What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
146 Comments
- badqat, on 01/25/2009, -4/+30Waaah...our "income" is tied to home values because of that evil Prop 13. We can't screw our citizens/taxpayers to make up for "losses" in our "income." Woe is us.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -5/+28Funny how the taxes won't come down as fast as they went up. ***** the govt.
- kemp34, on 01/26/2009, -3/+23With annual property tax dues, even property "owners" become veritable serfs to the state. If you never can live on "your" land free and clear without having to continue paying for it, how, in fact, do you own it?
Anything limiting willy nilly property tax wealth seizure expansion, a la California's Proposition 13, is a good and sensible thing.
And I definitely do not feel sorry for municipalities if they cannot raise revenues. As mentioned above, other industries are taking hits and cutting back, why should government employment be considered a birth right?
Like even Obama said, everybody has got to take their cut. Government employment is no different. - kemp34, on 01/26/2009, -2/+16I think you're right on that one.
- Hillsfar, on 01/26/2009, -2/+15Why do we have state prison guards making $90,000 to $100,000 per year? Are they more educated than high school graduates or college graduates making $30,000 to $50,000 per year? Unions can bleed a corporation dry. But they can't bleed governments that can tax a citizenry dry.
- JohnFlux, on 01/26/2009, -0/+12
> If I have 0 kids and the guy next door has 5 kids, why should I put his 5 kids through school?
Because it's a lot more expensive to pay for prison for the 5 kids when they grow up without an education and resort to a life of crime? - earthwormzim, on 01/26/2009, -0/+11They won't. Here's what will happen: they will first tell the public that the first things that they are going to have to cut is education, and various stuff that helps children or old people, so that they can play on the heart strings of the public. Then, they will say that it can be avoided if they vote on some new legislation that will introduce new taxes and fees, and the reason will be, "it's for the children" or "it's for the sick and elderly". This way, if you vote no, you obviously hate children, and/or you want old people to die.
In other words, they will continue to raise taxes, and threaten the public with cutting programs that people are emotionally attached to. They will continue to bleed us dry until every last one of us is homeless, and penniless.
As long as there are sheeple that are willing to fork over their hard-earned money to others that do "business" at the point of a gun, there will be government. - curtisag, on 01/26/2009, -0/+11@SheilaNoya
Federal taxes have *nothing* to do about the solvency of STATE Government policies. I will not click your link because it's irrelevant. The Federal Gov. is dedicated to income redistribution, and that's another issue entirely. If you want end national income redistribution, I suggest voting for Libertarians and real Conservatives.
Now, it's well known that California gives their state employees some of the most beneficial pensions, early retirement packages, and other perks compared to other state employees. There are people in California that are currently retired, living off the State Government, and won't be eligible for social security for well over a decade because they are so young.
Much like the now bankrupt automobile-makers, California has much such horrible budget decisions over a period of time, they can no longer sustain themselves. And they have no one but themselves to blame. - curtisag, on 01/26/2009, -7/+16California, the great socialist experiment, is a failure. They have the highest taxes, the highest Gov. spending per person, and it's still not enough. Pathetic! By comparison my state has no state income tax and we're doing just fine for some odd reason.
- homah, on 01/26/2009, -2/+11noen, instead of the typical, pointless name calling, why not have a discussion on what parts of his platform you disagree with. here are the four planks he and the third party candidates agreed upon. any of this stuff bad?
* Ending the Iraq war as quickly as possible.
* Strengthening privacy and civil liberties.
* Reducing the national debt.
* Auditing the Federal Reserve. - radiofrequency, on 01/26/2009, -1/+10"which (unfortunately) artificially limited property tax"
Prop 13 was passed by voters in 1978 with a 30% plurality. It was passed so that folks couldn't be priced out of their homes by rising property taxes.
Have you checked out real estate prices in California, especially in the bay area? If property taxes were raised, people would be priced out of their homes altogether. Check out Palo Alto, with a median house value of $1.5 and a median income level of $60k. You think people can pay $1200 month just in property taxes?
Do you live in California? What business do you have suggesting higher taxes for Californians? I think YOU should pay higher taxes, and send $0.25 of every dollar you pay in taxes to California, like we do for other states. - radiofrequency, on 01/26/2009, -14/+23Over 2 decades of democrat-dominated Congress in California has killed the state.
Arrived in my email today:
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways
To tax his a--.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened? Can you spell "politicians"? - Diggnabbit, on 01/26/2009, -2/+10Because it's public education for the good of the whole society. That's why. That's why everybody pays for public education.
The problem with public education is that it IS tied to local property taxes. That means that higher income, wealthier neighborhoods get better schools and the other neighborhoods get screwed.
(And, heaven forbid that people get their economic theory from Peter Schiff on Youtube. At least we agree that that's a bad idea.) - keraneuology, on 01/26/2009, -0/+8This is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You got that? Is this sinking through? Governments are *NOT* to be allowed to have a blank check. Tell the government that they can't spend money they don't have indefinitely.
Here's a radical thought: make the government secure funding for desired programs FIRST. Ask the people - very nicely, as the government would be requesting a favor after all - to approve a raise in exchange for specific, defined programs. *IF* the additional taxes are approved *THEN* implement the program. - jayselle, on 01/26/2009, -2/+10That's because the inherent nature of government. It grows and grows. It's why socialism appears to be inevitable.
- SirBruce, on 01/26/2009, -0/+8Here's an idea: don't spend money assuming that property taxes will always go up year after year. Most especially, don't *borrow* money assuming that property taxes will go up year after year. And if you get a surplus, save it for a recession if you won't be able to cover services.
- wilf_brim, on 01/26/2009, -4/+12After a few more years of this, maybe the electorate will really be willing to listen to somebody like Ron Paul.
- keraneuology, on 01/26/2009, -0/+8Unfortunately? UNFORTUNATELY?
You must be a career government employee. Since when is the will of the people in a democratic system unfortunate?
UNFORTUNATELY?!?!?!?!?!?!
WTF, guy? Seriously... WTFreakingF?
The people have expressed their will. It is up to the government to work with what the people have graciously allowed them to have. There is nothing unfortunate about it. You are in serious need of an education on what the Constitution actually says and what the government is supposed to be. - yunus, on 01/26/2009, -0/+8It sounds great to get rid of History lessons I mean who needs to know what year's the civil war lasted to get a job. But if you dig a bit deeper, in a generation you will have people who don't know what the holocaust was or that America used to have slaves or that the civil war was not really about slavery. History is important to know even if it does not directly effect a person getting a job.
- Protonz, on 01/26/2009, -1/+8Under dems and repubs, they are both parties of big government. They have debates about "how" the government should interfere with the free market, instead of "should" the government interfere.
- kiddcode, on 01/26/2009, -1/+8I don't understand. Was anyone complaining about real estate taxes before the mortgage bubble hit? It seems that the state just got used to getting a lot of money and now they can't seem to figure out how to trim down to where they were before.
- Barackalypse, on 01/26/2009, -1/+8California is hugely in debt because its spends too damn much money. Its #4 in per capita spending at over $10,000 per person. What is it spending that money on exactly?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/276.htm ... - orubinstein, on 01/26/2009, -1/+8I used to live in CA. I went to undergrad there and had to move out to pursue my studies. When I left, I initially wanted to come back because I loved the state.
Unfortunately, the state income taxes were pretty high and I decided to move to FL where there is no state income taxes. I often come visit the state of CA but it's so much more expensive to live there.
I remember during my youth. CA was a financial powerhouse. It's unfortunate to see this state in bankruptcy because of their policies. Hopefully, this will force the state to change. - dreicher, on 01/26/2009, -0/+7You've stated the same basic thing over-and-over in this thread; however, you fail to cite that property tax revenue in California over the past couple years increased dramatically:
2003 +8%
2004 +8%
2005 +11%
2006 +12.5%
2007 +10%
2008 +5%
The government is freaking out because 2009 property tax revenues are projected to drop 6%, so all the way back to 2007 levels. You can't blame Prop. 13 for this one. Property tax revenues increased significantly and all the money got spent like it was going to continue going up forever. - malanic, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6"If I have 0 kids and the guy next door has 5 kids, why should I put his 5 kids through school?"
Just wondering who paid for your education, that is of course, if you've had one at all.
Perhaps it's more a case of "stuff you Jack, I've had my education so lets get rid of govt. subsidies, since I'll be long dead by the time that the repercussions of an under educated society takes hold". - derecshuler, on 01/26/2009, -1/+7Government downsize? That's not in the evolution of a bureaucracy!
I'm in real estate and we have a regulatory body here in Colorado. Though people are bailing from our industry and the "regulated body" is now smaller, our state fees were just at least doubled to make up for the budgetary shortcoming. I never saw downsizing their office as a solution.... - wilf_brim, on 01/26/2009, -2/+8OK, when property values were going up between 10 to 40% per year I didn't hear complaints about the state making too much money. All I saw was politicians taking all the money they could get and use it to buy votes so they could remain in office. Now that reality has come crashing down, all they can do is complain.
Suck it, California. Just don't drag the rest of us down with you. - neilk85, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6i dont have an ounce of sympathy for my state in this case. Even if this means having to freeze wages and layoff government employees I'm all for it. I mean yea property tax revenues are falling now that real estate prices dropped but what about all the money you were collecting property taxes when the real estate market was red hot over the past 5-7 years.
Didn't you think you should maybe save some of the revenue you were collecting....ya know just in case that unprecedented and artificially maintained climb in real estate prices (due to the fed keeping rates exceptionally low) wouldn't last forever....and might even face a downward correction? - keraneuology, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Let me google that for you...
<http://www.letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=states+wit ... - Barackalypse, on 01/26/2009, -2/+8Maybe they should spend less money then, just like I have to when my revenue decreases (oddly, usually because of taxes).
California ranks #4 in per capita spending at $10,136 per person.in 2006.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/276.htm ...
In 2005 when the real estate boom was still going crazy, California only raised 23.2% of its income from property tax.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0 ... - deweyhewson, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6First off, those 5 children are going to be paying YOUR Social Security, YOUR Medicare, and for YOUR roads, YOUR government. That's why. Wouldn't you like the people responsible for that to have some semblance of intellectual capacity?
Secondly, history is the most important subject! Study of the past is the only thing that enables us to understand the world around us, and how we can avoid mistakes in the future. Sure, it's not always taught correctly, but that's not a flaw with the subject.
Get rid of that, and the outlook for the future only gets dimmer. - Eorster, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Very good points. How do we handle the union hold on government jobs? Will they take pay decreases? I say government should chop jobs like the rest of the country so us private sector people, now making less, don't have to pay more money that we don't have.
- Aggaman, on 01/26/2009, -0/+6Let the state crash. I'll be laughing when the libertarian retards discover that the government free society they want looks remarkably like the government free societies in Africa where people tote around machine guns all the time.
On the bright side, at least you won't have any money to pay Israel to kill children. - Solstice, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5Seniors can downsize just fine. Prop 60 and 90 allow for a one-time tax basis transfer for senior citizens as long as the new property has an equal or lesser value of the one that they are selling. See:
http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/guides/prop6 ... - ThunderGodNick, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5Reasons why I'm glad I don't live in California:
- My state has to tightly budget EVERYTHING.
- My state doesn't borrow *****, again tight budget.
- My state's ran like a freak'n business (close to one anyway). If you're wasting peoples tax dollars you get canned.
- I live in Nebraska.
Funny that. :P - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -1/+6Message to Sacramento: Cut. *****. Spending. Now.
What part of this message is not clear? - inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5TAX in Europe is Super HIGH, Its called VAT
- allatti2d, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5You know, I don't want to give this story a digg because it seems that the article is trying to put blame on Prop 13 for current and future economic woes, and that's just not right. I agree with the first three comments at the bottom of the article (dated 01/24) that point out the obvious: revenues have consistently gone up under Prop 13, but spending has gone WAY up, especially during prosperous years, so we'll be stuck with a growing deficit -- NOT because of Prop 13, but because of the idiot legislation that pushes spending over the limit. Don't these people know how to figure out a basic budget? Don't overspend and stick some away for a rainy day!
So what do I do? Digg it because I have an opinion on it? Bury it because of the anti-Prop-13 title? Leave it alone to stay neutral? I like Southern CA, especially because the weather will be relatively nice out on the streets if I happen to lose my home. - PeanutCheeseBar, on 01/26/2009, -1/+6What's the matter California? Just now figuring out that overtaxing your citizens and indirectly raising the cost of living is not "progressive"?
- MrSteamTank, on 01/26/2009, -1/+6Because the family with 5 children are investing some of their resources producing 5 future taxpayers and voters. You, however, are not.
- mouthbreether, on 01/26/2009, -0/+5Prop 13 sounds like one of the few protections the homeowners of California have. Prop 13 isn't the problem here. The fact that it is even being discussed is a symptom of greater problems, not the problem itself.
- belowe, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4You obviously don't own a home or pay property taxes..
- schnikies79, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4When tax revenue goes should, so should government spending.
- cuecat, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4I'm not saying get rid of it entirely, just teach what is relevant. How much of your history lessons do really remember? Or do you actually need?
What the point of making kids memorize facts of the Greco–Persian Wars? Who cares? Are kids so educated that we need to move onto luxury subjects? - radiofrequency, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4Real estate prices in California are already high enough to price out the youth but they are also high so as to make downsizing unaffordable for senior citizens and retirees. Even if the retired purchased a smaller home, their property tax would be much higher than if they stayed put in a home they purchased 10 years ago.
- javy925, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4same with gas :(
- Yanarix, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4Thats how it used to be, there was even a word for it- "apportioned".
- curtisag, on 01/26/2009, -2/+6@glhf:
Which is exactly why you should be required to apply for a license to have children and the number of children you can have should be based on a complex formula determining how many children you can efficiently take care of. If your bad parenting decisions harm society that much, your rights and freedoms are now in conflict with my own. That's where the state must step in to protect my rights from being infringed upon. - Wolfboy, on 01/26/2009, -0/+4re: "We had absolutely no national debt" 100 years ago.
The U.S. national debt was $2.6 billion in 1909.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/hist ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is