Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/20/california-state-division/5661143/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/...5661143/</a> It seems a bit wacky. But hey officially bring in Puerto Rico and there you go Mr. President 57 states
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, 56. (California splitting into 6 results in a net gain of 5.) What's funny is that the proponents of splitting it up say that CA has become "ungovernable," but most of my CA friends say it's being governed better recently than it has been in years.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's only ungovernable by Republicans. Democrats seem to do fine with it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The divisions seem to make little sense. Salton-Centro would be by far the poorest state in the nation. Bay State could buy and sell the others with their chump change. Stonerland up north might be a fun place though...
Originally Posted By andyll >>It's only ungovernable by Republicans. Democrats seem to do fine with it.<< LOL... I think you hit on the real issue. In Colorado the Eastern part of the state didn't feel under-represented when the republican's controlled the house. But when they lost ONE election all of a sudden its unfair.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Democrats seem to do fine with it.>> I guess that depends on what your definition of "fine" is. Mine does not include things like: $300+ Billion in unfunded pension obligations, highest taxes in the U.S., one of the worst education systems in the U.S., etc. If that's "fine", I need to find my way to an alternate reality.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I guess that depends on what your definition of "fine" is. Mine does not include things like: $300+ Billion in unfunded pension obligations, highest taxes in the U.S., one of the worst education systems in the U.S., etc." I get so tired of reading stuff like this about CA taxes. It's simply not true. Combined state and local taxes: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/20/the-united-states-of-sales-tax-in-one-map/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...one-map/</a> 8th highest State income tax, yes CA is number one. As for property taxes, it's not even in the top ten: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/property-taxes-best-and-worst-states.htm">http://taxes.about.com/od/stat...ates.htm</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Idiot conservatives. They can't see the forest for the trees. Missouri prides themselves on being a relatively "low tax" state. They consider Minnesota a high tax state. Sure, Minnesota Income tax is more that 50% higher than Missouri Income tax. But in the tables you linked to, Minnesota's State and Local Tax totals are LESS than Missouri's. I have to conclude that tax at the state level is much more effective and efficient than tax at the local level. Minnesota services ACROSS THE BOARD are so damned superior to those in Missouri there is no contest.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Thing is, if people want services, they have to pay for them. California is a huge, diverse state. If L.A. County were a state, it would be in the top ten for population alone. The state has mountains, deserts, beach front all along it's west borders, a huge valley in the middle of it, and it takes a myriad of programs and services to administer it all. It has some of the country's richest and its poorest. And it takes money to please them all.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Combined state and local taxes>> That's only referring to sales taxes SPP. Have a better link? <<Thing is, if people want services, they have to pay for them.>> See, that's where we disagree. I recently attended a meeting in Sacramento with a world-renowned economist (who is a personal friend of Jerry Brown incidentally) and he did a comparison of California and Texas. Here is a quick summary of what he said: * Total tax rates are 65% higher in California than Texas * While tax revenues are only 25% higher in California than Texas * Government spending per capita is even between the two states * Services provided per capita are actually lower in California than Texas So high taxes don't necessarily mean better services. Just look at our education system for crying out loud. If you all are not interested in lowering taxes, can we at least agree that there is an awful lot of waste in California?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I hate Texas taxes. The property taxes are absolutely outrageous. Many people on retirement incomes have to give up their homes because they can no longer afford the taxes on them. Property taxes can be a VERY regressive tax. I have no idea what CA property taxes are like - maybe they are just as bad.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I know the well-off dislike them, but income taxes are the fairest tax around.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Here's a link that talks about the tax climate in California. A couple of key points: * California ranks 47th in total tax burden * California ranks 48th in business tax climate So they aren't the highest/worst (I apologize for stating they were - I was wrong) but they are still among the worst. So back to my point, I am hard-pressed to agree with the statement that Democrats are doing "fine" when the tax burden is not commensurate with the services offered (in fact, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum - see 2nd link regarding education spending) <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-climate/california">http://taxfoundation.org/state...lifornia</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://edsource.org/today/2013/california-drops-to-49th-in-school-spending-in-annual-ed-week-report/25379#.UwjcR_ldVYc">http://edsource.org/today/2013...cR_ldVYc</a>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<I have no idea what CA property taxes are like - maybe they are just as bad.>> They are a wash if you factor in incomes vs property values. See the link below. California comes in at 3.59% versus Texas at 3.65% <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://taxes.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=taxes&cdn=money&tm=17&f=10&su=p284.13.342.ip_p504.6.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=6&bts=6&zu=http%3A//www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/1913.html">http://taxes.about.com/gi/o.ht...913.html</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I included links for both property and state and local taxes. I admitted income tax was number one. You can chose to look at them as the "worst", but it's all relative. It is also a large part of the problem. People go spouting off it's the worst, then when confronted with evidence otherwise, they have to back off. But for a lot of people, they want to believe it because it's California after all, all those liberal weirdos and tax and spend. But I'll bring up the elephant in the room. Friggin' Prop 13. Get the hell rid of it now, and see what happens to education spending. Ever since Prop 13, it's taken a huge hit. And it's the conservatives in this "wildly liberal" state who still hold that card. I would offer that CA IS doing just fine now, as fine as it can get, having to deal with that albatross.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But I'll bring up the elephant in the room. Friggin' Prop 13. Get the hell rid of it now, and see what happens to education spending.>> +1 There are very well off CA citizens who are not paying their fair share of the property tax burden because of the Jarvis Initiative. I'm living proof. The tiny cottage we rent in SF was recently appraised by the owner; it's worth around $1 million. The owner inherited this property along with the house that the parents owned once both had passed on. The combined worth of both properties is just over $3 million. The rent collected from the two inherited houses is just a little over $100K each year. Wanna take a guess how much property tax both houses pay out each year? Less than $3000. That's right. Over $100,000 in rental income and the owner pays less than $3000 in property taxes because of stupid Prop 13. Other houses in the neighborhood that were purchased more recently are paying ten times that amount. Why should our landlord (who was already independently wealthy before inheriting the property) get to skate by on very little property tax when everyone else has to pony up? The Jarvis Initiative is what's killing California's educational system. Ditch those tax breaks and no more money woes.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I hate Texas taxes. The property taxes are absolutely outrageous. Many people on retirement incomes have to give up their homes because they can no longer afford the taxes on them. >>> Not a single person of retirement age needs to lose their house in Texas because of high property taxes. In Texas, once you turn 65, the gov't can't foreclose on your house for non-payment of property tax, expressly for the situation you mention: to prevent elderly people from losing their homes because of taxes. If someone over 65 chooses not to or is unable to pay their property taxes, a lien gets placed on the property, so the taxes eventually get paid when the owners die or otherwise sell their homes, but nobody gets kicked out.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I am well aware of that, but it doesn't always work very well. My sister's husband was considerably older than she is. He had used that exemption for years now. He died last year. She won't be 65 for another 13 years. She is faced with trying to come up with close to 10 years of back taxes or lose the home to foreclosure. I don't know the total bill she is facing, but it is a large home in Flower Mound (one of the nicer Dallas suburbs). I would guess the total due is at least $50,000. There are also many retired people who feel an obligation to pay their property tax even with the exemption you talk about it. They usually end up selling their home (not really losing it like I said) and purchasing a home with lower taxes.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You can chose to look at them as the "worst", but it's all relative.<< Bingo. Simply saying, "high taxes!" isn't an argument. High taxes that are mismanaged and squandered is a problem. And I have no doubt that California, like most places, could do better. But California has a huge number of people they have to provide services for. It's all well and good for small middle America states to crow about their low taxes, but 1) They have far fewer people to worry about and 2) They frequently do a poor job of taking care of the weakest and those most in need. It's unfair to say, we have high taxes but we're the worst at X. California does some things very well.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If people don't like the way California is being managed why try to split it up? You are always free to leave. You like the tax situaiton better in Texas? By all means go there!! Plenty of room, low prices for housing. What are you waiting for?
