2020 Election
#2071
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2020 Election
Most people aren't informed enough to know about this, let alone have it affect their vote. It has to be something really big that lasts more than a news cycle, this was barely a blip on the radar for a day. Easily deflected in a debate that nobody will look into if they didn't already know about it.
The more I talk to people both in person and online, the more I see how little people know about the people they vote for. They vote for idiots because they never found out that they were an idiot in the first place.
The more I talk to people both in person and online, the more I see how little people know about the people they vote for. They vote for idiots because they never found out that they were an idiot in the first place.
However if the Dems nominate a Billionaire, difficult to see this not being discussed or featured in adverts. Any time the subject comes up in a debate it is bound to be included.
#2072
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: california
Posts: 6,035
Re: 2020 Election
Message to all California voters. Vote NO on Prop 13. This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years. For those of you old enough to remember the original Prop 13 (The Jarvis tax initiative) was to stop cities and counties from continually raising property taxes and which was resulting in many seniors losing their homes due to being unable to pay the taxes. This new Prop 13 is under the guise of raising Bonds for schools. Don't be fooled by it !
#2073
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: 2020 Election
Message to all California voters. Vote NO on Prop 13. This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years. For those of you old enough to remember the original Prop 13 (The Jarvis tax initiative) was to stop cities and counties from continually raising property taxes and which was resulting in many seniors losing their homes due to being unable to pay the taxes. This new Prop 13 is under the guise of raising Bonds for schools. Don't be fooled by it !
They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.
#2074
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: 2020 Election
Message to all California voters. Vote NO on Prop 13. This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years. For those of you old enough to remember the original Prop 13 (The Jarvis tax initiative) was to stop cities and counties from continually raising property taxes and which was resulting in many seniors losing their homes due to being unable to pay the taxes. This new Prop 13 is under the guise of raising Bonds for schools. Don't be fooled by it !
And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.
I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/po...4-044476461ab9
#2075
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2020 Election
Queer activists disrupt Pete Buttigieg event in San Francisco: 'We deserve better'
Fundraiser highlights division as growing number of LGBTQ+ voters say his views don’t represent them
Fundraiser highlights division as growing number of LGBTQ+ voters say his views don’t represent them
I suppose I should have seen that coming, begs the question who they would consider a suitable candidate.
#2076
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2018
Location: California
Posts: 254
Re: 2020 Election
This is very misleading. This proposition does not repeal the existing prop 13. California recycles proposition numbers and just happens to have got back to 13. The possible impact on property taxes is that it would raise from the current 1.25% to 2% of total property values the amount school districts could borrow. But such local bond measures would still have to pass the vote threshold mandated by the original prop 13. So your comment that "This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years." is incorrect. It definitely could raise property taxes as it will encourage local bond measures because of that increase in the debt ceiling. I will likely vote yes on this despite the fact that there may be a small hit for SF property owners, Schools in California are vastly underfunded largely because of the original prop 13.
And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.
I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/po...4-044476461ab9
And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.
I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/po...4-044476461ab9
#2077
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: california
Posts: 6,035
Re: 2020 Election
This is very misleading. This proposition does not repeal the existing prop 13. California recycles proposition numbers and just happens to have got back to 13. The possible impact on property taxes is that it would raise from the current 1.25% to 2% of total property values the amount school districts could borrow. But such local bond measures would still have to pass the vote threshold mandated by the original prop 13. So your comment that "This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years." is incorrect. It definitely could raise property taxes as it will encourage local bond measures because of that increase in the debt ceiling. I will likely vote yes on this despite the fact that there may be a small hit for SF property owners, Schools in California are vastly underfunded largely because of the original prop 13.
And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.
I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:
And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.
I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:
I have already voted no on that Prop. Since we first came here we have voted numerous times on Props to add money to school funding. It never seems to end. The whole idea of the California State Lottery was to provide money to schools but it seems like the proverbial hole in the bucket.
Any attempt at eroding the original Prop 13 has to be opposed. The way this new Prop 13 is worded it's been purposely made to mislead. I don't know if you were here in the 1970s but people were being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes, mostly the elderly who were cash rich in property but poor in personal finances. Fortunately we are in the position of not having to worry about that but many seniors are not so lucky. Cities and public agencies in the past were fiscally irresponsible in managing their budgets. Prop 13 reined them in. Since I worked many years for a public agency I have first hand knowledge of that
Last edited by moneypenny20; Feb 15th 2020 at 10:58 am. Reason: If you see you've mucked up the quote, please go back in and fix. Thanks.
#2078
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: california
Posts: 6,035
Re: 2020 Election
I say dump prop 13 so schools and other services can be properly funded. I always find it funny people will complain on one hand about pot holes and poor local services, but then on the other fight tax increases tooth and nail, can't have both high quality roads and services and very low taxes.
They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.
They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.
What would you say if you had bought a house in say 1948. Worked hard to pay off a 30 year mortgage, raised kids and then retired at 65, the kids gone, the mortgage paid off but living on a fixed income with perhaps modest supplemental income from Social Security. Then years later your property taxes have skyrocketed. Due to your age and financial circumstances you are unable to take out a loan on the equity and fall behind on the property tax? This happened to many people in the 1970s, Cities and public agencies wasted money out of hand. School Districts are often top heavy with high paid flunkeys who are not employees situated in the first lines of student education. Since Prop 13 passed in the mid 1970s I haven't seen a drop in public services. A public transit system has been underway in the greater LA area for several years, older freeways being upgraded and drivers constantly complain about the inconvenience of stretches of freeway being closed for modernization or overpasses being upgraded against earth quake damage. Government at all levels have learned to better manage budgets. Give them a chance to run riot on taxes again and you'll be singing a different tune
#2079
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: 2020 Election
I have already voted no on that Prop. Since we first came here we have voted numerous times on Props to add money to school funding. It never seems to end. The whole idea of the California State Lottery was to provide money to schools but it seems like the proverbial hole in the bucket.
Any attempt at eroding the original Prop 13 has to be opposed. The way this new Prop 13 is worded it's been purposely made to mislead. I don't know if you were here in the 1970s but people were being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes, mostly the elderly who were cash rich in property but poor in personal finances. Fortunately we are in the position of not having to worry about that but many seniors are not so lucky. Cities and public agencies in the past were fiscally irresponsible in managing their budgets. Prop 13 reined them in. Since I worked many years for a public agency I have first hand knowledge of that
#2080
Re: 2020 Election
I say dump prop 13 so schools and other services can be properly funded. I always find it funny people will complain on one hand about pot holes and poor local services, but then on the other fight tax increases tooth and nail, can't have both high quality roads and services and very low taxes.
...
...
...
I always describe prop. 13 as a terrible solution to a real problem. But there would have been other ways to stop what you are describing. Heck, someone already provided a link to one approach. Another would be Massachusetts prop 2 1/2, that limits property tax rises without causing the vast inequities that prop 13 does. I've benefited hugely from prop 13; I still think it's terrible public policy.
I always describe prop. 13 as a terrible solution to a real problem. But there would have been other ways to stop what you are describing. Heck, someone already provided a link to one approach. Another would be Massachusetts prop 2 1/2, that limits property tax rises without causing the vast inequities that prop 13 does. I've benefited hugely from prop 13; I still think it's terrible public policy.
As an aside, I recently took advantage of the feature that exists to move within the same county and maintain your 'prop 13' tax basis. The same feature also exists between other 'cooperating' counties, but not all counties. So if I have a $1M home with a 'prop 13' protected tax basis of $500k, and sell it, and buy a cheaper home at, say, $800k, I can keep that same $500k tax base on the new home. There's a lot of details and restrictions but it worked for me.
#2081
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: 2020 Election
As an aside, I recently took advantage of the feature that exists to move within the same county and maintain your 'prop 13' tax basis. The same feature also exists between other 'cooperating' counties, but not all counties. So if I have a $1M home with a 'prop 13' protected tax basis of $500k, and sell it, and buy a cheaper home at, say, $800k, I can keep that same $500k tax base on the new home. There's a lot of details and restrictions but it worked for me.
Last edited by Giantaxe; Feb 15th 2020 at 7:06 pm.
#2082
Account Closed
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 0
Re: 2020 Election
I say dump prop 13 so schools and other services can be properly funded. I always find it funny people will complain on one hand about pot holes and poor local services, but then on the other fight tax increases tooth and nail, can't have both high quality roads and services and very low taxes.
They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.
They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.
What would you say if you had bought a house in say 1948. Worked hard to pay off a 30 year mortgage, raised kids and then retired at 65, the kids gone, the mortgage paid off but living on a fixed income with perhaps modest supplemental income from Social Security. Then years later your property taxes have skyrocketed. Due to your age and financial circumstances you are unable to take out a loan on the equity and fall behind on the property tax? This happened to many people in the 1970s, Cities and public agencies wasted money out of hand. School Districts are often top heavy with high paid flunkeys who are not employees situated in the first lines of student education. Since Prop 13 passed in the mid 1970s I haven't seen a drop in public services. A public transit system has been underway in the greater LA area for several years, older freeways being upgraded and drivers constantly complain about the inconvenience of stretches of freeway being closed for modernization or overpasses being upgraded against earth quake damage. Government at all levels have learned to better manage budgets. Give them a chance to run riot on taxes again and you'll be singing a different tune
As Giantaxe says, Prop 13 is an imperfect solution to a very real problem. If prop 13 were to simply go away, with no alternative mechanism put in place, millions of seniors would indeed suffer greatly and many would have to sell their homes. I doubt any politician would risk that. So by all means, propose alternative solutions but you can't ignore the reality that there is a huge issue to resolve.
As an aside, I recently took advantage of the feature that exists to move within the same county and maintain your 'prop 13' tax basis. The same feature also exists between other 'cooperating' counties, but not all counties. So if I have a $1M home with a 'prop 13' protected tax basis of $500k, and sell it, and buy a cheaper home at, say, $800k, I can keep that same $500k tax base on the new home. There's a lot of details and restrictions but it worked for me.
As an aside, I recently took advantage of the feature that exists to move within the same county and maintain your 'prop 13' tax basis. The same feature also exists between other 'cooperating' counties, but not all counties. So if I have a $1M home with a 'prop 13' protected tax basis of $500k, and sell it, and buy a cheaper home at, say, $800k, I can keep that same $500k tax base on the new home. There's a lot of details and restrictions but it worked for me.
Which is why I posted the link saying something similiar or better to what we have in BC would need to be put in place to help seniors and others who are on fixed income, and actually would want something better but some sort of protection for those on fixed incomes, not just seniors, but disabled as well for example.
I am not advocating removing prop 13 and leaving no protections for seniors, disabled.
Last edited by scrubbedexpat091; Feb 15th 2020 at 8:29 pm.
#2083
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: 2020 Election
Which is why I posted the link saying something similiar or better to what we have in BC would need to be put in place to help seniors and others who are on fixed income, and actually would want something better but some sort of protection for those on fixed incomes, not just seniors, but disabled as well for example.
I am not advocating removing prop 13 and leaving no protections for seniors, disabled.
I am not advocating removing prop 13 and leaving no protections for seniors, disabled.
#2084
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2020 Election
On a more positive note there seems to be a lot of talk of a Bloomberg/Hillary dream ticket.
https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-...sm-78827077953
https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-...sm-78827077953
#2085
Re: 2020 Election
On a more positive note there seems to be a lot of talk of a Bloomberg/Hillary dream ticket.
https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-...sm-78827077953
https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-...sm-78827077953