'Buffett Rule' a bust in California: The state's over-reliance on taxing the rich has been a disaster during bad times (LA Times)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 2:02 AM GMT
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/22/local/la-me-cap-buffet-20110922

    September 22, 2011, George Skelton, Capitol Journal

    From Sacramento — If President Obama really wants to see the "Buffett Rule" in action, he should look at California's tax system. The state has been plagued by it for years.

    The revenue stream is unstable and the state budget has been a deficit disaster.

    Soaking the rich — relying heavily on them for income taxes — has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride. It's either boom or bust in Sacramento, depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and their other investments.

    Billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett's rule is that he shouldn't be paying a lower income tax rate than his secretary or any middle-class taxpayer.

    "Legislators in Washington," Buffett complained in a New York Times opinion piece last month, "feel compelled to protect us [mega-rich] much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species…. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress."

    With rhetorical flourish, Obama incorporated the Buffett Rule into the deficit-cutting plan he announced Monday, declaring that people earning more than $1million shouldn't be allowed to pay a lower tax rate than middle-income families.

    In California, we've got what you could call a Buffett Rule-Plus. There's an extra tax bracket — at 10.3% — for income exceeding $1million.

    According to the state finance department, families with adjusted gross incomes of between $1 million and $2 million, on average, paid an overall state tax rate of 8.4% in 2008, the last year for which data are available. The average rate rose as incomes did to 9.3% for those earning $5 million and up. (There were 3,757 of them.)

    Families earning between $200,000 and $300,000 paid, on average, 5.5%. The rate fell sharply as incomes tailed off: 1.4% at $70,000 to $80,000, and only 0.2% at $40,000 to $50,000.

    California secretaries generally aren't paying higher rates than their billionaire CEOs or even their six-figure bosses.

    There are two principal reasons why Buffett can get away with paying at a lower federal rate than his secretary — but couldn't if he had to pony up for state taxes in California.

    One is that capital gains and dividend income are taxed by the federal government at lower rates than ordinary earnings. That's not true for California taxes. Here, it's all taxed as ordinary income.

    Second, the feds have their payroll taxes. The Social Security tax eats up a much bigger share of a middle-class family's pay than it does a million-dollar earner's. That's because only the first $106,800 of earnings is taxed for Social Security.

    Capital gains is a biggie. At the federal level, a taxpayer could be in the top 35% bracket and still pay only 15% on capital gains earnings.

    California used to offer preferential tax treatment for capital gains and dividends, but eliminated it in 1987 to conform to a new federal "reform" law. The feds later reinserted their preferences, but California never did. Consequently, California relies heavily on rich investors for its income tax revenue, which fuels half of the general fund.

    Some examples of this over-dependence, based on the 2009 tax year:

    • The top 1% earned 18% of California's income but paid 37% of the income tax.

    Illustrating the volatility of the California income tax, however, the top 1% paid 48% of the total take in 2007 before the stock market collapsed. In the next two years, the state's income tax revenue fell 25%.

    • The top 10% earned 45% of the income but paid 72% of the taxes.

    • During the recession, the middle class paid a slightly larger share of the declining income tax take. Those earning between $45,000 and $84,000 kicked in 11% of the total revenue in 2009, compared to 9% two years earlier. But one could argue they still were under-taxed. They earned 19% of the income.

    "The real people who don't get taxed enough in California are the middle-income folks," says Steve Levy, director of the left-leaning Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

    To make the tax system less volatile, he says, "that's where you'd have to go. You'd have to get it from the people making $50,000 $100,000. And I'm not unalterably opposed to that."

    But Levy rejects the notion that the low- and middle-wage earners don't pay a lot already. Other taxes — especially the sales tax — are regressive and hit the poor the hardest, he says.

    "I'm buried under by idiots writing that half the people don't pay taxes," he says. "They pay the vehicle license fee, sales taxes, alcohol."

    A study this year by the labor-backed California Budget Project found that "measured as a share of family income, California's lowest-income families pay the most in taxes."

    The bottom 20% of families pay 11% of their earnings in state and local taxes, executive director Jean Ross calculated. The top 1% pay about 8%.

    Politicians, professors and pundits have been arguing over California tax reform for years.

    My no-brainer solution, for starters: A capital gains preference. Broaden the sales tax to include services. A rainy-day fund to hoard boom-time money for bust periods.

    Meanwhile, if Buffett really wanted to live by his own rule, he could leave Nebraska, move to California and pay our state taxes.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Nov 28, 2011 10:46 PM GMT
    Isn't it such a funny thing when income just DISAPPEARS?

    icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 10:49 PM GMT
    conservativejock saidIsn't it such a funny thing when income just DISAPPEARS?

    icon_razz.gif

    No problem. Just keep spending. Most of the voters don't worry bout no skinkin debt. Jus keep the monthly checks comin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
    The problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Nov 28, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    Refer to Arizona as well. The propositional constitution is fucking ridiculous. PLUS the legislature cannot tinker with programs when money is short.

    I wish they would scrap it and start over on out 100th anniversary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 11:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 11:45 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
    Does PROP 13 mean ANYTHING to you?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 28, 2011 11:59 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
    Does PROP 13 mean ANYTHING to you?



    You beat me to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
    Does PROP 13 mean ANYTHING to you?



    You beat me to it.


    Ignorance is bliss apparently to you two.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/06/lz1e6reed004614-americas-finest-blog/?page=2#article

    Prop. 13 is the devil: Killing this myth once and for all

    From 1980-81, shortly after the initiative took effect, to 2006-07, total property taxes collected went from $6.36 billion to $43.16 billion. That's an increase of 579 percent.

    Over the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million – an increase of 58 percent. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, went up 133 percent increase. According to Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, this means property tax collections “were 84 percent higher than needed to keep pace with inflation and population growth.”

    In other words, the revenue went up much, much faster than inflation and population growth.

    Now here's some more all-important context. According to the Legislative Analyst Office's budget database, in 1980-1981, the total of all general and special fund revenue for the state of California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent.

    You follow? Property tax revenue has gone up at a faster rate than overall state revenue!


    Once again you demonstrate that you care nothing about facts.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 12:38 AM GMT
    As I stated earlier, we in California are already paying among the highest taxes in the country looking at combined income, sales, and property. If prop 13 had not passed, our taxes would have been even higher.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
    Does PROP 13 mean ANYTHING to you?



    You beat me to it.


    Ignorance is bliss apparently to you two.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/06/lz1e6reed004614-americas-finest-blog/?page=2#article

    Prop. 13 is the devil: Killing this myth once and for all

    From 1980-81, shortly after the initiative took effect, to 2006-07, total property taxes collected went from $6.36 billion to $43.16 billion. That's an increase of 579 percent.

    Over the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million – an increase of 58 percent. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, went up 133 percent increase. According to Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, this means property tax collections “were 84 percent higher than needed to keep pace with inflation and population growth.”

    In other words, the revenue went up much, much faster than inflation and population growth.

    Now here's some more all-important context. According to the Legislative Analyst Office's budget database, in 1980-1981, the total of all general and special fund revenue for the state of California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent.

    You follow? Property tax revenue has gone up at a faster rate than overall state revenue!


    Once again you demonstrate that you care nothing about facts.

    Uh.. let me kill this one NOW.. Riddler, Im going to 'state' fact that you have NEVER experienced since you are a Canadian and you reside in CANADA and NOT a Californian or in California.
    I have owned a piece of real estate In El Dorado county CALIFORNIA (thats NOT "Canada", btw) since 1984. I STILL own it.
    My taxes because of PROP13 have gone up from 276.00 a year to 353.00. An INCREASE of a WHOPPING 27.89855072% over almost 30 years. But what did the VALUE increase in that time? 1400%..... woah!

    Thats not all.. In 2000 I bought a house in SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA (thats NOT in Canada either btw) I paid taxes on the PURCHASE price of 150, 000. (1521.00 per year) In 2005 I sold that house for 976,000. Guess how much in taxes I paid that year? (because of PROP13)1652.00. a difference of 8.61%.. now how much did the house change in VALUE and my pocket? 550.66%. Over what, 5 yrs? Woah.

    Now whatever bullshit source you got that rediculous article from, clearly once again you demonstrate that you care nothing about facts nor do you know what you are talking about. Mr Canada!
    Want proof? County records provide everything. Prop13 has been strangling the Calif economy for years!

    You need to research the MECHANICS of prop13 to see how it ACTUALLY works.( something that I KNOW WELL) And how the real estate market crash KILLED revenue overnight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 1:23 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThe problem with California is not the "Buffett" rule. It's that the public keeps voting for spending and then refusing to raise taxes to pay for it. The whole ballot initiative thing has been a disaster down the line.

    The point of the article is taxes have been raised. BTW - I cited a study a while back, but if you look at combined income, sales, and property taxes, Californians are among the most heavily taxed. But correct about the spending problem.
    Does PROP 13 mean ANYTHING to you?



    You beat me to it.


    Ignorance is bliss apparently to you two.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/06/lz1e6reed004614-americas-finest-blog/?page=2#article

    Prop. 13 is the devil: Killing this myth once and for all

    From 1980-81, shortly after the initiative took effect, to 2006-07, total property taxes collected went from $6.36 billion to $43.16 billion. That's an increase of 579 percent.

    Over the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million – an increase of 58 percent. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, went up 133 percent increase. According to Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, this means property tax collections “were 84 percent higher than needed to keep pace with inflation and population growth.”

    In other words, the revenue went up much, much faster than inflation and population growth.

    Now here's some more all-important context. According to the Legislative Analyst Office's budget database, in 1980-1981, the total of all general and special fund revenue for the state of California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent.

    You follow? Property tax revenue has gone up at a faster rate than overall state revenue!


    Once again you demonstrate that you care nothing about facts.

    Uh.. let me kill this one NOW.. Riddler, Im going to 'state' fact that you have NEVER experienced since you are a Canadian and you reside in CANADA and NOT a Californian or in California.
    I have owned a piece of real estate In El Dorado county CALIFORNIA (thats NOT "Canada", btw) since 1984. I STILL own it.
    My taxes because of PROP13 have gone up from 276.00 a year to 353.00. An INCREASE of a WHOPPING 27.89855072% over almost 30 years. But what did the VALUE increase in that time? 1400%..... woah!

    Thats not all.. In 2000 I bought a house in SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA (thats NOT in Canada either btw) I paid taxes on the PURCHASE price of 150, 000. (1521.00 per year) In 2005 I sold that house for 976,000. Guess how much in taxes I paid that year? (because of PROP13)1652.00. a difference of 8.61%.. now how much did the house change in VALUE and my pocket? 550.66%. Over what, 5 yrs? Woah.

    Now whatever bullshit source you got that rediculous article from, clearly once again you demonstrate that you care nothing about facts nor do you know what you are talking about. Mr Canada!
    Want proof? County records provide everything. Prop13 has been strangling the Calif economy for years!

    You need to research the MECHANICS of prop13 to see how it ACTUALLY works.( something that I KNOW WELL) And how the real estate market crash KILLED revenue overnight.


    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 1:38 AM GMT
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Nov 29, 2011 1:54 AM GMT
    Property taxes are a bitch. The state of AZ has refused in some cases to reassess property values in the down market so some people are going in to foreclosure because of that shit here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 2:08 AM GMT
    JP85257 saidProperty taxes are a bitch. The state of AZ has refused in some cases to reassess property values in the down market so some people are going in to foreclosure because of that shit here.
    They've done that here in Fl as well!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 2:26 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    riddler jumps between polls, anecdotes or whatever he thinks bolsters his lame ideology. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 2:43 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidExcept for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.

    Interesting to see the increasing desperate attempts to discredit what you present because you are Canadian and couldn't possibly understand what goes on in California. Some of them supposedly know better because they maybe had an uncle who lived in California for a couple of years, or something similar. Well I am a full blooded, real Californian, and I can confirm what you write, and also hereby proclaim that you understand the situation in California and those non-Californians simply do not. There. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 2:53 AM GMT
    socalfitness said Some of them supposedly know better because they maybe had an uncle who lived in California for a couple of years, or something similar. Well I am a full blooded, real Californian, and I can confirm what you write, and also hereby proclaim that you understand the situation in California and those non-Californians simply do not. There. icon_lol.gif
    LOL want to see my birth certificate?... Funny how I was born in L.A County. I guess I dont know anything about 'California' by your standards.... But then neither do you!.icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 3:27 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 saidExcept for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.

    Interesting to see the increasing desperate attempts to discredit what you present because you are Canadian and couldn't possibly understand what goes on in California. Some of them supposedly know better because they maybe had an uncle who lived in California for a couple of years, or something similar. Well I am a full blooded, real Californian, and I can confirm what you write, and also hereby proclaim that you understand the situation in California and those non-Californians simply do not. There. icon_lol.gif


    It's actually riddler's constant posting of nonsense that discredits him. Some of us just feel duty bound to point it out. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 3:36 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    That should have read population growth and it has. Significantly faster than inflation and population growth. Too bad you are intellectually unable to understand this and drawn to the idea there are always too few taxes. Figure out the math - and for the record, where you are born doesn't make a difference to the basic principles of math, compounding and inflation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 3:51 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    That should have read population growth and it has. Significantly faster than inflation and population growth. Too bad you are intellectually unable to understand this and drawn to the idea there are always too few taxes. Figure out the math - and for the record, where you are born doesn't make a difference to the basic principles of math, compounding and inflation.
    You failed.. face it. Nothing you're gonna say now will save any face.. You think you know everything. You dont. You never will! You havent paid one dime in California property taxes. Ive been paying them for 33 years. Sorry, I have a lot more experience with California taxes than you have with breathing oxygen.
    Thats a fact you cannot prove otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 3:56 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    That should have read population growth and it has. Significantly faster than inflation and population growth. Too bad you are intellectually unable to understand this and drawn to the idea there are always too few taxes. Figure out the math - and for the record, where you are born doesn't make a difference to the basic principles of math, compounding and inflation.
    You failed.. face it. Nothing you're gonna say now will save any face.. You think you know everything. You dont. You never will! You havent paid one dime in California property taxes. Ive been paying them for 33 years. Sorry, I have a lot more experience with California taxes than you have with breathing oxygen.
    Thats a fact you cannot prove otherwise.


    How did I fail - the fact is that taxes from property taxes rose in California post Prop 13 faster than inflation and property growth. The fact that you believe it has constrained income to the state thus providing insufficient revenues is a plain lie.

    That you continue to attempt to push it as if it's fact is deliberately dishonest. Sorry I am calling you out on this lie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    That should have read population growth and it has. Significantly faster than inflation and population growth. Too bad you are intellectually unable to understand this and drawn to the idea there are always too few taxes. Figure out the math - and for the record, where you are born doesn't make a difference to the basic principles of math, compounding and inflation.
    You failed.. face it. Nothing you're gonna say now will save any face.. You think you know everything. You dont. You never will! You havent paid one dime in California property taxes. Ive been paying them for 33 years. Sorry, I have a lot more experience with California taxes than you have with breathing oxygen.
    Thats a fact you cannot prove otherwise.


    How did I fail - the fact is that taxes from property taxes rose in California post Prop 13 faster than inflation and property growth. The fact that you believe it has constrained income to the state thus providing insufficient revenues is a plain lie.

    That you continue to attempt to push it as if it's fact is deliberately dishonest. Sorry I am calling you out on this lie.
    If you had one fucking clue about how property taxes POST prop13 work in Calif you 'might' be able to discuss this intelligently. Unfortunately you don't have that clue. Therefore your numbers are bogus and your premise is flat out incorrect. period.

    Whos' lying here? It isnt me! I KNOW how the Calif taxes work..

    btw correct the print in red AGAIN!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 4:04 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said

    Except for the fact you seem to again show a complete inability to do math - again - quite simply the aggregate date exists. Taxes off property have risen significantly faster than inflation and property growth. You need to read what is out there. Your belief that anecdote is useful data is what's bullshit here. Please get a clue.
    EXCUSE ME? icon_rolleyes.gif
    I KNOW better than to believe that bullshit.
    Under PROP13 the MAX taxes can increase is a 2 % increase in base taxable value per year.

    So sorry to hang your ass out naked.

    Just for you:
    The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate:

    Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

    The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.


    That should have read population growth and it has. Significantly faster than inflation and population growth. Too bad you are intellectually unable to understand this and drawn to the idea there are always too few taxes. Figure out the math - and for the record, where you are born doesn't make a difference to the basic principles of math, compounding and inflation.
    You failed.. face it. Nothing you're gonna say now will save any face.. You think you know everything. You dont. You never will! You havent paid one dime in California property taxes. Ive been paying them for 33 years. Sorry, I have a lot more experience with California taxes than you have with breathing oxygen.
    Thats a fact you cannot prove otherwise.


    How did I fail - the fact is that taxes from property taxes rose in California post Prop 13 faster than inflation and property growth. The fact that you believe it has constrained income to the state thus providing insufficient revenues is a plain lie.

    That you continue to attempt to push it as if it's fact is deliberately dishonest. Sorry I am calling you out on this lie.
    If you had one fucking clue about how property taxes POST prop13 work in Calif you 'might' be able to discuss this intelligently. Unfortunately you don't have that clue. Therefore your numbers are bogus and your premise is flat out incorrect. period.

    Whos' lying here? It isnt me! I KNOW how the Calif taxes work..

    btw correct the print in red AGAIN!


    Lol am multitasking. You apparently don't know how Californian taxes work if you believe that Prop 13 has restrained government spending or revenues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2011 4:13 AM GMT
    Just as a reminder. Here are the facts about revenues when it comes to property taxes in California:

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/06/lz1e6reed004614-americas-finest-blog/?page=2#article

    Prop. 13 is the devil: Killing this myth once and for all

    From 1980-81, shortly after the initiative took effect, to 2006-07, total property taxes collected went from $6.36 billion to $43.16 billion. That's an increase of 579 percent.

    Over the same span, population went from 24 million to 38 million – an increase of 58 percent. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, went up 133 percent increase. According to Kris Vosburgh of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, this means property tax collections “were 84 percent higher than needed to keep pace with inflation and population growth.”

    In other words, the revenue went up much, much faster than inflation and population growth.

    Now here's some more all-important context. According to the Legislative Analyst Office's budget database, in 1980-1981, the total of all general and special fund revenue for the state of California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent.

    You follow? Property tax revenue has gone up at a faster rate than overall state revenue!