🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <linleyCsnro9.KCA@netcom.com>
linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) writes:
 
>
>In ye olden post broudy@mizar.usc.edu (David S. Broudy) spake...
>>In article <2vka8k$4r@crl.crl.com>
>>dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>>
>>> It's because of Prop 13.  Counties can no longer count on property tax
>
>Oh please. Prop 13 is a godsend. It's meant to protect fixed-income (usually
>retired) people who who would be otherwise taxed out of their house because
>the house they bought in 1967 increased in value from $20,000 to $200,000.
>This lets people plan their retirement and not have to worry about what kind
>of bill the gov't is going to hand them next year.
 
Fine.  So increase property taxes at the rate of inflation, not just 2%.
 
Let's not forget that Prop 13 also helped push housing prices up itself.  It
certainly made buying California real estate more attractive.
 
The problem with Prop 13 is that those who benefit from it are, by and large,
the people who need it the least.  These are people who owned homes before
1978.  Their mortgages are fixed, their property taxes are rolled back to
1975 levels, and then it rises a paltry 2% per year.  Meanwhile, they saw
their wages go up by 10% per year in 1979-80.  I'm singing the blues for these
poor bastids.
 
>People who whine about prop 13 will be singing a different tune when their
>property value goes up substantially (if they hold onto their home that long).
 
With the decline of California's standard of living (primarily due to over-
crowding in my opinion), and with one of the least business-friendly
legislatures in the nation, I'm not counting on much of a rebound.  We are
entering an era when many highly skilled people won't need to live close to
work.  When that happens, many of the people holding jobs where they can
"telecommute"--generally high-paying jobs--will flee (I know *I* will flee if
I can ever telecommute).
 
>BTW, with the recent dipping of property values in CA, people who bought their
>homes in the 80s are paying _more_ in prop tax than they should because of
>prop 13, but the liberal press neglects that little factoid and I suspect that
>you could care less about that. Prop 13 bashers are a bunch of snotty jealous
>impatient whiners who can't stand the fact that they are not instantly
>enjoying the benefits of 20-year homeowners. These people _invested_ in their
>future and are now enjoying the benefits that (waaaaaaa!) you want now or
>spitefully want to deprive them of (the f***-you-too mentality).
 
B.S.  They invested in _their_ future by running up a huge debt for their
children and grandchildren to pay.
 
>>I say, soak the rich.
>
>Ah! there's the aforementioned mentality showing itself right now!
 
I'd agree that is a good way to keep business out of California.
 
>>Of course, if I were rich, I wouldn't say that. But, I'm not and
>>don't plan to be anytime real soon. Plus, the rich can afford a
>
>translation: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
>         ...     No muss. No fuss. (Annual income) * 0.15 mailed in to
>Uncle Sam every year.
 
How about this:  (income * 20%) - $4,000.  It simplifies the tax code,
reduces marginal rates which will encourage investment, and actually creates
a *negative* income tax for people with incomes under $20,000.
 
No less a conservative economist than Milton Friedman has proposed this one.
 
>...
 
>Do not consider any of the above as an attack upon you personally. It is also
>meant as an attack upon all of the we-need-bigger-gov't tax-tax-tax pinko
>liberalites.
 
Note:  The above article does not necessarily represent the views or beliefs
of most conservatives who try to get beyond demagoguery.
 
I think 13 should be repealed not because it limits taxation.  That is a good
reason to *keep* it.  But it must be made fair.  As it's currently written,
it's a huge regressive wealth transfer from young to old.  Let's look at an
example:  my parents and me in 1992:
 
                                   ME                     MOM AND DAD
 
Square feet of home owned         740                       ~1600
Type of home                     condo                     detached
Bedrooms/bathrooms                1/1                        4/2
Market value, 1992             $110,000                    $240,000
Household income, 1992 (est.)   $40,000                     $75,000
Monthly mortgage, 1992 (est.)     $750                        $150
 
Annual property tax, 1992        $1,200                       $600 (est)
 
If that sounds fair to you, I'd shudder to find out what you consider to be
*unfair*.
 
 
Tim Irvin, Programmer/Analyst/Grad Student/Infielder/Gen-X'er
Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The statements and opinions herein are *mine*, not Lockheed's.
SOFTBALL '94--Games: 8  Team Record: 3-5  Tim's Batting Avg: .542, 1 HR