Skip to comments.
CA: More red ink expected from revised state budget
Mercury News ^
| 5/11/03
| AP - Sacramento
Posted on 05/11/2003 9:38:23 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:31:12 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SACRAMENTO (AP) - More bad news is expected to roll out of the governor's office about noon on Wednesday, as the administration releases its revised budget proposal.
Insisting most of the big decisions were still being debated until a Friday deadline, Gov. Gray Davis declined late last week to share any details about the new spending plan. The only thing for certain, staff members say, is that a lot more money needs to be trimmed from the near-$100 billion state budget.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calgov2002; california; expected; redink; revenuedecline; revised; statebudget
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Black Wednesday .. Ha!
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Ping
2
posted on
05/11/2003 9:43:32 PM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi .. Support FRee Republic)
To: NormsRevenge
women,children and minorities expected to be hit harder
To: NormsRevenge
I bet the numbers are near 40 Billion
To: NormsRevenge
How much is the car licensing fee in California? And typical property taxes for a $150,000 home?
5
posted on
05/11/2003 9:51:04 PM PDT
by
FITZ
To: NormsRevenge
The heck with the red ink: How about the reds in the senate passing all the laws. I think Russia is in envy.
6
posted on
05/11/2003 9:53:11 PM PDT
by
Brimack34
To: NormsRevenge
...minorities will be hurt? check the demographics. everyone is a minority down there...
To: NormsRevenge
we always could develop that off-shore oil and use it to fund education, like texas does.
but, that would p*ss off the environmentalists, wouldn't it?
ol' joe davis the governor spent us into this deficit.
8
posted on
05/11/2003 10:16:07 PM PDT
by
liberalnot
(what democrats fear the most is democracy.)
To: FITZ
I just paid $164 to license a 1996 Ford, plus $48 for smog test. Tax on a $150,000 home would be around $1,500, but $150,000 homes are unheard of unless you want to live in the sticks.
To: janetgreen
The property tax is 1% of the sale price, or adjusted value based upon assessment by the county assessor. The assessed value can increase a maximum of 2% per year. But - the tax is not the only item in our tax bill. With fees and other items it averages just over 2% per year. A $300K home (typical in my area of north San Diego county) would then run about $6K per year in taxes and fees. The $150K home would run about $3K.
Add to that the fuel costs (gas, electricity, gasoline, etc.) and it is not a pretty picture. But the weather is nice.
To avoid stepping up my tax basis I have refused to buy another house in this state. I have friends that have lived in their homes for many years and are just as concerned about the tax impact of selling and buying another home. So, if we are an example, there is a chilling affect due to the property tax/fees/etc. as it is right now at approximately 2%.
My next move is to take my family out of this peoples paradise. We just have little use for all the wonderful offerings of our state government and believe it would be an act of kindness to make our home available for a family that is in need of the great social services this state has to offer. And the weather is nice.
To: NormsRevenge
Here's a thought. Governments of all types own, or control, about 75% of the land in the state of California. What about selling some of the land for private use?
The state should be able to raise a fair amount doing this, and perhaps avoid the pesky overcrowding problem so many eco-friends complain about. It would be a veritable win-win.
To: NormsRevenge
Is there any way we won't go bankrupt?
To: Tanstaafl
Many people accuse ex-Californians of being "equity bandits" as they arrive flush with cash to buy a very nice home in an area with lower home prices. The house that I purchased in Mira Mesa in 1983 for $105,000 was sold in 2001 for $242,000. That sounds like a good appreciation, but the reality was $20,000 in selling costs, $78,000 to pay off the mortgage, $15,000 in moving costs and $35,000 to pay off outstanding debt. Another $14,000 was burned as I was forced to live out of town (in San Diego) for a year to keep the current job. Net of $80,000 to put into the new house.
I just did a search of my old zipcode (92126) for a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. I had 1334 sq ft with a double garage and .25 acre lot. A house with half the lot size and 1150 sq ft is selling for $360,000 now. Did I miss out on $100,000 or did I catch the market before prices soared so high that nobody could afford to buy my house? I'm inclined to believe the latter case. What person with any sense would move to a state in such dire financial conditions and buy into an over priced market? The average home price in the 92126 zipcode is now $299,235. Average housing sq ft is 1335. Average lot size is .20. My house was definitely average.
The new house cost $178,000 in Idaho. 3900 sq ft on 1/3 acre in a very nice neighborhood. Annual property taxes of $3,000. My property taxes doubled on a house with 3 times the floor space compared to San Diego. The new owners of my old house will pay far more in property tax than I do on my new house. Idaho sales tax was just raised to 6%. Personal income tax for earners over $100,000 is $7,249 plus 7.8% of everything over $100,000. The cost of natural gas, electricity and gasoline is much lower compared to San Diego. Milk is much cheaper too. Unlike California, food is subject to sales tax. The only thing you'll really miss is the afternoon traffic reports. There's no need for them.
13
posted on
05/12/2003 1:40:31 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: NormsRevenge
Rescind "entitlement" social services programs. The court has ruled, not only that anyone qualified must be served, but that they must be given high quality service. These programs are non-budgetable as no one can anticipate the demand for service. Children's mental health services, for instance have skyrocketed.
These programs have also been notoriously underfunded - like the new In Home Social Services - where the General Fund must be raided to pay for new program requirements. This is hitting the minimal funds left available for core essential services like police and fire. Only about 16% of our local county's budget is discretionary general fund monies for such core service.
The essential function of government is to protect the general public from substantial danger to health, safety and property. It has not been the traditional role of government to provide health care, housing, food and jobs for individuals at the expense of the general public. That has traditionally been a charitable philanthropic function.
The leftists are bankrupting California witb their largess on social programs we cannot afford delivered by expensive union government employees. We have people coming acroos the border from Oregon to collect California's higher welfare benefits.
14
posted on
05/12/2003 1:50:49 AM PDT
by
marsh2
To: Tanstaafl
A small correction to my prior post. My house was actually 4 br, 2 ba. I used one bedroom for my office, so I didn't count it. A similar model two blocks away is now for sale for $384,900. A smaller, 3 br 2 ba that is the next door to my old house is listed for $355,000. I wonder if any of the prospective buyers will bother to check the neighborhood for asian gang graffiti. It was just showing up in summer of 2000.
15
posted on
05/12/2003 2:00:03 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: janetgreen
That's a low property tax then ---it's much higher in this part of Texas. You can find $150,000 homes but property tax would be over $3000 a year.
16
posted on
05/12/2003 5:42:12 AM PDT
by
FITZ
To: FITZ
And typical property taxes for a $150,000 home?The property taxes for a $150,000 home are $0, because there ain't a home to be had for that price in California.
17
posted on
05/12/2003 5:45:19 AM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: Poohbah
I noticed that the estimated monthly payment to buy my old house would be around $1650/month. That's probably a 30 year loan at a very low rate. I paid $1325/month when I bought it in 1983, but I was assuming a loan of 13.25% when the going rate was in the 16% range for new ones.
Given the skyrocketing purchase prices, I'm sure the rental market is following suit. Unless an owner is actually looking to take a loss to reduce tax obligations, the houses almost always rent for a bit more than the monthly mortgage. A rental doesn't get the homeowners tax exemption either.
18
posted on
05/12/2003 11:56:22 AM PDT
by
Myrddin
To: Myrddin
I noticed that the estimated monthly payment to buy my old house would be around $1650/month.We freaked out our underwriter by only taking a 50% mortgage on our new home (one year ago this month). Now, every equity lender in America is stuffing our mailbox.
19
posted on
05/12/2003 12:07:52 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: NormsRevenge; *calgov2002; snopercod; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; Gophack; RonDog; ...
Thanks for the ping. Been a busy day so just getting on today!
So how will the Governor spin the facts?
calgov2002:
20
posted on
05/12/2003 5:18:59 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson