jawlz wrote:I am generally libertarian minded, but I would not go this far...

What do you think the gov't should cut, if anything. I see a few things that should immediately be cut. The postal service is a money pit and there are already private entities that could handle the transition. Education is one that I think needs privatization. Again, we're pouring money into it and it's getting worse. It would be a harder transition, but there is some private systems already in place.

I completely understand that in practicality, complete privatization isn't feasible. However, I think that we need to move some things that way. And the rest of the things need to shrink. I can think of very few things that should be overseen by the BIG gov't. Interstate highways, I do think, would be one of the few candidates.

ERMD wrote:After much thought, maybe the liberals are correct. I think I will go to half time so I am not in a higher tax bracket, not put away for retirement and let the socialist govt. take care of me when I get older.
Where's Rob ( RPM) when you need him.

How many thousands of dollars per hour gets billed for your work?



And IMnsHO the problem in California is the direct democracy. Californians are WAYYYYY too stupid to handle it. (It's ok, I think the same is true of any state)

jawlz wrote:Eh.... I don't know that this would be a big deal either way *if* California government was functional. But given how incredibly dysfunctional it is (it is difficult for those who don't live here to really appreciate how incredibly bad things are here, and how incredibly free Sacramento is with money - even money it *doesn't have*), having a control on how quickly a tax can increase is fine with me. Let's keep in mind that, adjusted for inflation, California receives a significantly *larger* amount of tax revenue than it did in the 50s and 60s when it was a model for how a state government could provide a number of really very high-quality services (infrastructure, education, etc). Had RPM not abandoned this thread, I imagine he could provide many historical anecdotes that bear this out. Suffice it to say, at the heart of the matter, California's problems are not revenue based; they are social and policy based. (And given California's love of debt, I don't know that its problems can be solved by simply starving the beast, but then I am quite pessimistic about politics in general at the moment.)


That said, I do not think it is equitable to have different property tax rates based on when a property was bought, though I would stop short of saying that it is *unfair*, for reasons already stated by Mark.

I haven't read anyone's comments on property taxes but I'd point out that owning a valuable house does not specifically make someone wealthy. And assessing people at present rates would have a devastating effect on many communities, forcing longtime members to relocate. Escalators usually reflect this to some extent.

coynedj wrote:Excellent post...

Thanks for taking the time to fully explain. I've not had the time yet and you covered it all way better than I would have.

I think the number of both full and half bathrooms was a major factor in Toronto.

mother wrote:And IMnsHO the problem in California is the direct democracy. Californians are WAYYYYY too stupid to handle it. (It's ok, I think the same is true of any state)

QFT.

klezman wrote:QFT.

What he said.
But we could use a media that reported the truth, not that anyone would understand.

rjquillin wrote:What he said.
But we could use a media that reported the truth, not that anyone would understand.

QFT+++++
Apparently truth is now also relative and subject to political whims. Sigh. We used to not be able to pick our own facts but now it seems that's ok.

rjquillin wrote:Yeah, a water heater ~could~ be an issue, but to replace it. ^&%$, I can buy it at HD or Lowes, but need a permit to put it in..?!

I KNOW, it's maddening right? And I think the whole Prop13 thing is starting to finally seep in. It's just SO different than the model I"m used to that my brain says, That can't possibly be right.

bhodilee wrote:I KNOW, it's maddening right? And I think the whole Prop13 thing is starting to finally seep in. It's just SO different than the model I"m used to that my brain says, That can't possibly be right.

P-tax bill...
Assessment is on total of land + improvements, not just improvements (house).
So my 1% is just shy of $4k, add to that
Voter approved bonds, already vented on this,
elementary ~ $150
high school ~ $250
community college ~ $125
health care district ~ $80
metro water (I have a well) ~ $15

Fixed charge assessments:
CSA 69 emergency ambulance $49.50
Fire district Special tax $40
(I just got an additional bill for yet another special assessment not included here for $150)
vector disease control $5.86
MWD water standby charge (Where's the Football??) $14.38
CWA water availability $12.50

That's ~ $750 over the base assessment, $900 if you count the extra fire tax.

So, the only 'protected' portion that is covered by P13 is the ~4k, they just keep piling on with the other stuff.

Oh, and now it's proposed to triple our auto registration fees. $200 -> $600/year.
A sales tax increase was just passed.
Additional bonds were just passed.
CA now has CAP-N-TAX for carbon credits.
We have additional tax/fees coming into play with O'care.

TX or Costa Rica, I see you in my future.

Well, the unions saved the day again. And by saved the day, I mean put an iconic American company into bankruptcy.

kylemittskus wrote:Well, the unions saved the day again. And by saved the day, I mean put an iconic American company into bankruptcy.

The best part is how the Teamsters were PISSED at the Baker's union. All of those brands will be bought. You won't lose Twinkies and Ho-Ho's forever, much to the detriment of every Diabetes Doctor's checkbook.

bhodilee wrote:The best part is how the Teamsters were PISSED at the Baker's union. All of those brands will be bought. You won't lose Twinkies and Ho-Ho's forever, much to the detriment of every Diabetes Doctor's checkbook.

We need a union to fight the unfair practices of the unions!

rjquillin wrote:P-tax bill...

Yikes.
Gotta love dishonesty in government. Woot.

rjquillin wrote:P-tax bill...
Assessment is on total of land + improvements, not just improvements (house).
So my 1% is just shy of $4k, add to that
Voter approved bonds, already vented on this,
elementary ~ $150
high school ~ $250
community college ~ $125
health care district ~ $80
metro water (I have a well) ~ $15

Fixed charge assessments:
CSA 69 emergency ambulance $49.50
Fire district Special tax $40
(I just got an additional bill for yet another special assessment not included here for $150)
vector disease control $5.86
MWD water standby charge (Where's the Football??) $14.38
CWA water availability $12.50

That's ~ $750 over the base assessment, $900 if you count the extra fire tax.

So, the only 'protected' portion that is covered by P13 is the ~4k, they just keep piling on with the other stuff.

Oh, and now it's proposed to triple our auto registration fees. $200 -> $600/year.
A sales tax increase was just passed.
Additional bonds were just passed.
CA now has CAP-N-TAX for carbon credits.
We have additional tax/fees coming into play with O'care.

TX or Costa Rica, I see you in my future.

You CA people are a little crazy, you know?

chemvictim wrote:You CA people are a little crazy, you know?

Fixing a problem via bad policy may just create other, possibly larger, problems. Sigh.

chemvictim wrote:You CA people are a little crazy, you know?

You think?

Prop 13 was passed because the Poli-ticks couldn't keep there hands off the PT revenue, and kept raising it.

Because Prop 13 was passed, the Poli-ticks had to find new ways to over-spend. So they figured they could add assessments.

If Prop 13 is overturned, not only will PT go up, but the assessments will stay.


We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

MarkDaSpark wrote:

We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

I wonder how long it would take for things to get straightened out if this were the way things were. Then again, most likely, programs would just get no funding in order to make up for budget shortfalls.

MarkDaSpark wrote:You think?

Prop 13 was passed because the Poli-ticks couldn't keep there hands off the PT revenue, and kept raising it.

Because Prop 13 was passed, the Poli-ticks had to find new ways to over-spend. So they figured they could add assessments.

If Prop 13 is overturned, not only will PT go up, but the assessments will stay.


We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

How much do they make? Ours make like 13k a year and can't vote themselves raises. They can vote raises to be on the ballot, but hardly ever passes. I voted for it though. They only wanted to go to 24k, hardly extravagant. The county commissioners in one of the counties make 27k and meet once a month.

rjquillin wrote:
That's ~ $750 over the base assessment, $900 if you count the extra fire tax.

So, the only 'protected' portion that is covered by P13 is the ~4k, they just keep piling on with the other stuff.

You seriously don't understand that all that other stuff is to pay for all the things you've voted for but haven't voted to fund through taxes?

Edit: FWIW I pay nearly a $30 mill rate here in CT, so I don't even feel a little bad for you casseroleing about $10+extras ;)

bhodilee wrote:How much do they make? Ours make like 13k a year and can't vote themselves raises. They can vote raises to be on the ballot, but hardly ever passes. I voted for it though. They only wanted to go to 24k, hardly extravagant. The county commissioners in one of the counties make 27k and meet once a month.

As of 2012, members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $142 per day in session. In 2012, the Legislature is in session from January 4 to August 31 (election year). In 2011, they were in session from January 3-September 9, with two 10 day recesses. But not sure if the recesses count against the per diem, because technically, I believe they are still "in session".

The California Citizens Compensation Commission (CCCC) voted in 2009 to reduce the salaries of California's state legislators by 18%, from $116,208 to $95,291. The Senate President Pro Tem (Democrat) only recommended a 5% cut in 2009. ($113,098/year in 2007.}

Even with the 2009 reduction to an annual salary of $95,291, California's legislators earn more than state legislators in the other 49 states. Michigan, which has the second best-paid lawmakers, pays its state legislators $79,650 a year.

California does not provide pensions for legislators who took office after 1990.

mother wrote:You seriously don't understand that all that other stuff is to pay for all the things you've voted for but haven't voted to fund through taxes?

I don't at all mind paying for the things I've voted for, but it appears the majority here don't have a clue what they are voting on/for.

California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.

Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

chemvictim wrote:California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.
Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

Yes, well sometime hypocrisy, it is very strong in this thread. As in; Sure I am a libertarian, as long as it is my liberty we are taking about! I will never forget one of the biggest self professed libertarians on these boards whining about why the cost of apartments in NYC was so high that on his entry level salary he couldn't afford to live there and why didn't the government do something about that!

Bottom line, if you don't like California, well, there are 49 other states to move to.

edlada wrote:Bottom line, if you don't like California, well, there are 49 other states to move to.

This is true. I hear Nebraska is nice.

chemvictim wrote:This is true. I hear Nebraska is nice.

Umm, well there are many other states to move too. Yeah, that's the ticket, many others!

chemvictim wrote:California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.

Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

That thought definitely came up multiple times, and I think rpm may have been among its advocates. Regardless, I've never found that to be entirely accurate. You can only go where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live the way you want to (insert caveat here). These decisions always require trade-offs. For example, I have a fantastic opportunity at my startup company, but it required me to move to Los Angeles. Not something I ever wanted to do, but sometimes (usually? always?) you go where the work is - not where you'd ideally go if all the stars aligned.

klezman wrote:That thought definitely came up multiple times, and I think rpm may have been among its advocates. Regardless, I've never found that to be entirely accurate. You can only go where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live the way you want to (insert caveat here). These decisions always require trade-offs. For example, I have a fantastic opportunity at my startup company, but it required me to move to Los Angeles. Not something I ever wanted to do, but sometimes (usually? always?) you go where the work is - not where you'd ideally go if all the stars aligned.

I get that. I usually think of it in context of poor people and personal liberties. Tired of being treated like a second-class citizen? Just move! Bwah ha ha ha ha. State's rights!

Of course, economic considerations come up as well. I just want to hear the people who yell "state's rights!" about personal liberty also embrace state's rights in the context of economic liberty. I might be waiting awhile. lol

edlada wrote:Umm, well there are many other states to move too. Yeah, that's the ticket, many others!

Hey! I know the thought of balanced budgets, having a surplus, and not giving a free hand out is anathema, but it works pretty well for us.

The whole unicameral thing is pretty decent as well.

bhodilee wrote:Hey! I know the thought of balanced budgets, having a surplus, and not giving a free hand out is anathema, but it works pretty well for us.

The whole unicameral thing is pretty decent as well.

But what do you have to do to put a toe in the ocean or foot on a rock over 5500ft?

I agree that there are many ways california is broken though. One takes the good with the bad. I never have to look at the "ships to" states list for example.

MarkDaSpark wrote:As of 2012, members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $142 per day in session. In 2012, the Legislature is in session from January 4 to August 31 (election year). In 2011, they were in session from January 3-September 9, with two 10 day recesses. But not sure if the recesses count against the per diem, because technically, I believe they are still "in session".

The California Citizens Compensation Commission (CCCC) voted in 2009 to reduce the salaries of California's state legislators by 18%, from $116,208 to $95,291. The Senate President Pro Tem (Democrat) only recommended a 5% cut in 2009. ($113,098/year in 2007.}

damn

cmaldoon wrote:But what do you have to do to put a toe in the ocean or foot on a rock over 5500ft?

I agree that there are many ways california is broken though. One takes the good with the bad. I never have to look at the "ships to" states list for example.

I get on a plane and in a few hours I'm there. The world is very very small anymore.

And, Nebraska is anything but flat. The portion that I-80 cuts through is flat (good choice for an interstate route eh?), the rest of the state has some quite rugged areas, though nothing you'd call a mountain.

how do you get someone who doesn't want to compromise to compromise? You buy them this for their birthday.



Obama's birthday present to Boehner.

bhodilee wrote:how do you get someone who doesn't want to compromise to compromise? You buy them this for their birthday.



Obama's birthday present to Boehner.

Nice. Except that it's not that the Repubs don't want to compromise, it's that they can't trust the Dems to keep their side.

Repubs want cuts in existing budget programs, whereas Dems promise cuts in future budget programs (said cuts never seem to occur).


Put it this way (this is just an example), current Budget is 500 Billion. R's want it to be 450B next year, while D's want it to be 750B. So the compromise is that it will be 600B (the D's "cut" 150B).

However, with addendums, it goes back up to the original 750B. So where is the compromise???

The R's are the Charlie Brown's, trying to lower the debt (kick the football), while the D's are Lucy, who keeps pulling the football away.

Repubs good, Dems bad. We know.

I think they're all worthy of contempt.

bhodilee wrote:how do you get someone who doesn't want to compromise to compromise? You buy them this for their birthday.



Obama's birthday present to Boehner.

First time I can recall a president publicly giving a non-American gift when there is a comparable American product out there.

*disclaimer: I am not faulting him for this, just noting it*

kylemittskus wrote:What do you think the gov't should cut, if anything. I see a few things that should immediately be cut. The postal service is a money pit and there are already private entities that could handle the transition. Education is one that I think needs privatization. Again, we're pouring money into it and it's getting worse. It would be a harder transition, but there is some private systems already in place.

I completely understand that in practicality, complete privatization isn't feasible. However, I think that we need to move some things that way. And the rest of the things need to shrink. I can think of very few things that should be overseen by the BIG gov't. Interstate highways, I do think, would be one of the few candidates.

Entitlements (social security, medicare, etc) should be dialed WAY back, all the redundancies in government should be eliminated, federal education funding should be eliminated or SUPER reduced (education is a state issue, not a federal one), miltary spending should be cut back by a decent amount, etc etc. There is a ton to cut. I just don't think that everything should be eliminated or completely privatized.

CNN is reporting that the hacker group anonymous has declared "cyberwar" on Israel. I'm not going to comment further for fear of getting my life hacked to pieces. But you can look it up if you'd like.

bhodilee wrote:CNN is reporting that the hacker group anonymous has declared "cyberwar" on Israel. I'm not going to comment further for fear of getting my life hacked to pieces. But you can look it up if you'd like.

A shark has been jumped.

bhodilee wrote:CNN is reporting that the hacker group anonymous has declared "cyberwar" on Israel. I'm not going to comment further for fear of getting my life hacked to pieces. But you can look it up if you'd like.

They've certainly come (or regressed? depends on who you talk to I suppose) a long way since their war on Scientology.

mother wrote:A shark has been jumped.

Come on now, we all KNOW that theh Israelis are to blame for all shark attacks.