« previous   misc   next »

CA has super Majority!


By SFace   Follow   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 1:22am PST   2,575 views   36 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

Super majority in Lower house
Super in Upper house
Governor Brown for at least 2 more years.

We'll see what the Dems have planned and what a fillibuster-less control will mean. Unions dream scenerio came true. Taxpayer are probabaly paying more and should be very worried.

In other words, your elected Republicans are irrelevant and have no say in anything. At least gridlock is not an excuse for inactivity anymore.

Comments 1-36 of 36     Last »

justme   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 2:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

Nah, the scaredy-cat democrats will find away not to use their power. They will sit around and wring their hands and worry about losing 1% of the vote next time around.

If it was the Pubes, they would be running rough-shod over the Crats like there was no tomorrow. And probably there would not be ;).

Democrats, please prove me wrong. Please. Please.

Ceffer   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:50am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 2

California small and moderate business were on life support. Now time for the public service unions and Dems to kick out the plug.

CA is now in a tax and regulate economic death spiral that can't be undone, an old hollywood hag with too many face lifts and leathered skin from too much sun.

Congrats to the parasites, you are finally killing your host. The rich will just barricade themselves or bail like rats.

Who ever thought that the movie "Escape from LA" was going to be an act of prophecy?

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 3

Ceffer says

Who ever thought that the movie "Escape from LA" was going to be an act of prophecy?

Irony !

zzyzzx   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 3:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

I'm puzzled as to why any Republicans would stay in CA.

CaptainShuddup   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

SFace says

We'll see what the Dems have planned and what a fillibuster-less control will mean.

Oh I'm sorry you were out of town and must have missed 2009 - 2010 in Washington. Picture that, but it will be Swartz's fault.

Ceffer   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:05am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 6

The viable business model for California will become third world black market.

The official apparatus will be increasingly extorting visible soft business targets with identifiable addresses and assets who have tried to play by the rules, attacking them and sucking them dry.

The shifting black market elements below the tax and regulate radar will have more incentives to thrive. Get ready to change your address, swap out the cell phones, and turn over your part time cash only employees every two months and you might stand a chance.

Better not stand still for too long, you will wind up in the sights.

tdr   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:20am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 7

zzyzzx says

I'm puzzled as to why any Republicans would stay in CA.

The weather is great. Other than that waiting for the state collapse is entertaining.

Vicente   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:40am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

I hadn't been following this at all. Good to hear!

However Prop 13 is untouchable IMO. Unfortunately.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

Melmakian says

My guess is that they will try to 'modify' it so that corporate property owners do not get the grandfather provision, first. That will be the camel's nose in the tent.

An excellent suggestion. I hope they follow it.

zzyzzx   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 7:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

iwog says

Melmakian says
My guess is that they will try to 'modify' it so that corporate property owners do not get the grandfather provision, first. That will be the camel's nose in the tent.

An excellent suggestion. I hope they follow it.

So that even more businesses will leave CA? Your neighboring states thank you!

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 8:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 11

zzyzzx says

So that even more businesses will leave CA? Your neighboring states thank you!

Sorry but I don't accept that propaganda just like I didn't accept Rasmussen when you were citing them as gospel.

This one is easy to explain. Prop. 13 encourages property hoarding. Allowing taxes to increase on corporate real estate holdings will drive prices down. A business abandoning the state means a new business can come in and buy their capital assets as a fraction of the cost.

This results in competition, a lower cost of doing business, and higher profits.

What you should be worried about is why everyone on your side lied to you. You were one of the ones who parroted Rasmussen polls repeatedly. You were deceived. You bought into the fraud.

Now is the time to have introspection about everything, not the time to insist you know what's going to happen with California.

Vicente   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 8:21am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

zzyzzx says

I'm puzzled as to why any Republicans would stay in CA.

Republicans are not emotionally and mentally small children, they just find it useful to pretend they are sometimes.

iwog   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

Melmakian says

What does your ranting about Rassmussen have anything to do with Prop 13?

I was making a point that perhaps you should take to heart as well.

If you were so wrong about the election, if your facts were so screwed up, if your sources were so pathetic as to lead you to think that Romney could take 300+ delegates, maybe some of your other sources are fraudulent as well.

For example zzyzz's often cited claim that abolishing prop. 13 would cause businesses to vacate California. It's total nonsense, yet you and him believe it as strongly as you both believed Rasmussen was accurate and CNN polling was biased.

It's very odd to me that you're still swinging AFTER your bat has been shown to be a plastic nerf bat.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:15am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

iwog says

that abolishing prop. 13 would cause businesses to vacate California

this makes no sense. Land can't go anywhere!

Productive Californian businesses would benefit tremendously with the tax burden shifted off of them onto land-owners, the latter qua land-owners have collectively created exactly zero wealth in this state since its founding.

Ooops, my Georgist hat is on now : )

Iwog knows first-hand how fat this sector he moonlights is really is, and also how parasitical on the real wealth-creators in this economy it is.

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

iwog says

It's very odd to me that you're still swinging AFTER your bat has been shown to be a plastic nerf bat.

they're interested in heat -- not light -- here

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:42am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

Bellingham Bill says

iwog says

that abolishing prop. 13 would cause businesses to vacate California

this makes no sense. Land can't go anywhere!

Property Tax is a pass through to tenant. If commercial property values skyrocket, so do prop tax... then the catch up billing and additional expenses incurred.

and because of tight interpretation of Sarbanes Oxley.. for public companies.. they would be unable to accrue that about so a spike in taxes is not incurred in future periods. Ask a controller/CEO/CFO and they will say the same.

Any business would favor a more predictable business environment. else they say Fuck It.. better to go where the exposure is minimal.

States like California.. will scream ... BUTS ITS ALL FOR EDUCATION.. and our govt salaries and benefits.

Bap33   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:44am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 17

will the Dems stop the Cal HSR train to nowhere? If not, who's gonna pay for it?
Just two simple questions.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

no.. and it will cost 65 Billion .. up to 116 Billion billed to the tax payers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

SFace says

You're such a lame controller, any idiot would be able to figure out how to book something this simple.

not anymore.. cant accrue anything unless services have been billed.

in prior decades it was possible.. since the base (purchase price) stayed the same..
and inflation can be estimated its not a issue.

so now the base (market vale) will fluctuate wildly...

and given SOX and tight Auditors... for public companies.. Forget it.. Cant do it.

The auditors will assume your creating a reserve pulling down earnings in year one and inflating earnings in year 2.

thomaswong.1986   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 12:43pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 20

SFace says

Where the f__K do you work as your qualifications are embarassing? Is this what you tell your auditor? No, can't, impossible?

you of all people should realize the risk of using reserve accounts to manipulate earnings between periods.

Prior to Prop 13, market values used to asses commercial properties swung wildly and it wasnt considered accurate. Up 10-15% in one year and down 10-15% the next.

with Prop 13, you have predictabe locked in values year over year which allows for reserving the tax bill. No issue.

Go back to pre-Prop 13, If the market values, used by the assessors office, on a leased building swings wildly, as we have seen it makes it difficult to drive any predictability in your business outlook and compliance. Its a mess !

drew_eckhardt   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 1:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

Bap33 says

will the Dems stop the Cal HSR train to nowhere? If not, who's gonna pay for it?

The "wealthy" assuming the economic recovery continues.

If 10.3% - 13.3% aren't high enough state tax rates we'll just have another election and make them higher.

Meccos   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 2:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

I wonder how many more taxes are on the way now...
We need more money for public safety right??? (aka unions - cops/fire)

Vicente   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 2:16pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

thomaswong.1986 says

Property Tax is a pass through to tenant. If commercial property values skyrocket, so do prop tax... then the catch up billing and additional expenses incurred.

This is BS argument.

Original Prop 13 said if taxes kept low, that rents would obviously decrease. Since it's just a "pass through" as you say. "We save money, so do you, ne?"

However, rents tracked inflation. There was no "savings" to renters. Property holders simply pocketed the difference.

Since rents are dictated by inelastic REAL ability to pay, the only effect of Prop. 13 repeal should be trimming the profits of fatcat landlords and underpayers like Disney. Boohoo!

Bellingham Bill   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:36pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cAX

zzyzzx   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:14pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 25

iwog says

This results in competition, a lower cost of doing business, and higher profits.

Higher taxes doesn't result in a lower cost of doing business!!!

zzyzzx   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:16pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 26

Vicente says

Since rents are dictated by inelastic REAL ability to pay, the only effect of Prop. 13 repeal should be trimming the profits of fatcat landlords

You mean like:

iwog   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

zzyzzx says

Higher taxes doesn't result in a lower cost of doing business!!!

We're talking about property taxes. By keeping a property tax basis at 1978 +2% per year, you end up with entrenched corporations that have a miniscule cost of doing business compared to start ups that want to enter the state. The cost is SO low in fact that many of these buildings are left empty for years.

Creating a level playing field and forcing these properties on the market will almost certainly lower the cost of real estate and therefore the cost of doing business in the state. In addition, old companies will no longer be at an advantage and competition will improve everything.

It's not complicated.

FortWayne   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:17am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 28

CaptainShuddup says

SFace says

We'll see what the Dems have planned and what a fillibuster-less control will mean.

Oh I'm sorry you were out of town and must have missed 2009 - 2010 in Washington. Picture that, but it will be Swartz's fault.

To me this is frightening. They already made laws virtually guaranteeing no Republican opposition. They control how and who gets elected, who gets onto the ballots, and now they can do whatever they wish to give their special interests money out of our pockets.

These wealthy libs own this state, and they own it because they take our money constantly. So, I'm ready this time, they start taxing and I'll start protesting voting for a massive recall election.

FortWayne   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 29

iwog says

Creating a level playing field and forcing these properties on the market will almost certainly lower the cost of real estate and therefore the cost of doing business in the state. In addition, old companies will no longer be at an advantage and competition will improve everything.

What are you a socialist now all of a sudden?

"Forcing those properties on the market" translates to "throwing hard working people over board because they can't afford to pay the rising costs."

Spreading misery does not create wealth or improve economy.

Bellingham Bill   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 30

shorter iwog: real estate is a parasitical sector of the economy

; )

Bellingham Bill   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

FortWayne says

"throwing hard working people over board because they can't afford to pay the rising costs."

land owners are not hard working at all. Their land value comes from all the work everybody else is doing in their community.

Their land value literally rises in their sleep.

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Wealth_from_Land_Appreciation.html

FortWayne   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:14am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 32

Bellingham Bill says

FortWayne says

"throwing hard working people over board because they can't afford to pay the rising costs."

land owners are not hard working at all. Their land value comes from all the work everybody else is doing in their community.

Their land value literally rises in their sleep.

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Wealth_from_Land_Appreciation.html

That's wealthy land owners, what about everyone else who will get hit by taxes? Your average hard working families, small businesses, every single homeowner, every single business. What about retirees or simply poor who live on fixed income and cant afford a penny of increased taxes.

Doubling property taxes for everyone now would put a huge economic burden on everyone in this state.

Vicente   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 33

zzyzzx says

Vicente says

Since rents are dictated by inelastic REAL ability to pay, the only effect of Prop. 13 repeal should be trimming the profits of fatcat landlords

You mean like:

Yes exactly!

Bellingham Bill   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

FortWayne says

Doubling property taxes for everyone now would put a huge economic burden on everyone in this state.

yeah, let's not do that, actually. Just the commercial operators sucking money from the actually productive people of the state.

We could also throw in luxury taxes on premium real estate, stuff that goes for over five million an acre or whatever.

Vicente   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Bellingham Bill says

yeah, let's not do that, actually. Just the commercial operators sucking money from the actually productive people of the state.

Exactly why Prop 13 will NEVER be repealed. Too many entrenched businesses getting too much slop from that trough.

People talk about businesses fleeing the state over a little tax on their profits. They overlook however industries & RE groups have owned businesses for 20+ years are enjoying HUGE tax advantages due to Prop. 13 versus their younger competitors. Even if the original owners do decide to retire and move to Arizona, it can be structured so sale to new owners never changes the tax basis.

iwog   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 5:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

Melmakian says

I didn't believe Rasmussen was 'accurate'. In fact, I didn't rely on Rasmussen per se. You just think that I *must have* in order to keep your fantasy narrative all tight and neat in your Denial Bubble.

No problem, this is easy to fix. So what did you base your failed election prediction on if not right-wing biased polls?

Did you get your numbers from somewhere or did you just make them up?

Serious question. Lets see if you can answer it.

SFace is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net