Originally Posted By barboy ///Strangest logic ever. That's like hoping for a massive pay cut or job loss in order to pay less income tax./// no, sound logic... assumptions: (1) I have a finite amount of money (2) I like what money can do for me such as pay for travels, bring home a pizza, buy a wedding gift for Cousin Lisa or stock up on tequila and diet Pepsi----so the less money I give out to the county the more I have left to go the the I-Max theater and see films like Lord of the Rings. (3) I don't plan to sell my place, ever. But if I do move I would stay in this region. (4) housing values are regionally based. (5) I have no heirs/dependents(I hope no woman comes out of the woodwork and falsely claims I am bio dad of her 9 year old brat). (6) real estate, unlike stocks or money, has intrinsic value whereby one can enjoy its utility. Since I have no plans to liquidate the asset---that is sell the house and take the money and buy something cheaper or rent or even secure a loan against it---,then whether its market value is $4 or $4,000,000 makes no difference to me, none(except for valuation to determine the amount of secured property taxes or the prospects of some sue happy punk looking for a hand out). So in conclusion I am very happy to see property values in my region plummet so I pay less property taxes. Keep dropping please!
Originally Posted By fkurucz "So in conclusion I am very happy to see property values in my region plummet so I pay less property taxes. Keep dropping please!" While I won't disagree that housing in California is insanely overpriced, there are consequences to collapsing home prices that are detrimental to the economy in general, which can turn around and affect you in many ways. I also won't disagree that public employee pensions are underfunded (as are many private pension funds). This is in large part due to the fact that in the past 10 years the stock market (which pension plans invest in) has had a near zero percent return on investments. Most public pension plans will fail without a federal bail out, which at thios point appears to be unlikely. Cities and Counties can file for bankruptcy and walk away from their pension obligations but states cannot. This of course is academic if there simply is no money to pay the pensions, and I suspect that laws will be passed giving insolvent states a way to file for bankruptcy as well.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "The pension obligations in California alone will be many times greater than the entire annual budget in the near future." Which is why they won't get paid. THere will be a lot of kicking and screaming before this happens, but it will happen. FWIW, not all gov't employees get pensions. In my little burg only the cops are firefighters get pensions (it pays to have a good union). All other city employees get 403(b) plans.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "The best way to pay for needed services is by eliminating waste, not by raising taxes." My home state (Colorado) has one of the lowest per capita spending per pupil in the country, which I'm guessing means we don't have a lot of waste in that area. But given the current econimiuc climate more cuts are in store. Unfortunately these cuts will mean that teachers will be laid off and class sizes will increase and many classes will be cancelled altogether.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Depends on the size of the property./// I don't think 'size' is the best way to look at it. Property taxes, at least in this region, are determined by the subject property's overall desirability(what it would command if sold or its fair market value)---the more desirable the higher the assessment.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Cities and Counties can file for bankruptcy and walk away from their pension obligations but states cannot. This of course is academic if there simply is no money to pay the pensions, and I suspect that laws will be passed giving insolvent states a way to file for bankruptcy as well.>> You are probably right but this is a horrifying thought. I suppose the one lesson from the past couple years is that if you irresponsibly spend your way into trouble, don't worry about revising your spending habits, just default on your obligations and everything will be just fine.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^To be fair, pensions (both public and private) are woefully underfunded because of the non performance of the stock market plus record low interest rates. Administrators have been shoveling money into them. They were just expecting to earn 5-8% annual retuyrns on them. Insetad they got a net of zero over the past 10 years.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I suppose the one lesson from the past couple years is that if you irresponsibly spend your way into trouble, don't worry about revising your spending habits, just default on your obligations and everything will be just fine.<< ... if you're extremely rich and/or a government, that is. Us plebes can't get away with it as easily. Or anything else for that matter.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy "The best way to pay for needed services is by eliminating waste, not by raising taxes." People who say this really have no clue about what has been happening to the tax base. As corporations have shipped their factories and manufacturing facilities overseas, they have stopped paying taxes on the property that used to house these facilities. In return, community residents get to make up the difference in property tax receipts that used to be shared by the corporate community. It has nothing to do with waste. It's about revenue.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<People who say this really have no clue about what has been happening to the tax base.>> Tax revenues are down, but that is due to the recession not jobs going overseas - that's a lazy answer and is akin to dittoheads repeating what they hear on the radio. In the last 10 years we have seen two significant bubbles burst, which meant revenues spikes up for a short-term and then spiked down again. The problem is, governments drastically increased spending during the inflating of the bubbles, using then current revenue collections to project future revenue collections. Here is a chart with federal revenue collections - see for yourself. <a href="http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues" target="_blank">http://www.heritage.org/budget...revenues</a> Long-term trends should have us at about $2.4 Trillion in federal revenue and we are currently at about $2.2 Trillion - but that is trending upward again. Considering we are coming out of a significant recession, that seems to be right on track.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Here is a chart with federal revenue collections - see for yourself. >> We're discussiing property taxes and you show a chart of federal tax revenue? Property is taxed locally, not at the federal level. Find another chart.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "Tax revenues are down, but that is due to the recession not jobs going overseas" You're assuming that this is a cyclical recession. It isn't. The change we're going through is structural and this time there won't be a real estate or stock market bubble to pull us out.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<We're discussiing property taxes and you show a chart of federal tax revenue? Property is taxed locally, not at the federal level. Find another chart.>> Excuse me, but you were talking about the tax base being eroded because jobs were going overseas - doesn't sound like you were talking about property taxes, bud. But nice try backing yourself out of your ignorant hole. <<You're assuming that this is a cyclical recession. It isn't. The change we're going through is structural and this time there won't be a real estate or stock market bubble to pull us out.>> Not a cyclical recession?? The economy is growing again so I am not sure what you are talking about. And here is another article (from today's WSJ) supporting my argument of tax revenues rebounding. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254304576116501352537700.html?mod=dist_smartbrief" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...artbrief</a> From the article: "State tax revenue grew at the fastest rate in nearly five years during the fourth quarter, as the steadily improving economy and higher taxes in some states propelled strong growth in income- and sales-tax collections."
Originally Posted By barboy Wow!----that wasn't very 'Sporting' of you, EighthDwarf since you mistakenly thought he made a 'Goof'......you really are short, aren't you. ///As corporations have shipped their factories and manufacturing facilities overseas, they have stopped paying ****TAXES ON THE PROPERTY**** that used to house these facilities. In return, community residents get to make up the difference in ****PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS****that used to be shared by the corporate community.///
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub wage drop - not for Iger!(see the "Latest" article I am thinking about a post that announces bonuses for all Disney employees too!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Excuse me, but you were talking about the tax base being eroded because jobs were going overseas - doesn't sound like you were talking about property taxes, bud. But nice try backing yourself out of your ignorant hole.<< I just took a look at those charts. Revenue collections are at 1997 levels right now and areb arely inching up (in fact, they look pretty flat still). FWIW, its worse than I thought it was. This is nothing to crow about.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^ANd BTW, the 2010 number on that chart have a big caveat --- they are estimated.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Another pattern on that chart: from 1965 to 2000 tax receipts grew steadily, from 2000 forward it stopped growing and instead looks like a sine wave. If that isn't a structural change, I don't know what is.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^If tax collections had continued to grow at historical rates from 2000 on there would have been 3 trillion in tax collections and not 2 trillion in 2010. That sure sounds like an eroded stax base to me. It's 30 percent short from where it should be.
