Minnesota is no longer the biggest joke in the Union.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/davis_recall
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/davis_recall
Well, I guess it's official now...
- Thread starter Clashman
- Start date
Well, maybe he can finally do something about the massive 28% spending increases the state instituted in 1999 and 2000 (as the economy was winding down). I'll note that the average increase in state budgets for the entire 1989-1999 range nationally was 36%.
They should have been increasing state spending more or less in line with historical averages (about 6% a year. still too much for my tastes, as it is larger than inflation, GDP growth, and productivity), but because of the huge revenues they were getting from capital gains from the IPO boom (money that ultimately came from pensioners and retirees in mutual funds), they went on a spending spree.
State spending must be rolled back to something reasonable, say, estimate what spending would have been if yearly increases were historically inline, and use that as a target. People who talk of the impossibility of the cuts are talking nonsense. If the state could survive spending 28% less in 1998, why would, say, a 28% cut the following year cut services that can't be cut? How were those services in 1998 being funded, and if they didn't not exist in 1998, then that is evidence we can live without them temporarily while we balance the budget.
The simple fact of the matter is, the special interests who got a massive infusion of cash from the government coffers in the closing years of millenium simply refuse to give the money back for the good of the state. Instead, they are demanding more tax increases, which will do nothing but simply make the state worse for business than it already is.
I am ready to recognize that a successful solution to the state's problems may have to include a combination of temporary deep cuts and tax increases until things turn around. Maybe Arnie will have the guts to tackle it. What I am not ready to accept is the idea that I must pay for a massive unneccessary spending increase that happened in 98-99 and 99-00 (money that have NOTHING to do with the energy crisis, sorry, but you can't use that ole scapegoat)
Once thing I am absolutely opposed to however is increases in property taxes. Property taxes are regressive, and in a state with ultra-expensive realestate costs, heavily damaging to ordinary people.
With income taxes, if I have a pay cut, or get layed-off, I pay less money. In other words, my taxes scale with my income.
With property taxes, I might be locked into a 30 year mortgage, and scaping just enough money to pay the mortgage, and these taxes do not index with my income. If my wife loses her job, I still pay the same amount of property taxes, etc. California's economy and the current credit market pushed millions of people into ultra-expensive long term mortgages and property taxes fail to recognize people's changing circumstances, unlike income tax.
And let me tell you, they are not cheap. I pay $1200 per month in property taxes right now. Even a small increase would seriously hurt my ability to pay the mortgage.
They should have been increasing state spending more or less in line with historical averages (about 6% a year. still too much for my tastes, as it is larger than inflation, GDP growth, and productivity), but because of the huge revenues they were getting from capital gains from the IPO boom (money that ultimately came from pensioners and retirees in mutual funds), they went on a spending spree.
State spending must be rolled back to something reasonable, say, estimate what spending would have been if yearly increases were historically inline, and use that as a target. People who talk of the impossibility of the cuts are talking nonsense. If the state could survive spending 28% less in 1998, why would, say, a 28% cut the following year cut services that can't be cut? How were those services in 1998 being funded, and if they didn't not exist in 1998, then that is evidence we can live without them temporarily while we balance the budget.
The simple fact of the matter is, the special interests who got a massive infusion of cash from the government coffers in the closing years of millenium simply refuse to give the money back for the good of the state. Instead, they are demanding more tax increases, which will do nothing but simply make the state worse for business than it already is.
I am ready to recognize that a successful solution to the state's problems may have to include a combination of temporary deep cuts and tax increases until things turn around. Maybe Arnie will have the guts to tackle it. What I am not ready to accept is the idea that I must pay for a massive unneccessary spending increase that happened in 98-99 and 99-00 (money that have NOTHING to do with the energy crisis, sorry, but you can't use that ole scapegoat)
Once thing I am absolutely opposed to however is increases in property taxes. Property taxes are regressive, and in a state with ultra-expensive realestate costs, heavily damaging to ordinary people.
With income taxes, if I have a pay cut, or get layed-off, I pay less money. In other words, my taxes scale with my income.
With property taxes, I might be locked into a 30 year mortgage, and scaping just enough money to pay the mortgage, and these taxes do not index with my income. If my wife loses her job, I still pay the same amount of property taxes, etc. California's economy and the current credit market pushed millions of people into ultra-expensive long term mortgages and property taxes fail to recognize people's changing circumstances, unlike income tax.
And let me tell you, they are not cheap. I pay $1200 per month in property taxes right now. Even a small increase would seriously hurt my ability to pay the mortgage.
Wow. $1200/month? By no means am I "rubbing it in", Demo, so don't take this wrong. I'm just flabbergasted that the state would abuse the property tax to that extent. Just for comparison sake, though:
We have a 2100 square foot ranch home (all brick) that's about 25 years old, all brick, on 15 acres of wooded land. It's got a full basement that I recently finished providing now effectively a little over 4,000 sq. ft. of living space. I recently paved the driveway, which is about 800 ft. long. We've also got a 40'x60' pole barn.
Granted, I'm in NW Indiana, but property taxes for this property are just barely over $2,000 per year.
I feel for you and anybody else living on the "left coast" when it comes to property tax, man. That's just not right...
We have a 2100 square foot ranch home (all brick) that's about 25 years old, all brick, on 15 acres of wooded land. It's got a full basement that I recently finished providing now effectively a little over 4,000 sq. ft. of living space. I recently paved the driveway, which is about 800 ft. long. We've also got a 40'x60' pole barn.
Granted, I'm in NW Indiana, but property taxes for this property are just barely over $2,000 per year.
I feel for you and anybody else living on the "left coast" when it comes to property tax, man. That's just not right...
Looks like arny currently has more votes than the number who voted against the recall.
for Gov. Arnold: 3,436,861
against recall (for Davis): 3,397,662
anyone know how many people voted for davis in the last gubenatorial election?
later,
epic
[edit] found it
davis got 3,127,588
votes in the 2002 gubenatorial race.
for Gov. Arnold: 3,436,861
against recall (for Davis): 3,397,662
anyone know how many people voted for davis in the last gubenatorial election?
later,
epic
[edit] found it
davis got 3,127,588
votes in the 2002 gubenatorial race.My house in Austin is about $800/mo in property and school taxes. Maybe more, as the house was completed this year (so our tax appraisal is likely on a partially completed home)covermye said:
Of course, Texas doesn't have a state income tax (though there is a state sales tax).
Silent_One
Newcomer
covermye wrote:
My house in Connecticut is about $700/mo in property and school taxes. We also have a state income tax. And a sales tax. And a town property tax on cars. And..and..and...
I'm interested to hear what his positions are on different subjects. Lord knows he didn't explain his positions well, if at all, during the "campaign". And in the exit polling, 62% of californians said that they had no clue what Arnie's positions were and felt that he even evaded many topics during the campaign, but still a majority voted for him. Didn't realize Davis was that hated. 
If I were a democratic party bigwig, I'd be doing some extreme self introspection, seeing as more than 60% of the people voting chose republican candidates in the recall election.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
nelg said:
That varies wildly depeding on location.
My house / property is valued at $625,000, and my property taxes are about $1,100 / month. The area I live in is on the edge of what could be considered a "suburb of NYC". Though Northern NJ itself is a significant and growing business center itself.
I consider my town a cross between suburb and somewhat rural lifestyles. Property taxes are particularly high in my town within Morris county for two reasons:
1) We have our own school system...many other towns in Morris County have a more regional system.
2) We have relatively little "industry" within our township borders. Mostly residential.
But in another location, property with the same value might be more like $100 a month....even in the same state. Property taxes are levied grossly on the county level, with individual townships having having additional varying rates, depending on their budgets...principally education budget.
Does anybody have an article I can read on this?ricercar said:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/07/national2131EDT0815.DTL
Here has something close, but not quite.
Here has something close, but not quite.
I feel this is unfair to Ahnold. Do any politicians really address the issues with anything more than 30 second soundbites?
How many voters REALLY read those 500 page long party platform papers, or read the ACTUAL TEXT of proposed laws they are voting on?
The media is attempting to tar Arnie with the same brush as Quayle, Bush, etc, you know, what I mean. But the fact is, whether the campaign lasts 2 months or 1 year, rarely do I see any substance at all in political debates or the websites of campaigners.
So criticism of Arnie's lack of positions or substance are somewhat hypocritical. He has spelled out his first 100 day goals, which is about as detailed a template as we get from most politicians.
How many voters REALLY read those 500 page long party platform papers, or read the ACTUAL TEXT of proposed laws they are voting on?
The media is attempting to tar Arnie with the same brush as Quayle, Bush, etc, you know, what I mean. But the fact is, whether the campaign lasts 2 months or 1 year, rarely do I see any substance at all in political debates or the websites of campaigners.
So criticism of Arnie's lack of positions or substance are somewhat hypocritical. He has spelled out his first 100 day goals, which is about as detailed a template as we get from most politicians.
Well the one position he took before the vote that would have made me vote against Arnold was his stance that he would have vetoed the California Domestic Partner law that Davis signed a couple of months ago I believe. It gives the legal rights of marriage to registered domestic partners, read: gay couples.
Can't find any info on that either, Natoma.
All the articles I've found on the issue say "no comment".
All the articles I've found on the issue say "no comment".
Similar threads
