In my earlier respoonce I stated with out prop 13 the largest land owner in Calif wpuld be the varrious county governments, I was ask what is wrong with the Federal Gov owns more land in some states than citizens. That implys that there is nothing wrong with the government taking over land and home owner ship and people loosing their homes. And to me that does not make sense.
To give you an example based on one persons experience. I paid $42,000 for this house in 1976 by 1978 the same house was selling for $100,000. but I will use $42,000.
My house payment was $327 per month, or $3924 per year. And I just qualified for the loan.
At $11 per 100 my tax bill would have been $4620 per year. And most county were increasing their assesments to what houses were selling for. In Santa Clara county it was not as bad as Monterey county. My house property taxes were only going uup 80% a year. The property in Monterey County where I grrew up was increasing over 300% a year.
These are my numbers and why I am pro Prop 13 and why most people in Calif at the time were pro Prop 13.
How many of those complaing about my stand owned a home in California 1975 to 1980? If you object to what I am saying please state if you owned a home during that time please.
No, that wouldn’t have happened. Without Prop 13, a combination of these things would have happened–
properties would have been sold – mostly by current landowners and mostly at a profit – to people who could afford to pay taxes
taxes would have kept going up to cover state expense until the balance of expenditures and taxation nonlinger benefited the public, at which point both would have gone down.
some property held by delinquent taxpayers would have been auctioned off to people who could afford taxes.
The people whose are in trouble today with mortgages are much more deserving of relief than Californians n the 1970s, for whom the capitalist system would have worked – after all the reason their taxes were rising was that the values of their property was skyrocketing. As it is what happened was that Prop 13 essentially took money from non-homeowners and gave it to homeowners while creating a system that basically screwed the entire state.
I bet you did not own property In Callifornia when Prop 13 was passed.
Properties would not have been sold at a profit because there would have been to much property on the market. The only ones who would have been able to keep their properties would have been the rich upper class. the middle and lower class could not afford the taxes. When taxes exceed the mortage payments there would very few people who could afford land.
I do not know what the mean income was in 1978. But a house payment of $327 took a quarter of my net pay. Double that buy increasing my taxes by another $300 some dollars and the house goes to the county. With the higher taxes and a 80% loan I would not have been able to sell it for a profit and I doubt if I could have sold at the loan ballance. No prop 13 most of the upper middle and middle class would be forced to sell their homes and those who could not sell it for enought to pay the mortage offf would end up letting it go for taxes.
Homeowners know ahead of time what their tax bill will be.
And, due to Prop 13, the current homeowners have predictability of what their future tax bill might be.
Any current homeowner cannot be taxed more simply because a neighbor sold a home for a lot of money.
BUT, the new owner will be taxed on the price he/she paid for the expensive home.
If there were that much property on the market, then the prices for property would have gone down, and therefore the taxes with them. That’s the way the free market works.
The flooding of property would have forced prices down. Yes you are right. And most new home owners, those who owned their homes for 5 years or less, would not have been able to sell their homes for the mortage (assuming 80% loans) and they would not have been able to afford the taxes. The end results would have been only the rich and counties owning homes. So if you think it best that only the rich own homes then that explains your stand.
Brown was run from the Gov’s office along with Rose Bird and some tighter gun law ballot initiatives about 14+ years ago.
Brown opposed Prop 13, stood in the way of the death penalty, got the Manson Family off death row and into the parole hearing system, tried to make Chiropractors MD’s, supported laws that ran off Califs aerospace industries, ran off the boating industries, the surfboards industries, dozens of other industries, stood in the way of welfare reform, the list goes on.
Some people like the idea of all that. They live on an entitlement, what the heck do they care?
Whitman’s problem is poor advertising. All anyone sees is this old lady with an alcoholic haze glowing about her face.
If she doesn’t step it up, she’ll loose.
Californians like and fall for the idea of something for nothing promised from politicians and don’t realized they end up with nothing for something.
Jerry Brown was not entirely opposed to the idea of Prop 13, his main opposition was to the big loophole it gave commercial property, which is still a bad idea today. As to what occured afterwards (wiki):
“Upon taking office, Brown gained a reputation as a fiscal conservative.[9][10] The American Conservative noted he was “much more of a fiscal conservative than Governor Reagan.”[10] His fiscal restraint resulted in one of the biggest budget surpluses in state historyHe was both in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment and opposed to Proposition 13, the latter of which would decrease property taxes and greatly reduce revenue to cities and counties. When Proposition 13 passed, he heavily cut state spending and used much of the surplus his government had built up, roughly $5 billion, to meet the proposition’s requirements and help offset the revenue losses.[11][10] His actions in response to the proposition earned him praise from Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis who went as far to campaign for Brown’s successful reelection bid in 1978.[11]”
Which (cutting state spending) is exactly what should have been done. The debate about what the LT effects of Prop 13 are, etc, is not really a issue, Jerry Brown has never said he wants to repeal the whole thing. Oddly, Warren Buffett advised Arnie to repeal it! Currently Jerrys plan has no mention of repealing Prop 13: http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/Budget%20Plan.pdf
So, yes, he opposed Prop 13 *as a whole * and in the past as it contained a stupid loophole for businesses. However, that hardly makes him a “tax&spend” Democrat, as he went on to work within it’s limitations, and was praised for doing so.
Things weren’t so bad under Jerry, far better than under Davis or even Arnie. We tried the whole “GOP outsider” thing with Arnie (although I give him Kudos for trying) it didn’t work. Not gonna work with Meg either. Can anyone show how it will?
Jerry Brown is personally a very very frugal guy. In addition, he knows how the numbers in the California State Government work, he’s been there before, there would be little learning curve. And, since he’s a Democrat, there won’t be any of that ridiculous party antagonism that just doesn’t get anybody anywhere. So, there’s at least a chance of success.
If Meg were to win it would be head-butting with the legislature from day one to infinity and beyond. Nothing would ever get done.
and to pick on one of Snnipe’s more indefensible pieces of ‘evidence’, Brown was not reponsible for the water shortage (drought), and the ‘if it’s brown’ saying had to do with whether the toilet bowl contained urine or…
It had nothing to do with Jerry Brown.
Great arguing, there… :smack:
Whitman will give you more of the tax cuts for the rich results in jobs mantra. Because it works, we are now ass deep in jobs. The wealthy have been getting tax breaks for 10 years. Show me the jobs.
She wants to eliminate estate taxes and capital gains taxes. She is a self serving rich bitch who will never be satisfied.
My main problem with Whitman, and I know this doesn’t really hold political water but I can’t shake it, is that she wants to be Governor SO badly. She is spending so much money, her ads are everywhere, all the time, she went negative really early and in a particularly viscous fashion…I don’t know that I trust someone who wants to have that much power that badly.
I am also of the belief that with the state of California’s politics only an insider can get anything done. I have actually liked many of Arnold’s attempts to do things while he has been in office, but he has managed to be almost totally ineffectual as far as I can tell because it took him so long to figure out how to work the machine. I am not totally convinced he has learned even now, the curve is steep.
Hmm. For $119million she could have just hired nearly 4,000 unemployed people at $30,000 each to do…I dunno, anything. Go work at charities. Stand on streetcorners and sing happy songs. Something. Good publicity, and the trickle-up effect would only have helped the economy.
Say what. Where did I say Brown had anything withthe water shortage. The implication of the expresssion “Brown is Brown” had to do with people think Brown was full of it. Had nothing to do with toilets.
What you wrote was :
“the jokes and some times the head lines, “Brown is Brown” from the water shortage time came the saying “If it is Brown flush it down”, gov moon beam and much more.”
Capitalization counts. I think I read it more carefully than perhaps you wrote it. Then again, it wasn’t very substantive to begin with…
It was a play on words of that time about Browns preformace as gov. I write here for fun. At work when I write a report then I am careful about my sentance formation and spelling.
