patrick.net

FortWayneIndiana says

Because government didn't need taxes from real estate, they just wanted it to give themselves raises.

Say so the same for the sales tax and income tax otherwise you are a prop 13 mega leach wanted to live on tax money collected (by the government that you hate) from slave neighbors to maintain your M++ $ life style.
If you genuinely believe in government waste. Talk about tax cuts in all forms, not just property tax alone.

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

in IL home of some of the highest property taxes in the nation-the governor ran and won on raising taxes and got a dem supermajority. I think this country is doomed.

lostand confused says

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

in IL home of some of the highest property taxes in the nation-the governor ran and won on raising taxes and got a dem supermajority. I think this country is doomed.

Or maybe they think this is the price to eject the middle class and have only rich and slave labor.

lostand confused says

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

I voted for prop 6 (I think it was the only spending increase that I voted for). I didn't research it extensively, but my impression was that it collected tax revenue via gas and vehicle registration fees, and that the bulk of the money was actually spent on road repair/maintenance.

To me, this seemed like a great way to go. Like I've said many times in this thread, I think people should pay for what they personally use, in proportion to how much they use. People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less. Gas seems like the perfect way to make people pay for the cost of roads and other auto related services because by taxing gas directly on a per gallon basis, the people who drive the most, pay the most (because the more you drive the more gas you buy).

So, I don't know if the money is spent properly, but at least in regard to the tax collection strategy - I think it's near ideal.

Why do you feel prop 6 was bad?

Hircus says

People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less

They are already paying gas taxes. Some of this money is going to bart-whose janitors make 200k with pensions. Why not jettison BART's unions and use that money to run it profitably.
I live din CA and paid some real high gas taxes-how much si enough before liberals wake up and say enough?

I say same thing for all taxes.

So you barking up a wrong tree.

Blue says

FortWayneIndiana says

Because government didn't need taxes from real estate, they just wanted it to give themselves raises.

Say so the same for the sales tax and income tax otherwise you are a prop 13 mega leach wanted to live on tax money collected (by the government that you hate) from slave neighbors to maintain your M++ $ life style.
If you genuinely believe in government waste. Talk about tax cuts in all forms, not just property tax alone.

Hircus says

People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less.

Prop 13 distorted housing market. Home owners fight blindly against new buildings and force new people to far and far away for shelter. Now driving long comes with additional penalty. I think 85% gas tax goes to train network.

Blue says

Home owners fight blindly against new buildings

That's a false generalization.

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

There is no enough 'LIMIT' for left wing democrat socialists.....they will take it ALL!

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

Increasing everyones taxes always makes things worse, however liberals always want it. Because to them tax increases = bigger handouts and pension bonuses.

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

Increasing everyones taxes always makes things worse, however liberals always want it. Because to them tax increases = bigger handouts and pension bonuses.

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

Blue says

I think 85% gas tax goes to train network.

That's kinda shocking, and really disappointing to hear. You can probably guess that I think they should raise train ticket prices if they need to fund trains :p

Hircus says

You can probably guess that I think they should raise train ticket prices if they need to fund trains :p

The government should fire every government employee, declare bankruptcy, liquidate all the pensions by paying out (30 cents on the dollar, perhaps), put in anti-government-union laws, and start over. They costs would drop substantially and the service would be improved (because you would always fire the bottom 20% of employees every year).

There is so much wrong with the concept of government unions, I don't even know where to start.

Sunnyvale94087 says

The government should fire every government employee, declare bankruptcy, liquidate all the pensions by paying out (30 cents on the dollar, perhaps), put in anti-government-union laws, and start over. They costs would drop substantially and the service would be improved (because you would always fire the bottom 20% of employees every year).

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Hircus says

Sunnyvale94087 says

The government should fire every government employee, declare bankruptcy, liquidate all the pensions by paying out (30 cents on the dollar, perhaps), put in anti-government-union laws, and start over. They costs would drop substantially and the service would be improved (because you would always fire the bottom 20% of employees every year).

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Government is like a living organism, it evolves.
One good measure is to limit (how about max 300%) public worker compensation of "Gross Domestic Product per Capita" which is about 53k currently in US. At macro level, the total cost of government should be caped at certain percentage of GDP, this is very subjective/political/cultural etc.
(On a related topic the government spending is part of GDP calculation which is wrong. ref: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-salary-paid-to-teachers-considered-in-the-calculation-for-GDP-under-government-purchases)

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Germany, Japan, 1945

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

Increasing everyones taxes always makes things worse, however liberals always want it. Because to them tax increases = bigger handouts and pension bonuses.

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

They've used my taxes for last 30+ years to pay for things that are only being finally built now. So not sure exactly how this works out, I've paid 30 years into the system. Your theory only works if what you pay in the year is built and used that year. But it doesn't work that way.

NoYes says

There is no enough 'LIMIT' for left wing democrat socialists.....they will take it ALL!

Exactly: they open with a sweet song about "fairness" but once the limits on tax increases (like Prop13) are lifted - watch out. Illinois will seem a child's play compared with what our own pinko fucks are capable of.

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

Increasing everyones taxes always makes things worse, however liberals always want it. Because to them tax increases = bigger handouts and pension bonuses.

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

They've used my taxes for last 30+ years to pay for things tha...

You're talking about how government spends your money. That's a different issue that needs to be addressed.

Cut the taxes, they’ll be forced to be efficient

HeadSet says

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Germany, Japan, 1945

Diversity has divided and weakened us to much to ever be able to come close to those kinds of accomplishments again.

No it’s same issue.

You want equal, go pay me 30 years of taxes with interest and than we can talk about paying same amounts today.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?

Increasing everyones taxes always makes things worse, however liberals always want it. Because to them tax increases = bigger handouts and pension bonuses.

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they per...

MegaForce says

Hircus says

Gas seems like the perfect way to make people pay for the cost of roads and other auto related services because by taxing gas directly on a per gallon basis

But people who get 40 mpg vs 20mpg pay less. Electric car drivers don't pay at all.

It's the weight of the vehicle which wears the road, not the type and amount of fuel it uses. So Tesla ModelS should be taxed the same as other 4000 lbs vehicles, like Toyota 4Runner, for example. And, of couse, the taxes thus collected should be spent on the roads. You want a fucking choo-choo - let the investors pay for it and then recoup their investment from ticket sales. The fucking thing is redundant as it doesn't cover any routes not already covered by cars and planes.

Fortwaynemobile says

No it’s same issue.

You want equal, go pay me 30 years of taxes with interest and than we can talk about paying same amounts today.

No. The way government budgets work is year by year, funded by those annual tax revenues. No one cares what you paid 30 years ago. Someone new coming into your neighborhood was paying into a tax system where they were previously at. Paying taxes isn't like paying into an investment fund that you get credit for in past years and enjoy the residual benefit so that you get to pay less. That's not the way taxes work. Go look it up.

DASKAA says

MegaForce says

Hircus says

Gas seems like the perfect way to make people pay for the cost of roads and other auto related services because by taxing gas directly on a per gallon basis

But people who get 40 mpg vs 20mpg pay less. Electric car drivers don't pay at all.

It's the weight of the vehicle which wears the road, not the type and amount of fuel it uses.

I think what he meant is that my suggestion to tax gas doesn't do a very good job of making people pay proportional to miles driven, because electric cars don't buy any gas.

I'm sure one could go deeper into the analysis of costs, because even if everyone used gas and got the same mpg, I'm sure there's still other factors (like you mentioned - weight is one of those factors).

If prop13 was gone...

Long time homeowners/elderly would pay equal taxes to new homeowners/young families.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Fortwaynemobile says

No it’s same issue.

You want equal, go pay me 30 years of taxes with interest and than we can talk about paying same amounts today.

No. The way government budgets work is year by year, funded by those annual tax revenues. No one cares what you paid 30 years ago. Someone new coming into your neighborhood was paying into a tax system where they were previously at. Paying taxes isn't like paying into an investment fund that you get credit for in past years and enjoy the residual benefit so that you get to pay less. That's not the way taxes work. Go look it up.

Government doesn't spend that way. They spend many things over long periods of time. Major programs take years to implement and build. So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

BayArea says

If prop13 was gone...

Long time homeowners/elderly would pay equal taxes to new homeowners/young families.

... and all of them would pay much more than they pay now, no exception.

DASKAA says

BayArea says

If prop13 was gone...

Long time homeowners/elderly would pay equal taxes to new homeowners/young families.

... and all of them would pay much more than they pay now, no exception.

I disagree.
Prop 13 segregated population. If prop13 was gone, first it unites all and bring common uniform tax rather than new neighbors pay to old neighbors.
Then we can talk about the next topic of high or low taxes which is related but a different topic.
Until then prop 13 beneficiaries who own neighboring slaves never stop cooking stone soup and sell in the name of grandma, hating govt etc. and minting $$$.

Blue says

DASKAA says

BayArea says

If prop13 was gone...

Long time homeowners/elderly would pay equal taxes to new homeowners/young families.

... and all of them would pay much more than they pay now, no exception.

I disagree.
Prop 13 segregated population. If prop13 was gone, first it unites all and bring common uniform tax rather than new neighbors pay to old neighbors.
Then we can talk about the next topic of high or low taxes which is related but a different topic.
Until then prop 13 beneficiaries who own neighboring slaves never stop cooking stone soup and sell in the name of grandma, hating govt etc. and minting $$$.

Nailed it. Not sure what Prop 13 humpers don't get about this. They're obviously blinded by their selfish desire to get unfair benefit at new homeowners' expense.

You are just too ignorant about how taxes work.

You directly benefit from 30 years of my taxes. In name of equality and fairness that you propose, pay it up with interest and COLA adjustment.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Blue says

DASKAA says

BayArea says

If prop13 was gone...

Long time homeowners/elderly would pay equal taxes to new homeowners/young families.

... and all of them would pay much more than they pay now, no exception.

I disagree.
Prop 13 segregated population. If prop13 was gone, first it unites all and bring common uniform tax rather than new neighbors pay to old neighbors.
Then we can talk about the next topic of high or low taxes which is related but a different topic.
Until then prop 13 beneficiaries who own neighboring slaves never stop cooking stone soup and sell in the name of grandma, hating govt etc. and minting $$$.

Nailed it. Not sure what Prop 13 humpers don't get about this. They're obviously bli...

FortWayneIndiana says

So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

You’re mistaking the “rent” you pay to the government for the privilege of owning a house under their jurisdiction with some sort of retirement account or investment. You’re a renter to the government. We all are. Sure you paid rent (at vastly unfair low rates) for 30 years but you also got 30 years of home ownership out of the deal. I’ve had mine for two and already paid $19,000 for the taxes. I figure that’s about 10 of your thirty years. In four more I’ll have contributed the same amount as you have.

So there!

It ain’t rent, it’s investment into my city and state for future generations.

Just didn’t think future generations would be out of touch entitled brats that want everything free.

They want free, start your own city.

Quigley says

FortWayneIndiana says

So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

You’re mistaking the “rent” you pay to the government for the privilege of owning a house under their jurisdiction with some sort of retirement account or investment. You’re a renter to the government. We all are. Sure you paid rent (at vastly unfair low rates) for 30 years but you also got 30 years of home ownership out of the deal. I’ve had mine for two and already paid $19,000 for the taxes. I figure that’s about 10 of your thirty years. In four more I’ll have contributed the same amount as you have.

So there!

Prop 13 is fundamentally unfair in that some people pay much less tax than other people for the exact same government services.

Quigley says

FortWayneIndiana says

So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

You’re mistaking the “rent” you pay to the government for the privilege of owning a house under their jurisdiction with some sort of retirement account or investment. You’re a renter to the government. We all are. Sure you paid rent (at vastly unfair low rates) for 30 years but you also got 30 years of home ownership out of the deal. I’ve had mine for two and already paid $19,000 for the taxes. I figure that’s about 10 of your thirty years. In four more I’ll have contributed the same amount as you have.

So there!

Exactly. Prop 13 has created such inequity. No wonder Prop13-humpers are willing to fight to the death to keep their unfair advantage. Same reason the South fought so fiercely to keep slavery. Tunnel vision to their own selfish desires.

I think unfairness comes from tax free generational transfer.

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes. It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment.

I’d prefer primary residence tax free, all rental props reassessed yearly with higher rate too. This way people can live in houses, and rent seeking is taxed instead.

Patrick says

Prop 13 is fundamentally unfair in that some people pay much less tax than other people for the exact same government services.

HeadSet says

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Germany, Japan, 1945

I was thinking the exact same thing. However, there are plenty of examples where a country's government was overthrown and the resulting new "government" was worse than the previous.

Fortwaynemobile says

I think unfairness comes from tax free generational transfer.

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes. It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment.

I’d prefer primary residence tax free, all rental props reassessed yearly with higher rate too. This way people can live in houses, and rent seeking is taxed instead.

With democrats running all of California at the state level, I'm surprised this sort of change hasn't happened.

"It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment." That's why the original poster postulated that Prop 13 be replaced with a law that taxes everyone at the same but lower rate so that the total amount of tax didn't increase of the total amount collected now. To the extent that Prop 13 is effective at massively holding down taxes for old people, couldn't a new and different Prop do the same in moderation for everyone and also level the playing field?

You actually forgot the largest Prop 13 ridiculousness: businesses also get the Prop 13 reduction. And, the way business can work the system, business properties will NEVER get reassessed under Prop 13 because those properties will technically never sold — just transferred through mergers and acquisitions specifically designed for that purpose.

You write that unfairness comes trough "tax free generational transfer," but do you also realize that Prop 13 perks are also inherited! Yes, that same law designed to "keep granny in her house" also assures that her 50 year old kid can stay in the house practically tax free and keep passing the house down through the generations nearly tax free. I'm not sure what 55 year old — having moved out of the neighborhood 30+ years ago and having already bought his/her own house 20 years prior, would really want to ditch that and move into granny's house, but there you have it!

Fortwaynemobile says

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes.

People who buy a home and don't use it as an ATM if the value increases drastically have no problem paying the tax. As I've noted before, I think here in Santa Clara County, if you are over a certain age you can just have the tax collector put a lien on your house for the tax amount with a promise not to collect until you die.

What's the flaw with this logic: Buy a hose at age 30 where you can actually afford the 30 year mortgage. At age 50 you might be post-peak earnings, but thanks to 20 years of modest inflation, you should still be able to afford your monthly mortgage payment, which hasn't experienced any inflation at all. You pay off the house at age 60. If your house experienced massive value gain, you now have a paid off house worth $2M that you own outright; you should have no problem with even a $20k annual lien to pay the taxes you claim you can't afford. If your house did not experience massive value gain, then your taxes are as low as ever, so there's no problem there either.