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: JF Quinnelly who wrote (12654)	8/19/2003 4:29:18 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

The problems caused by Prop 13 are easily traced. The lost Property Tax revenues left Counties and Cities with large deficits. These local shortages have been made up with revenue sharing from the California State government from the proceeds of the Sales Tax and Income Tax. This revenue sharing has increased over the past decades since Prop 13 was enacted. While property taxes provide a stable and predictable revenue flow, revenue flows from Income and Sales taxes are erratic and fluctuate dramatically with the fortunes of the economy. The collapse of the economic bubble has brought these revenues down especially hard. In the event of a default by the California State government, subsidies of the County and City governments by the state would no longer be permitted. Thus a state default will almost at once become a default of local governments as well. The local residents can then choose to supercede Prop 13 restrictions in their area or impose special local County and City Income and Sales taxes on themselves. Many may prefer to close their hospitals and halt their garbage collection or what-not. Each government can decide for themselves. The local government most recently in this fix, Orange County, cut some services but primarily chose to sell a huge amount of County Muni bonds at a hefty rate to shift the problem off to a later date. But that's due to their bias toward fiscal prudence and speculation.

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (12654)	8/19/2003 4:30:59 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Actually if I wanted to get more property on the market it might be easier just to suggest the potential demise of prop 13 and watch the "RE investors" (synonymous with- people that passed laws so they could extract money from their kids) go into a self induced state of septic shock. Y'all really are afraid they're going to get you this time around and remove your cash cow loophole aren't you? We'll just have to see how it plays. But with the highest sales taxes AND income taxes in the country already, and a 38 billion dollar deficit .... prop 13 has a bullseye painted on its rear end, it seems to me. Which is precisely why Buffett brought it up.