Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (12417)	8/15/2003 11:38:44 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

What bothers me is, why isn't he pissed off for having to pay almost $1200 a month in RE taxes on that 500k house in Omaha? His conclusion is that RE taxes in CA are too low? I guess he figures he's rich so he should pay more, but a lot of people who aren't rich live in houses that would sell for 500k, they just bought them years and years ago. The house my parents bought in the 50s for 13k sells for 500k today. If they still lived there, $1200 a month in RE tax would force them to sell their home. Contrary to popular belief you can't eat unrealized real estate gains which are mainly due to inflation. California's problems have to be solved on the spending side. I'm suppose to be from a high tax state but there's no comparison. We have a 5% sales tax and my RE taxes are around $2200 on all three houses I own. We have a 7% state income tax. If they don't solve the problem on the spending side they'll simply bring on what every other area that tries to resolve it's budget problems with higher taxes gets, an out flow of people, jobs and businesses. The one thing that bothers me about prop 13 is that whenever you have a tax that is applied unevenly it means that those people who get relief could care less about those people who get shafted so the opposition to new spending doesn't build to the necessary critical mass. If people can say to themselves, well that doesn't effect me, so I don't care it only allows the government to keep ratcheting up the spending which they did while the boom was on, when people needed help the least!

To: Selectric II who wrote (12417)	8/16/2003 3:54:31 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 306849

Re: Buffett... He can afford to be liberal. this is an illusion held by middle class conservatives who derive their outlook on life from the confused gurglings of Rush Limbaugh. actually, Buffett can afford to be conservative, but is liberal because he is both intelligent and has morals. don't let the idiotic limousine liberals of Hollywood with their stupid egomaniac pet causes delude you from the truth that the conservative agenda is extremely at odds with the interests of 99% of this country. by contrast, it is the middle class that can't afford NOT to be liberal. the rich don't need anything from the govt, and desire only to be left alone and to have a strong police state. the middle class, by contrast, depends on state services (such as schools, govt regulation of health care, etc.), and is overtaxed to the extent that the truly wealthy are undertaxed (as indeed they are, seeing as they don't pay FICA, etc. on but a sliver of their income, whereas most people are taxed here on 100% of their income; and also the rich benefit from very low top marginal rates). it is a great triumph of the conservative revolution that so many Homer Simpsons out there rally for the cause of the rich, amongst whom they are not numbered except in their dreams.