Schwarzenegger Adviser Buffett Suggests California Property Taxes Are Too Low

The Wall Street Journal ^ | August 15, 2003 | JOSEPH T. HALLINAN

[remember]

Since you think that taxes should be higher on people's homes, may we put you down with confidenc as supporting Schwarzenkennedy, Buffett, Demonrat Rob Lowe, RINO Pete Wilson, RINO Riordan, and their even less reputable friends?

No, because I'm against the recall. Under the current system, Davis could have 49% of voters supporting him (voting against the recall) and lose to someone with 15% of voters supporting him. In addition, having no primary turns this election into something of a crap shoot. If candidates from one party split that party's vote, the other party could win by default. Polls are likely to strongly influence the vote, prompting many voters to vote for one of the leading candidates so as not to "throw their vote away". Finally, many of the normal polling places will not be open, likely resulting in a number of voters not voting. We are attempting to have an election on the cheap. We are likely to get what we pay for.

It would be interesting if someone now started a petition to recall whoever replaces Davis, at least if he's not replaced by a Democrat. I wonder if the law requires that we wait to find out who will be elected before starting the next recall.

[remember]

Making a "cap" on taxes as being the amount equal to whatever the government decides to spend is simply giving them an unlimited budget.

I did not suggest that the cap be based on the government's whim. A reasonable "cap" would be the average wage index. At the very least, it should be keep up with the CPI. Limiting the increase in fireman and police salaries to 2% a year, however, is not reasonable.

[RS]

"I did not suggest that the cap be based on the government's whim. A reasonable "cap" would be the average wage index. At the very least, it should be keep up with the CPI. I did not suggest that the cap be based on the government's whim. A reasonable "cap" would be the average wage index. At the very least, it should be keep up with the CPI

... and what if wages go up when property values go down ?
... and what wage index would be used in a bedroom conmmunity ? ( obviously the nearist one that gives the biggest tax increase )

Why should they " keep up with the CPI" ?
Should not they keep up with the cost of the services they directly pay for ? ( any overage would of course be not returned, but used to expand the base of "services" needed to be paid for next year )




"Limiting the increase in fireman and police salaries to 2% a year, however, is not reasonable.

Do you think we would not get firemen and policemen to work for 2 % less ?

BTW McClintock is saying that all services can take a 9.5% cut

[RS]

"At the very least, it should be keep up with the CPI."

BTW - I propose tying EVERYTHING to the CPI, and they all have to do it on the same day - basically, nothing changes - bread costs the same as it did the day before.

[RS]

"You can borrow more.

These are not trivial things."

You are correct in this case " you can borrow more" is not a trivial thing --- it is a horrendously bad thing in the majority of cases.

[RS]

"There is no American principle that guarantees either security or stability to your life at the expense of someone else."

Yep - you have to fight for every inch and be vigilant. They will come and take property taxes for things you never agreed to in amounts you never agreed to unless you find a way to stop them (prop 13)

PROP 13 -
btw if EVERYONE in an area sold out, would the government say " well, now we are getting too much money, lets cut the percentage for this district " ???

[Burlem]

My comment about cuts, was sarcastic........of course we need to make budget cuts, that is the first step. I would like to see accountability of where the monies are spent on all the programs, We need to clamp down on the illegal alien spending, they are crushing the public health and education budgets. Reorganize the programs so they are not so sprad out and duplicating one another, and cut those that are no longer viable, only paying all the administration costs of operation. and on it goes......

[NittanyLion]

Transactions are only completed if the Seller agrees to sell at that price- therefore the sellers set the market price.

Market price is set at whatever level the purchaser will buy and the seller will sell. By your theory sellers would set the market price in the market for all goods and services; that isn't the case.

[RS]

"Market price is set at whatever level the purchaser will buy and the seller will sell. By your theory sellers would set the market price in the market for all goods and services; that isn't the case"

It's not a theory -

The seller has completely flexability - They can set a price so low that they will be almost guaranteed a buyer or simply price it so high no transaction will occur.

The Buyer never has this flexability.

Other Sellers in the market may influence the sale price, but again, the individual seller has complete control over the price that his property is sold at ( or not sold at, as the case may be )

Even auctions have a minimum bid listed by the seller.

This is specifically why there are "price setting" laws on the books to prevent sellers from collusion - I find no law that prevents buyers from boycotting goods.

Our legal system can force a sale - for non-payment of taxes for example - It cannot force a "buy". ( except in the obvious cases of child safety seats etc. which is not over price )

[remember]

Do you think we would not get firemen and policemen to work for 2 % less ?

BTW McClintock is saying that all services can take a 9.5% cut

Is he suggesting that we cut the salaries of firemen and police by 9.5%? I suspect that he is referring to non-essential services. Or he may be suggesting we cut back on the number of firemen and police, possibly through normal attrition. In any case, having them work for 2% less solves nothing. They would need to limit their annual increase to 2% a year. In fact, they would need to limit it to somewhat less than that, whatever the increase in property taxes is. I believe that I heard that the increase has been averaging 1% a year.

[RS]

From Tom's site -

http://www.tommcclintock.com/newsroom/details.cfm?pr_id=PR030129A

"Thus, merely suspending these mandates and reducing current expenditures by 9.5 percent – and then holding at that level for 18 months – would eliminate the deficit without the tax increases, raids on local government and pilfering of pension and special funds that the Governor has proposed.

Could your family cut its spending by 9.5 percent in hard times? In this recession, many families are doing exactly that. "

I wonder just what a State "non-essential" service is these days ?