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: Tradelite who wrote (12604)	8/18/2003 4:01:26 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 306849

Tradelite, I was responding to David Jones on that, but let me point out that in one of your earlier posts you said- I've lived in my house for a long time and so has my father in the same zip code. We've both paid mega-sized property taxes, which mostly go to fund the county school system, and are still required to pay them. Neither one of us has any more kids in local schools. We've been there, done that, paid the bill, and are paying the bill for incoming kids in current taxes as well. So now you, the new homeowner, moves into our county and immediately you put one, two, three or more kids in our school system. In fact, you moved here because of the good reputation of the schools. Why should you be entitled to pay less tax than we have paid or are still paying? You imply that you should somehow be required only to pay your share, whatever that is, for schools or whatever services. Your "share" started when you began to pay taxes whenever this was. This is the typical fallacy that I see bantered about with the california tax code. The fact is we don't have a pay as you go system here in the US. You don't just pay once, for what you need and move on. If you lived here in 78 and put your kids through school ONCE, that is not all you have to pay. This system is precisely why I, as a working professional am forced to pay 12.8K EVERY YEAR into a program which will be bust by the time I go to collect (social security). I am paying this exorbinant sum because we don't have a pay as you go option, we don't have a choice, I have to pay whatever costs exist to fund these old people's life and well being AT THE TIME. I have to pay to keep some elderly person alive with drugs that cost 100K/year jsut because they exist. Just like you have to pay for schools and services today, for whatever the agreed upon market rate is. Actually, I would be all for these frozen fees including prop 13 if I could get out of paying for SS and medicare and allow that system to go bust, to tell you the truth. I think people under 40 are getting screwed more on SS and medicare (and now this bogus drug entitlement) than anything else.