Beware Prop. 56: Part 2

OC Register ^ | 2/23/04

[NormsRevenge]

Editorial director's note: What would life be like if Proposition 56 were already the law in California? Here is the second in a series of answers to that question.

How much money did you save this year because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, fulfilling a campaign promise, repealed Gov. Gray Davis' tripling of the car tax?

[NormsRevenge]

Just Vote NO!

When has a law or proposition stopped runaway spending by the legislature before in California?

[NormsRevenge]

.

[NormsRevenge]

also from the OC Register ...

Editorial update

On Wednesday, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill announced that, according to the latest estimates, tax receipts are down by $1 billion from earlier estimates for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30. She also said that, even if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $15 billion bond, Proposition 57, passes on March 2, the deficit for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, would be $7 billion.

But Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer "said that drop [in revenues] was more due to timing - the last day of January fell on a Saturday - than anything else," reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

However you look at it, it shows that the state needs to get serious about making serious spending cuts. Yet on Thursday the Assembly approved $1 billion in spending cuts for the current budget "through borrowing and fund shifts," reported the Sacramento Bee - that is, through gimmicks instead of real cuts

[kellynla]

http://www.noblankchecks.com

[HRC]

Check out the supporters of this prop: Supporters

[Weimdog]

I'll vote no to prop 56 but I'm beginning towonder whether it's time to revisit prop 13.

I was listening to Money Talk this weekend on the radio and the host, Bob Brinker, a fairly conservative guy, scoffed when a caller from San Francisco stated that his property taxes on a $1 million dollar property was only $4,000 a year.

I think there should be caps on property taxes and they shouldn't be able to be raised on the whim of the legislature; but there needs to be some equity in the system dont' you think?

[So Cal Rocket]

My mother lives in the house that she and my dad purchased 42 years ago for $18,500. She pays approximately $335.00 a year in property taxes - which she can afford in her retirement years.

If Prop 13 is "revisited", as you suggest, and the property is re-assessed at its current value of $350,000, her property tax will increase by around 1,000% to $3,500 a year - which she cannot afford. Her only recourse will be to sell the home and move out of the state (or in with me).

[Carry_Okie]

I heard Brinker on that and nearly punched him out through the radio for his ignorance. California government spending has risen 45% in five years. All it would take is a cut of 13.5% to balance the budget and Brinker thinks that can't be done?

You do the math.

Yeah, let's revisit Prop. 13. Let's kick retirees who have paid for their homes years ago out on the street with higher taxes. It's great for business! Think of the real estate commissions! Think of the turnover! Uh...

Do you realize what property taxes were in the 1970s? They reached 8% here in Santa Cruz. Think of it... $50,000 a year. Can you pay that? What would happen to property values? The real estate crash would take the banks with it.

Yeah, great policy. Get a grip.

[NormsRevenge]

Revisiting Prop 13 might be just one small piece of possible reform needed at all levels of government. But anything that raises the rate, residential or commercial property-wise, at which we are already taxed is still political suicide, imo.

Prop 56 is a sneaky end run that effectively knocks out one of the key pilings that Prop 13 rests on.

We need to resolve numerous financial issues this state's voters and certain elected representatives and special interests have saddled its residents with.

This includes having an actual coherent approach from the collection of taxes to the actual distribution of funds based on sound fiscal policies. That hasn't been practiced in years here in California.

To pull off effective reform is No easy task considering everyone and their cousin has a stake in it.

[pogo101]

(re Prop 56 Supporters list)

All takers. No makers.

[pogo101]

I agree with your suggestion (if I am reading you right) that the state rejigger the sources of its tax revenue, lowering income taxes and other "success punishments" while slightly increasing property taxes. The trouble is twofold. One, as you note, it's political suicide with the RIGHT to suggest the second, prop-tax-increase part, and second, the LEFT will immediately seek to reverse the first, income-tax-LOWERING part.

[Political Junkie Too]

I thought that homes would be reassessed at current market value when they are sold. Prop 13 was supposed to keep people from being taxed out of their own homes. It is only people who don't move for 30 years who still have extremely low property taxes. Once the house is sold, it will start assessing taxes at current value.

-PJ

[cinFLA]

I was listening to Money Talk this weekend on the radio and the host, Bob Brinker, a fairly conservative guy, scoffed when a caller from San Francisco stated that his property taxes on a $1 million dollar property was only $4,000 a year. I think there should be caps on property taxes and they shouldn't be able to be raised on the whim of the legislature; but there needs to be some equity in the system dont' you think?

I agree. It is like rent control and there are many abuses.

[Political Junkie Too]

Here's my proposed No on 56 campaign ad:

Graphic: San Francisco Chronicle headline from July 22, 2003: Demos caught in budget gaffe: Open mike picks up faction's talk of profiting from a crisis.

Announcer: "Remember when the Democrats were secretly meeting to delay the budget?"

Tape of Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles): "It seems to me if there's going to be a crisis, the crisis should be this year. What you do is you show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."

Announcer: "The Democrats planned to precipitate a crisis by hurting Californians."

Tape of Jackie Goldberg: "I think there's going to be a crisis, and the question is whether it should be this year or next year in terms of members of our house who want to get re-elected or in terms of members of our house who want to move to the Senate. Personally, I think the crisis is better off this year."

Announcer: "Don't let the Democrats get away with their plan to abuse their powers and hurt Californians. Vote NO on proposition 56."

Tape of Jackie Goldberg: "Oh, shit! Oh, shit!"

[End of ad]

-PJ

[Publius6961]

However you look at it, it shows that the state needs to get serious about making serious spending cuts. Yet on Thursday the Assembly approved $1 billion in spending cuts for the current budget "through borrowing and fund shifts," reported the Sacramento Bee - that is, through gimmicks instead of real cuts

That is why I will not vote for Props 56, 57 or 58, until there is already in place a bulletproff restraint on the deficit spenders with serious penalties attached.

Period.

"Trust me" is one reason to vote for something that I will never ever ever adopt again.
Did I say "never"?

[Grampa Dave]

Brinker is a left wing lunatic when it comes to politics.

He voted twice for the Clintoon and for the Goron. He hates GS and GW's tax cuts.

There is nothing conservative about Brinker.

Only fools and lunatic libs want Prop 13 repealed. Which category are you in?!

[Weimdog]

Lighten up man!

Brinker has helped me make a few bucks in the market and that's it. I heard the comment, I respect his market wisdom, and wondered aloud what others thought about his comment.

I think there are more than a few of us who believe that a person who owns a million dollar property should pay more in property taxes than those of us in $400K properties. I don't know the answers but it seems inherently unfair.

And who said ANYTHING about repealing Prop 13?

[NormsRevenge]