach into what should be local control.
You got a source for this accusation on the redevelopment agency I mentioned?
I knew these people personally. I worked with them and spent time with them out of the office. They were good intentioned people that unfortunately gave in to temptation. Pretty much all the businesses that got funds and loans were mom and pop shops struggling to make ends meet because the state of the neighborhood. These stores benefited greatly from the help and the community did improve.
The problem with this particular redevelopment agency a lack of proper accountability and oversight which led to them taking a piece of the pie for themselves. It didn’t happen immediately, it happened when they couldn’t resist it anymore. My point is simply that even when good intentioned people are put in these positions, they can still fall if there isn’t proper accountability.
I have enough information to make a generalization, but not specifics to your area. I have seen this gambit where I've lived, in Culver City, in Oakland, and in San Jose. My dad was a municipal financing consultant, and he dealt with lots of these agencies. His complaints were the same.
They were good intentioned people that unfortunately gave in to temptation.
So how is that not a systemic problem? The simple answer is that eminent domain for redevelopment is too much power.
As Reagan said. The scariest words you will ever hear I’am from the government and I’am here to help you.
But then the city I lived in was run by conservative Republicans.
If you are/were living in a city run by liberal Democrats then you should expect your taxes to become ridiculously high.
In most states the mill levy varies from city to city. It is usually included as part of any real estate ad so buyers can decide if they can afford to live in an otherwise inexpensive home in an expensive neighborhood.
In Boulder they tended to tax higher for all of the liberal nonsense that the citizens voted for. But they had a concession for the senior citizens: the seniors could continue to pay taxes at a constant rate, but the city would keep track of the difference between what they paid and what they should have paid. When the seniors passed away a lien would be placed on the property for the difference. If the children could afford it, they could pay off the lien and keep the home, otherwise they might have to sell it in order to pay off the debt.
Of course in California seniors believe that somewhere in the Bible or the US Constitution it states they have a God-given right to pay low property taxes throughout their lives and pass on their house to their children debt-free.
I'm still looking for those passages, but have failed to find them.
If a city or county wants to develop or redevelop itself then they ought to use their own money that they collect either through taxation or selling bonds.
If a state is stupid (or corrupt) enough to give money to cities or counties for projects that benefit only that city or county, then the state should get some sort of a cut in order to get its money back with interest.
How wasteful is it that cities now have a bunch of people being paid tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to write proposals to get money from state and federal agencies?
So now my local tax dollars are being used to pay people to get back a chunk of my state and federal tax dollars?
The inefficiencies and opportunities for fraud in such a system are obvious to all but those who live in very deep caves.
Every Cal flag predates the USSR by decades.
If tax dollars are involved its not going to be efficient
The idea of taxing an estate for property taxes someone “should have paid” is so ridiculous and contemptuous as to not even deserve a comment.
I'm still looking for those passages, but have failed to find them.
Property taxes were a socialist idea from the beginning, from the fevered mind of Henry George.
Cities, counties and states and the feds should spend their revenue on their own Constitutional business and not send it to each other. This granting money to each in exchange for creating new programs that they have no business creating in the first place should end.
Uh actually this came from the taxpayers in California if you’re looking for a source. We got tired of seniors being evicted for failure to pay ever increasing property taxes. Property taxes which far exceeded their basic mortgage payments.
We decided as have many US taxpayers, that seniors are not capable of earning at increasing levels as they get older. So we decided to give them break if that stayed in the same house, which most o they had paid for.
I know this disturbs you, but this is what we voted for. Life can be a bitch when the little old lady down the street pays 10% of the property tax you do because you decided to buy another house and move. Cost of doing business.
Maybe we should start taxing kids also and force them into labor if they can’t pay their way.
Family goes with you; friends are free to follow. Elsewise, enjoy the chains. You’ve lost the soapbox; you’ve lost the ballot box and soon, you will loss the cartridge box.
Tell me again why people don’t bug out. Or do you enjoy the chains?
Its the California People’s Republic—there is a reason they have a Red Star on the flag!
A huge percentage of the tax savings from Prop 13 now go to businesses. Some 15 years ago the figure was over 60%. It's probably much larger now. This may be good for business, but it doesn't help granny stay in her home.
So we passed Prop 13 in California because only we in Calif care about granny. The folks in the other states obviously don't care about their old folks, or maybe those folks found ways to adapt, such as moving into less expensive homes or neighborhoods as they got older.
Prop 13 was a bait and switch operation. Claim that it would help seniors when in fact the big winners were businesses.
But what if Prop 13 had never gone into effect? The only way that businesses in Calif can compete with other businesses in this over-regulated, overtaxed state is because our businesses pay relatively low property taxes. But if our businesses had to pay similar property taxes as other states then they might have fought harder and longer to keep worker's comp expenses, minimum wages, etc. down.
Maybe it's great that certain strip malls and office buildings can go vacant or relatively empty because the owner is paying taxes at a rate from the 70's. If he had to pay a rate based on the worth of the property now, maybe he would have to work harder to keep it filled and profitable creating jobs and wealth.
Maybe it's fine that two people with virtually the exact same house, neither of whom is a senior, pay completely different taxes based only on when they purchased the home.
Maybe it's great that people who go into debt to buy a home are encouraged to go even more in debt to fix the home up immediately upon buying it. That's the only way to prevent a future home reappraisal when their entire property value may have increased and significantly impact their tax bill.
Maybe it's great that state, county, and local taxes and rules and regulations are now a rats nest developed by creative legislators to counteract Prop 13. Maybe tacking on Mello-Roos was a good way to further skew taxes towards those that bought later rather than sooner: a tax that will be paid even after the owner reaches his golden years.
If Prop 13 went away, individual counties and/or cities would presumably be able to set up their own taxing policies. If they wanted to put in place a local version of Prop 13 then they could. All of the conservatives could then move into those cities so they could continue to live under Prop 13. Then presumably the other cities would become liberal-infested overtaxed hell holes and people would "finally see the light" and move toward lower taxes and less regulation.
But that will never happen in a state where the few benefits of Prop 13 have long since been outweighed by the vast acres of neck-deep manure that our state's legislature has laid down to counteract it.
Seniors have been provided the protection which was intended by the taxpayers. I don’t oppose that modifications be made, but not for seniors.
Do’t give a damn what other states do. I don’t live there.
Bait and switch is different.
Had the governor given some of the $5 billion (1977) surplus back to taxpayers, prop 13 may not have passed.
We did have photos of elderly being evicted for not paying property tax. That’s a powerful message no matter what your persuasion.
I am shocked when someone slips additional ryders into legislation. So change the business benefit or modify it. We need to do more to drive businesses out of california.
I believe the Bear will be moving off the flag to avoid CA’s taxes...
Couple buys home for 100k in 2000 with a tax rate of 1%.
Tax rate stays at 1%.
Home appraises for 500k in 2040 when couple retire.
Home appraises for 1,000,000 in 2070 when couple passes away.
If the couple paid taxes at 1% every year then their tax bill would increase from 5k to 10k through their retirement years. If their home price increased constantly then they would on average have paid about $7500/year.
If they lived in a city like Boulder then they would have continued to pay $5000/year through retirement. They would then owe Boulder about $2500*30 = $75,000 in unpaid taxes.
Their heirs would have to pay that in order to clear the lien on their home.
What's so bad about that? Everyone pays the same tax rate, the couple gets to stay in the home until they pass away, and the only "losers" are the heirs who have to cough up the difference in the taxes paid?
Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
property taxes are to be paid annually
You would love Detroit, the city sells abandoned homes for the assessed back taxes going back to the 60’s or 70’s.
It’s retarded
Sells or attempts to sell?
I could imaging those numbers being pretty big vs the "true" value of the house.
Family and friends can/should also move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.