We cant give these vultures in SAC any more power than they have already. I am not under prop 13 on my home so it doesn't effect me financially as much as my neighbors. SO what they bought well before I did and that's the way it is. If this Prop 25 passes and they raise my property taxes again I am not going to be happy. My parents on the other hand are on prop 13 and they are both on fixed incomes on descent pensions but come on now when is the line going to be drawn. This state is ridiculous. the have a FU#%### tax for everything and that's after they tax my paycheck 30% already. VOTE NO ON 25 don't give them any more power and also in NOV VOTE OUT THE INCUMBANT.
Don Osborne
This is not directly fishing related but PISSES me off!
-
basshunter4u
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:22 pm
- Location: Castro Valley
- Contact:
Re: The taxpayer pay nothing into Cal pers Really????
never give up, be possitive and patient, and you will be rewarded
-
Flippinjigs
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:05 pm
- Location: Fairfield, California
Re: This is not directly fishing related but PISSES me off!
This is very entertaining. A lot of good points, jabs, knock out blows and strikes. I must admitt You guys are the best.
Being a state employee for CalTrans. I pay into my retirement similar to a 401, it's not a free pass (If you didn't know).
"NO ON 25" Don't give your elected ledislators any more leverage on us than they already have.
&
Good Fishin
Being a state employee for CalTrans. I pay into my retirement similar to a 401, it's not a free pass (If you didn't know).
"NO ON 25" Don't give your elected ledislators any more leverage on us than they already have.
&
Good Fishin
If you do nothing expect nothing!
-
Greg_Cornish
- Posts: 5422
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
- Location: Clear Lake
Re: This is not directly fishing related but PISSES me off!
The Truth About
Proposition 13 and the
California Tax Revolt
by Joel Fox
Proposition 13 has been blamed for everything from crumbled freeways following the Bay Area earthquake to culpability in the murder of Petaluma's 12-year-old Polly Klaas because an inadequate police communications system prevented the early arrest of her alleged killer.
Supporters of Proposition 13 are outraged at these irresponsible charges, but are hardly surprised. Over the years, Proposition 13 has been a scapegoat for just about any crisis that came along in the state.
Proposition 13 is the crown jewel of California's fabled tax revolt of 1978. It limits property taxes and requires a vote on future tax increases.
Of course, opponents of the tax revolt rarely acknowledge that Proposition 13 does the job it was designed to do: keep people from losing their homes...keep people from being slaves to the tax-master.
A study released in 1993 by the University of California concluded that Proposition 13 gives the greatest relief to low-and middle-income property taxpayers.
One elderly couple, in a letter written to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, expressed gratitude that they can now live in the house they love for the rest of their days without the fear of losing it. A former employee of the tax collector's office wrote to us that prior to Proposition 13, she had to deal with people who came to the office with tears in their eyes because they could not afford their escalating property taxes and had to give up their homes.
Proposition 13 did something revolutionary in tax law -- it gave certainty to the taxpayer rather than the tax collector.
Proposition 13 links property taxes to the property buyer's ability to pay, with a set tax rate tied to the value of the home when purchased, and a cap on future property tax increases. For the first time, property taxpayers are certain what their tax burden will be when they buy a home and they can predict what the tax burden will be into the future.
Underlying the scapegoating of Proposition 13 since 1978 is the hope it will be destroyed so that raising taxes will be easier. This in a state which, by any measure, today is considered a high tax state.
The accusations against Proposition 13 have become fierce in recent years because of financial difficulties in the Golden State. California is indeed going through tough times. However, for more than a decade following the passage of Proposition 13, California went through boom times, creating jobs at a faster rate than the rest of the country, in part due to the Proposition 13 tax cuts. From this high peak California fell a long way, because of the lingering recession; job losses from defense cutbacks, which Governor Pete Wilson claims account for half the jobs lost in California; and the crushing sales and income tax increases imposed on California in the last few years.
If those who attack Proposition 13 really believe it is the cause of California's woes, then they must answer a few questions.
How is it that property taxes under Proposition 13 have been the most reliable source of revenue, growing almost 10 percent a year for over a decade, and even managing a nearly 8 percent growth in the recession year of 1992?
How is it that California had a state budget of about $52 billion in 1992, more than three times larger than the $15 billion budget of 1978, outstripping both inflation and population growth?
If Proposition 13 caused the deficit in California's budget this fiscal year, a decade and a half after it passed, is it then responsible for the tax surplus of six years ago when a billion dollars was returned to taxpayers?
The fact is, California is spending more per capita in constant dollars today than it did the year before Proposition 13 passed. The percentage of personal income going to taxes is higher than in California's great public building era of the early 1960s. This is hardly evidence of a government restricted by a revenue tourniquet.
Critics accuse Proposition 13 of doing its most severe damage to the schools. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Education, in constant dollars, California spends a third more per pupil today than in 1980.
Even the state's impartial Legislative Analyst has pointed out that in the decade from 1982 to 1992, California schools were funded $3 billion above what it would have taken just to stay even with inflation and enrollment growth.
Most governments in California went on a spending binge in the 1980s. Many statistics prove the point, but perhaps it was described best by a long-time San Francisco legislative analyst who told the San Francisco Chronicle: "Before Proposition 13, the mayor had a relatively easy job. You added up all your revenues and all your expenditures, then...you just socked it to the taxpayers."
Over the past ten years, per capita spending in San Francisco government, after adjustment for cost of living, has increased nearly 23 percent. A similar story can be told about most California governments.
The people of California who live with Proposition 13 and see how it works still support it. In poll after poll, one as recent as December 1993, California voters say they would vote for Proposition 13 again, by about the same two to one margin passed by in 1978.
Joel Fox is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a 200,000 member organization of California taxpayer.
Proposition 13 and the
California Tax Revolt
by Joel Fox
Proposition 13 has been blamed for everything from crumbled freeways following the Bay Area earthquake to culpability in the murder of Petaluma's 12-year-old Polly Klaas because an inadequate police communications system prevented the early arrest of her alleged killer.
Supporters of Proposition 13 are outraged at these irresponsible charges, but are hardly surprised. Over the years, Proposition 13 has been a scapegoat for just about any crisis that came along in the state.
Proposition 13 is the crown jewel of California's fabled tax revolt of 1978. It limits property taxes and requires a vote on future tax increases.
Of course, opponents of the tax revolt rarely acknowledge that Proposition 13 does the job it was designed to do: keep people from losing their homes...keep people from being slaves to the tax-master.
A study released in 1993 by the University of California concluded that Proposition 13 gives the greatest relief to low-and middle-income property taxpayers.
One elderly couple, in a letter written to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, expressed gratitude that they can now live in the house they love for the rest of their days without the fear of losing it. A former employee of the tax collector's office wrote to us that prior to Proposition 13, she had to deal with people who came to the office with tears in their eyes because they could not afford their escalating property taxes and had to give up their homes.
Proposition 13 did something revolutionary in tax law -- it gave certainty to the taxpayer rather than the tax collector.
Proposition 13 links property taxes to the property buyer's ability to pay, with a set tax rate tied to the value of the home when purchased, and a cap on future property tax increases. For the first time, property taxpayers are certain what their tax burden will be when they buy a home and they can predict what the tax burden will be into the future.
Underlying the scapegoating of Proposition 13 since 1978 is the hope it will be destroyed so that raising taxes will be easier. This in a state which, by any measure, today is considered a high tax state.
The accusations against Proposition 13 have become fierce in recent years because of financial difficulties in the Golden State. California is indeed going through tough times. However, for more than a decade following the passage of Proposition 13, California went through boom times, creating jobs at a faster rate than the rest of the country, in part due to the Proposition 13 tax cuts. From this high peak California fell a long way, because of the lingering recession; job losses from defense cutbacks, which Governor Pete Wilson claims account for half the jobs lost in California; and the crushing sales and income tax increases imposed on California in the last few years.
If those who attack Proposition 13 really believe it is the cause of California's woes, then they must answer a few questions.
How is it that property taxes under Proposition 13 have been the most reliable source of revenue, growing almost 10 percent a year for over a decade, and even managing a nearly 8 percent growth in the recession year of 1992?
How is it that California had a state budget of about $52 billion in 1992, more than three times larger than the $15 billion budget of 1978, outstripping both inflation and population growth?
If Proposition 13 caused the deficit in California's budget this fiscal year, a decade and a half after it passed, is it then responsible for the tax surplus of six years ago when a billion dollars was returned to taxpayers?
The fact is, California is spending more per capita in constant dollars today than it did the year before Proposition 13 passed. The percentage of personal income going to taxes is higher than in California's great public building era of the early 1960s. This is hardly evidence of a government restricted by a revenue tourniquet.
Critics accuse Proposition 13 of doing its most severe damage to the schools. Yet, according to the U.S. Department of Education, in constant dollars, California spends a third more per pupil today than in 1980.
Even the state's impartial Legislative Analyst has pointed out that in the decade from 1982 to 1992, California schools were funded $3 billion above what it would have taken just to stay even with inflation and enrollment growth.
Most governments in California went on a spending binge in the 1980s. Many statistics prove the point, but perhaps it was described best by a long-time San Francisco legislative analyst who told the San Francisco Chronicle: "Before Proposition 13, the mayor had a relatively easy job. You added up all your revenues and all your expenditures, then...you just socked it to the taxpayers."
Over the past ten years, per capita spending in San Francisco government, after adjustment for cost of living, has increased nearly 23 percent. A similar story can be told about most California governments.
The people of California who live with Proposition 13 and see how it works still support it. In poll after poll, one as recent as December 1993, California voters say they would vote for Proposition 13 again, by about the same two to one margin passed by in 1978.
Joel Fox is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a 200,000 member organization of California taxpayer.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Advertising
Copyright © 2013-2024 WesternBass.com ®