Global Economy Bursting?

[Big ole Boy]

Speaking of reinventing wheels .

...Terrel is a gem ....

... states are trying to figure out how to reinvent themselves .....

... I read that some politicians want to split California into two states ........ South California and North California ....

.... I reckon I'd like to see my own county get split into two counties ...... if it would lower my taxes and let me grow my garden in peace ....

 

[Couch Potato]

I think eliminating Prop. 13 would be a good place to start in fixing California. Require current market value to be used on all properties, a reset of the tax rate to a revenue neutral level after any revaluation (including the initial one eliminating Prop 13), allow local government to implement a tax exemption or tax deferment plan for senior citizens, and require all property tax money to stay in the local jurisdiction where it is collected. It cannot be used for any state controlled purpose.

That would eliminate passive tax increases due to rising property values. Imagine for a moment the difference in attitude for many that situation would have made durring the recent housing bubble. Such a system would provide a higher level of accountability by placing the control closer to the people. The state would be forced to cede power back to local governments due to funding requirements; no more collecting funds, shipping them to Sacramento, and waiting to see what comes back.

Equitable taxation with local control is my suggestion as a first step for "fixing" California.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

think eliminating Prop. 13 would be a good place to start in fixing California. Require current market value to be used on all properties, a reset of the tax rate to a revenue neutral level after any revaluation (including the initial one eliminating Prop 13), allow local government to implement a tax exemption or tax deferment plan for senior citizens

allowing a 'special' exemption for seniors invites 2 things. Since seniors tend to vote en bloc on things that are self-interest - and what senior doesn't think they "paid their dues already" [in fact, their past payments didn't keep up with inflation and was spent on the generation before them anyway] any such system is frozen into time forever. Prop 13 may be bad but the way the state got around it is worse. The second issue is if it's good for seniors why not the disabled? Veterans? Police and Firemen? School teachers? farmers? minorities? Left handed midgets? so who is left to pay taxes eventually?

The real deal is to simply eliminate property taxes (although it would make our jobs harder). Charge a sales tax on deed transfers and mortgages. Thus the senior who stays put would not be taxed. No one is going to be forced to move due to property taxes.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

For the history of Prop 13 and why it was passed through the voter initiative process as an amendment to the California state constitution, read the link: http://www.ask.com/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

As noted in the article, Proposition 13 drew its impetus from 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings in Serrano v. Priest,Serrano[›] that a property-tax based finance system for public schools was unconstitutional. The California Constitution required the legislature to provide a free public school system for each district, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (which includes the Equal Protection Clause) required that all states provide to all citizens equal protection of the law. The court ruled that the amount of funding going to different districts was disproportionately favoring the wealthy.

Previously, local property taxes went directly to the local school system, which minimized state government's involvement in the distribution of revenue. This system also allowed a wealthier district to fund its schools with a lesser tax rate than the rate a less affluent district would have to set to yield the same funding per pupil. The Court ruled that the state had to make the distribution of revenue more equitable. The state legislature responded by capping the rate of local revenue that a school district could receive and distributing excess amounts among the poorer districts. As a result property owners in affluent districts perceived that the benefits of the taxes they paid were no longer enjoyed exclusively by the local schools.

The idea of local control of government and taxation has been replaced by the nanny state where the state and federal governments dictate revenue sources and revenue expenditures to "level" the playing field. That is the driving force behind Obamacare and other government mandated programs.

California passed the Amazon tax in the name of fairness to local brick and motor stores, while exempting eBay sales up to $500,000 for its participants (eBay is located in Silicon Valley). The problem is, the tax applies if Amazon has affiliates - companies that link to Amazon (ad revenue) or receive compensation for providing services to Amazon. Amazon has responded by firing and terminating all businesses that are located in California.

The perverse effect of the Amazon tax is that in hope of generating $200 million in additional sales tax revenue, California will lose $500,000 in income tax revenue from those affiliates that were terminated.

 

[Couch Potato]

I am well aware of the history behind Prop. 13 and the public school funding issues. My teaching certificate is issued by the state of California and I am a former state employee. I worked in one of the poorest school districts in the state where the only modern, well equipped building was the district office, aka "the pink palace." Rather than sending property taxes to the state, I think it preferable to fund schools from other revenue sources that are naturally state level collections.

The Amazon tax is shining example of the short-sighted stupidity that reigns in Sacramento. Rather than look at ways to change to something that works, they demand to do things "the way we always have done it." What is needed is a rebuilding of government structure, redistribution of power, and remaking of the funding systems. The one thing that is certain is the current methods do not work. Yet, the idiots in charge insist on doing things as they currently are doing them and the morons at the polls keep sending the idiots to Sacramento. It really is a shame because geographically California is a nice place.

 

[Big ole Boy]

short sighted mini deals .

shining example of the short-sighted stupidity that reigns .

mini deals ..... imbedded surcharges ....... yabba dabba doo .....

... the only rust belt now is the DC beltway

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

This system also allowed a wealthier district to fund its schools with a lesser tax rate than the rate a less affluent district would have to set to yield the same funding per pupil.

Arkansas passed a similar law after our local school district got a huge boost from a new coal fired power plant. Our legislators were lied to about how they were going to make it 'fair' - in the end we ended up with far less than we needed. But prior to passing, we had to spend the money or cut the tax rate - we couldn't even distribute the surplus to other nearby schools that needed it...luckily someone had the foresight to build a new high school although the current one was only 4 years old. The town boomed and with tax takes lagging, we needed every bit of that space and money. It took years for the tax base to catch up with the sudden spurt of new construction and growth.

local control ...has been replaced by the nanny state

The Amazon issue came up here and we did the same thing... shot ourselves in the foot and run a number of Amazon stores out of biz.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

California school districts push to reverse new protections for teachers

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/07/04/2451957/california-school-districts-push.html#ixzz1R8tLGmSZ


State could owe $2 billion to schools over five years

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/schools-could-be-owed-2-billio.html#ixzz1R8uRSSIA


Bad bill jeopardizes school finances

http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756680/bad-bill-jeopardizesschool-finances.html



Late Night Vote Grants Teachers Layoff Protections

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...ts-Teachers-Layoff-Protections-124801909.html

The laughable budget that was passed included a sweetheart deal for the teacher's union that controls the California legislature; it makes school districts assume that money will be there or the state will make up the difference later. By law, no teacher layoffs.

 

[Couch Potato]

Brown makes Madoff look honest.

We're cutting your funding, but just pretend we didn't. I think the quote below sums it up well. :new_all_coholic:

Whatever the motive, the result of this legislation is potentially dangerous to the long-term financial health of school districts around the state. Parents and other Californians should be outraged.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756680/bad-bill-jeopardizesschool-finances.html#ixzz1R90wSZPm

 

[Randolph Kinney]

When a school district runs out of money and they can't layoff teachers, the only other option is to close the school.

I was reading how the Governor got around Proposition 98 that requires 40% of the state's general fund be spent on education. The budget and supporting legislation transfers funding out of the general fund back to the counties. That way no Prop 98 claim on funds.

The politicians realize that every dollar of revenue that comes into the state's general fund, 40 cents must be spent on education. Therefore the need to limit the flow of funds into the general fund.

The irony and big lie was that Governor Brown pushed for a 5 year extension of the so called temporary tax increase of 2009 because education needed the money. Well those taxes have expired July 1.