California's Problem can Be Solved

[musiclawyer]

Eliminate the corporate loophole for prop 13;

amend the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget;

bring back the car tax to pre-repeal levels;

legalize and reasonably tax bud.

This would be a huge start....... But I'm afraid it's not going to happen until we see California hit bottom later this year and early next. If I lived in the big cities where the pain will be most severe, I'd be scared because people will be hurting and taking it out on their own.

[tularetom]

1. Hard for those people to find us up here, huh?

[imdjh]

2. taxing property is an affront to ownership

If the government can tax your land or house at any level it likes, then you don't truly own that land. You rent it from the government. You know this, because if you don't pay the rent, the government will evict you and take the land. By the same token, a personal property tax means that nothing is ever paid for. In effect, you don't own anything.

There is nothing wrong with the government taxing goods and services ONCE. It's when it taxes something on a recurring basis that you are losing liberty.

[Oregone]

4. When the rich are able to acrue vast amounts of untouched wealth, you are losing liberty

I gladly give up liberty when I pay my property tax. I see the schools that it funds and the roads it builds. All that wealth means nothing if its surrounding environment goes to hell, if the social contract is breeched, and if ownership rights are evoked. The only way to ever "own" anything is to fund a functioning society that preserves the rule of law and the respect of private property. That is done with taxes.

[Feron]

11. There is no respect for private property..

if you make everyone perpetual renters that essentially own nothing.

And the same rule of law allows the police to seize your property on a whim or claim it through eminent domain.

There has to be a better way to fund schools and roads without threatening to evict people from their owns.

[Oregone]

12. Oh brother

You're telling me someone with billions in assets is just a renting victim if they have to pay property tax? Ah, go sell that somewhere else. Especially considering that people that pay that tax get to enjoy a life in a functioning society that isn't a shit hole (you know, the kind where mobs come to your home and burn it down).

Taxing people merely on income does nothing to tackle the problems that disparity of wealth produce (such as a low intergenerational mobility). Id rather have a society of renters than that of nobility and serfs governed by a caste system. Most of those contributors in such a healthy system, those owners of 90% of all assets, are merely the great descendent's of the innovators of the industrial age (yes, the same people who used slaves and child labor). If it takes making them renters to establish a true meritocracy (rather than an aristocracy), so be it.

BTW, my property tax is a write-off against my income. Hence....big fucking deal. The only reason I would get fucked is if I inherited a million dollar estate. In such case, I think I could handle it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Hate to point this out, but taxes are the fee we all pay to live in a civilized

society.

You want to live in a place with zero taxes? A local State Senator would love to by the way... that is called anarchy, and obvious results are seen in places like oh... Mogadishu.

Now there are ways of skinning the cat, but if we want to continue to get services... even basic shit like 9.11 services, it cost money to run them. If not... let me know, so I can start looking for a buyer and move away from this state, that is quickly moving towards anarchy.

The reason for Prop 13 were the abuses... but the law of unintended consequences is that right now we have unfunded services.

[Johonny]

5. sales tax are regressive

property and car taxes do not have to be.

[imdjh]

8. Property tax and car tax make you pay to keep what you own.

How'd you like to pay $900 to register your car this year? What if you're just some guy who works in a restaurant kitchen and doesn't expect much out of life, except that he likes owning a nice car? I knew that guy. He lived with his mother, because she need him to and because his contribution allowed her to stay in her house. He didn't waste a lot of money on entetainment- he just wanted one nice thing in his life. $900 to register a car that he bought last year and paid sales tax on last year.

In Virginia, if you bought a Prius last year, then your tax on that car THIS year (remember you already paid sales tax last year) would be about $1100.

Do you honestly think that someone should have to work for two weeks to pay the registration tax on a car he already paid sales tax on?

Define regressive.

[Oregone]

13. Rather its merely a tax like ANY OTHER that instead uses measures of *wealth* to establish you share

And they will take your shit if you don't pay income tax too (or throw you in jail), so its not really that different in that regard. Yes, it isn't based on income, but a different criteria that measures your ability to contribute to the central authority. Big fucking deal.

You are seeing it as a perpetual price tag to ownership, rather than an arbitrary measurement of one's ability to contribute (just as consumption tax and income tax both are)

[imdjh]

15. A car is a measure of wealth?

Your average car is not a measure of wealth, it's a necessity. Paying sales tax on it once is sufficient. After that, everyone should pay the same registration fee. And while we are on that subject, smog testing is a scam and a tax on the poor.

"And they will take your shit if you don't pay income tax too .."

Which is precisely why it's a bad way of paying taxes. If you tax consumption, then YOU get to choose if you will pay taxes. Don't want to pay tax? don't buy the TV.

A consumption tax is not an arbitrary measurement of ones ability to contribute- it's a straight forward measurement of your ability to contribute.

No IRS, no paperwork for the average person; your tax bill is always paid up. No surprises.

[Oregone]

22. Yes, a car is, just as a home is.

No one *needs* to drive a Mercedes Benz, just as no one *needs* to live in a 20,000 SQFT home.

"Which is precisely why it's a bad way of paying taxes. If you tax consumption, then YOU get to choose if you will pay taxes. Don't want to pay tax? don't buy the TV."

Consumption tax, as it relates to DISPOSABLE INCOME, no matter how you cut it, always yields a higher effective tax rate for the poor. Why do you want the poor to pay a higher effective tax rate against disposable income? Why do you hate the poor?

"A consumption tax is not an arbitrary measurement of ones ability to contribute"

I disagree. Its all arbitrary. We all have different ways to look at how much one has a potential contribute and how exercising that potential can hamper the prosperity of that individual. In many scenarios, a poor person on a frugal income can spend 100% of their disposable income on consumables (without much choice), whereas a rich person can spend but 1% of their disposable income, and still live like a king. Now, while their ability to spend in the first place may be a sign of their ability to contribute, can't we both agree that system promotes a bit on inequality? The poor person could spend and pay taxes to sustain their existence, but never thrive and be socially mobile. Is a tax system also not concerned about stifling an individual's ability to be mobile? We used to call this "tax fairness".

"No IRS"

I like the IRS

[imdjh]

26. Is a Mercedes "your average car"? You go straight to the top, and then over it.

[Oregone]

28. Its an example of a grossly unnecessary "necessity".

Some people still ride the bus too you know, as well as rent. Ownership of assets is wealth (especially more expensive assets), and thereby implies a greater ability to contribute without hampering 'economic freedom'.

[imdjh]

30. You know what? You probably consider my mom wealthy.

She isn't, but you probably think she is, if your scale starts with people who don't work and have never worked. She got up at an ungodly hour and hauled her ass into the city every weekday morning for 30 years to have the things she has including her retirement income. And you want to punish her in the name of some twisted notion of fairness and some misguided self image as a crusader for the downtrodden. Horse shit. She pays for her car, and she pays for people to ride the subsidized busses. She pays her real estate tax and income tax which goes to the rent vouchers which pay the real estate taxes for the landlords out there. She pays for her food, and she pays for other people's food stamps. She pays for public schools, and she paid for private schools. She paid for other people's kids to go to college, and she paid cash for her kids to go to college- by getting up every morning and going to work just like my dad did.

Just how many people is she supposed to carry?

And yes, she has a Mercedes. Before that she had a Chrysler. Before that she had a Ford. Three cars in almost 40 years. What a bitch. What a poor people hating capitalist bitch.

[Oregone]

33. "And you want to punish her"

Taxation isn't about punishing your loved ones. Taxation is about developing efficient systems to fund a government (its often more efficient to start with the people who actually have money). Sometimes such systems can be focused on stifling the growth of the people on the bottom, in hopes those on the top benevolently trickle their wealth south (doesn't seem to be working in practice). And some such systems work on funding the government by going to those who can actually pay, while fostering and encouraging an upwardly mobile society for all (by not gobbling up anything those on the bottom have left over). Sometimes in the later, those at the top have to pay more, and further, those at the top privately profit more from a society that isn't strangling itself. In such a system, their very ability to remain at the top is proof of their disproportional profit from such a society and the success of their very own tax dollars.

Punishment? Bah. Its about sanely funding services. Tapping those who desperately need the services seems illogical. And thats exactly what a consumption tax does.

I would only want to punish her for raising a child who wants to harshly tax the poor (straw man, just like yours). I would send her to a year of American Idol tour concerts and make her read Twitter regularly to punish her for this travesty.

[Oregone]

32. BTW, I noticed you didn't even attempt to defend sales tax

Although you previously stated consumption was a fair means to assess an individual's ability to contribute (even though some consumption is just a part of life), it truly isn't at all. Rather, saving, not spending, is a much better method of gaguing not only the ability to contribute, but to do so and remain upwardly mobile. And we happen to know that the ability to save is positively correlated with one's wealth AND income. I mean, seriously, take a look at the following graph and tell me if you can ever defend this shit idea again:

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/personalsavings.pdf

If a class cannot save, it follows they consume with 100% of their disposable income, and therefore, their effective tax rate on disposable income is 100%. The more people can save, is the less of their disposable income that would be taxed, and hence, the lower their tax rate becomes. Guess who is best at savings? Guess who can have all their needs met, still live like kings, and spend very little of their wealth to do so? This implies not only an ability to contribute, but to do so non-evasively.

Sales tax is a crap idea touted by the rich, to lower their burden.

[CreekDog]

41. If your car registration is $900, then your car is a measure of your wealth

or it should be, because that's an expensive car!

[haele]

7. Prop 13 was not just about taxing home property, but business property -

The land and improvments of those lands usually belonging to a corporation, rather than a person.
And Property taxes are not about land ownership, they're about land use of common infrastructure - roads, security and safety services, health and cleanliness/quality of life services, education and communication services, and common regulation enforcement. Everyone - land owner (personal or corporate), renter, or homeless - uses some amount of any and every of these forms of infrastructure that is provided by "government" every day.
Taxing insures that these things are available to everyone, not just to the people that can afford it. You own the land. But along with that land - unless you are in the middle of no-where and totally self-sufficient - you use government services to maintain that land - or your investment in that land.
Prop 13 was written so that corporations did not have to pay their fair share of the maintenance of the infrastructure to their real estate.
Howard Jarvis (Mr. Prop 13) could care less about the relative pittance "Granny" could or could not afford on the quarter acre lot the family home was on, or even "the family farm" - of, say, 40 - 60 acres of orchard - he was concerned about his corporate buddies and their 100+ acre of new industrial developments (usually started up after buying out two or three of those precious "family farms" from the kids who didn't want to farm anymore after Grandpa died), and the other taxes that they would have to pay on additional roads, power, water, and sewage use that they needed to run their businesses.
Corporate properties developed under Prop 13 are what are creating unfair burdens on the average Californian tax payer, not to mention the average Californian property owner.

Haele

[Xithras]

9. Non-agricultural corporate lands comprise only a tiny percentage of California property.

Most people in California have no problem with raising tax rates on these properties, but rate increases are naturally constrained by the property tax rates of other states. Unlike residents, corporations have little stake in any particular state, so raising property tax rates in one state to a level significantly higher than the surrounding states will simply prompt the corporations to move. There's also a strong possibility that the higher tax rates could devalue the property itself over time, reducing the tax burden on the corporate landowners and largely negating any benefit from tax increases. Land values in California are set by comparing the land value to the values of surrounding comparable properties. If punitive taxation levels make properties harder to sell, prices will decline. If that happens, the tax percentage will be levied against a smaller base property value, leading to reduced tax receipts for that property.

Between the relatively small number of properties impacted, and the natural caps on corporate property tax levels, most people who advocate raising these taxes wildy overestimate the actual revenue increases the state would generate. Most realistic calculations peg the number at no more than a few billion a year, and as little as a few hundred million a year, extra. Good numbers, but a pittance when compared to our budget shortfall.

It should certainly be part of the solution, but doing so isn't the solution itself.

[imdjh]

10. Not everyone who owns a business is an evil corporation.

There are plenty of small business people and people who own small business properties. We (Florida) recently had tax rollback in Florida because it was killing them. They are still fighting for a "present use" evaluation system so that Jo-Jo's bakery isn't paying taxes on her business as if it were a ten story condominium. We're talking about people whose taxes went from $2400 per year to $8,000 - $12,000 per year.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

Prop 13 was written so that corporations did not have to pay their fair share of the maintenance of the infrastructure to their real estate.

I just read it, and I don't see support for your statement.

Corporate properties developed under Prop 13 are what are creating unfair burdens on the average Californian tax payer, not to mention the average Californian property owner.


A person with three kids living in a bungalow is directly consuming over $30,000 per year in services just for the education of those kids. It's hard to imagine that a piece of business property of the same size is consuming anywhere near that much in services.

[Oregone]

14. Quick question...

"A person with three kids living in a bungalow is directly consuming over $30,000 per year in services just for the education of those kids. It's hard to imagine that a piece of business property of the same size is consuming anywhere near that much in services."

What gives you any impression that taxes should be based upon an individual's consumption of public services?

If a taxable entity consumes no public services at all, should they therefore pay nothing?

[imdjh]

16. You did.

What gives you any impression that taxes should be based upon an individual's consumption of public services?


You did, right here:

"And Property taxes are not about land ownership, they're about land use of common infrastructure - roads, security and safety services, health and cleanliness/quality of life services, education and communication services, and common regulation enforcement. Everyone - land owner (personal or corporate), renter, or homeless - uses some amount of any and every of these forms of infrastructure that is provided by "government" every day.
Taxing insures that these things are available to everyone, not just to the people that can afford it. You own the land. But along with that land - unless you are in the middle of no-where and totally self-sufficient - you use government services to maintain that land - or your investment in that land.
Prop 13 was written so that corporations did not have to pay their fair share of the maintenance of the infrastructure to their real estate. "

If business properties consume less in services than they pay in taxes, then clearly they are paying their fair share and then some.

[Oregone]

18. I didn't write that

Taxes should never be based on consumption of services. Those that need and consume the most, have the least to give. If this were the case, all social services would go bankrupt.

Regardless, the rich do not prosper from social services directly, but rather, indirectly by prospering within a functioning society that depends upon social services. You actually cannot put a dollar price on a businesses ability to consume public services. Businesses rather prosper from a healthy working/consuming class, and mechanisms that make commerce possible (rule of law, roads, utilities). And these things that businesses depend upon, depend upon public services.

[haele]

36. Actually, public infrastructure on the sewage and water use alone on a large corporate structure

generally runs anywhere from $100K - $500K a year. That's not counting the additional fire and security services that are needed for a large structure that usually has anywhere from 500 - 10K people working there at any one time.

Your statement " A person with three kids living in a bungalow is directly consuming over $30,000 per year in services just for the education of those kids. It's hard to imagine that a piece of business property of the same size is consuming anywhere near that much in services. " does not reflect the point I was making.

My comments were directed at corporate business parks, which were the properties that benefit from Prop 13 the most. Corporate business developments that remain in the corporation, can keep one original structure while they upgrade or expand, and make millions on rentals and tenant fees per year, pay proportionally less taxes for proportional services than your average home-owner - or small business owner. And they can usually afford to keep the property (to sell at their leisure or write off any losses that will cause a small business or individual homeowner to bankrupt or have to make a short-sale or get foreclosed on.
Not only that, but large corporations also make deals with local government entities that your average small business or home owner cannot make.

Small businesses or farms are not in the same class as corporate developments. And Prop 13 keeps the state from making fair assessments for tax purposes to corporate developments.
I'm not suggesting we revoke Prop 13, we need to revamp it so that many of the unfair corporate property tax loopholes that individuals or family businesses can't use are closed up and they start paying their fair share.

Haele

[TahitiNut]

24. Actually, I don't know of any country where the land is 'owned' privately.

The title to land is a legal fiction (I believe it's called "fee simple" estate), literally an entitlement, and it explicitly confers certain perquisites and powers over the use of the land and transfer of the title. The sovereignty of government over territorial lands precludes certain transfers that would exist if 'ownership' were actually complete. An 'owner' (title holder) cannot, for example, transfer sovereignty over that land to another government. I can't say that my property is part of Canada, for example.

As I vaguely understand it, we're still inheriting the customs and attitudes of centuries past, where God 'owned' the earth ... and then it was 'owned' by a monarch (God's anointed) ... and private persons merely used it.

But, what do I know? IANAL. :shrug:

[Oregone]

25. Good info

Yeah, you definitely can't cede the sovereignty of your property to another country, which is a good indication it isn't yours.

Funny thing is, my parents actually owned an old homestead (I grew up on it) that was "legally" sovereign to itself (as indicated on a piece of paper signed by the acting President at the time). Who knows if that would stand up in law. I think the only exception was that you couldn't torture on it, or something. It was called a land patent or something, and the land couldn't be taxed. I guess they had to call the county for the old copy of it and to get it transfered into their name.

BTW, I just read the language on those patents..crazy stuff. It says things like, "the UNITED STATES therefore grants this upon the said {individual} (and his heirs and assigns) TO HAVE AND TO HOLD forever"

[Greyhound]

39. And that is the heart of the issue, isn't it?

"Ownership" is an illusion, but confronting and accepting that shows the whole construct to be a facade. One realizes that one is nothing but property of the state.

Once that reality is acknowledged, you are left with anti-American concepts involving sharing and community and other such yucky things.

The "Dirty Fucking Hippies" were, and still are, right.
:hippie:

[depakid]

31. What a bizzare thought

By virtue of owning your property you're vested in a ton of government services that require funding.

[rvablue]

38. How do your propose paying for municipal services then?

Roads, police, fire fighters, public schools and on and on and on.

You must have money trees growing on your town green. We should get some here.

[Greyhound]

40. It seems that an overall "asset tax" would be the fairest method in our current society.

Those that have benefited the most would pay the most while those with the least would pay nothing or nearly nothing.

[rvablue]

42. What's the difference??

Property taxes are an "asset tax" -- you pay according to a percentage of your home value.

Same with vehicle registration -- it's based on the worth of the car.

Please explain the difference?

[Greyhound]

43. The difference has nothing to do with property taxes, it is about reducing/eliminating

the brutally regressive system of sales taxes and fees to finance our society.

Taxing assets is simply more fair.

[Oregone]

3. Cede Orange County to Mexico (but require them to keep paying taxes)

eh? Sounds good?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. What did Mexico do to you?

Brother...

[ColbertWatcher]

6. That is a reasonable approach.

However, I foresee alot of obstructionism from the GOP because their objective is not to govern, but to dismantle California and sell it for parts to their corporate buddies.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Re Prop 13

Can Proposition 13 be amended? Can it be made a progressive tax?

As it stands, annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. Could that be raised on a progressive scale, so that properties over a certain assessed value are taxed at, say 2%, then 2.5%, with a cap at 3%? This might cause some to sell their expensive properties, but if it does, tax the hell out of the seller's profit.

Could the yearly increase cap be raised from 2% to a higher percentage for properties over a certain assessed value?

I would also like to see certain moving violations such as speeding and DUI have their respective fines DOUBLED. On the speeding thing though, I'd only double the fine if a driver was speeding on surface streets, and maybe raised 50% on interstates and other highways.

Lastly, who's bud, and why is he illegal? LOL. Make him legal, and tax him, tax him, tax him. Along the same lines, release every incarcerated person who's cooling their heels due to a marijuana related issue, as long as it doesn't involve violence mixed with the sale.

[proud patriot]

19. this Californian Agrees

:)

[opihimoimoi]

23. Release all bud prisoners...period....we need them to start the Bud Parlors

[ContinentalOp]

27. Sure, that's great and all, but how are you going to do it?

The legislature isn't going to do it. Maybe you can raise the millions of dollars required to get a proposition on the ballot, but you know that someone with ten times the money is going to fight against it. :shrug:

[WhiteTara]

29. this state doesn't like poor people

you want perks....get rich. Then the boobengroper will talk to you...he'll ask for a donation probably, but at least he will talk to you.

[Kablooie]

34. tax bud? What about the other beers? Though just taxing Budweiser would probably bring in enough.

[Rockholm]

35. Screw CA. I hope all teh gays leave and take their $$$ with them!

I hope they ALL come to Massachusetts. Our economy is hurting but doing better than most states AND....we allow equal marriage.

[rvablue]

37. Can't eliminate the corporate loophole in Prop. 13 without rescinding the entire thing

with either a referendum vote or a 2/3 vote in the legislature.

I don't see the electorate or legislators doing that anytime soon.

And until it is done, the budget gap will only grow wider and wider in CA, no matter who is Governor, Republican or Democrat.