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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (529018)	1/25/2004 12:16:02 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 769667

CA does have a high property tax. Your focusing on the limits to re assessing valuations on homeowners. Look @ the adverse impact to businesses or the inequity between new homeowners versus the law which is a disincentive to sell. No argument there at all. I don't like the CA property tax system. But for some strange reason, whenever taxes vs. expenses are discussed, the fact that half the homeowners in CA pay essentially no property taxes gets left off the equation. The reason CA has high income and sales taxes is due to the screwed up property tax system that allows Warren Buffett to pay $2K taxes on a $4 million house. There are other services in CA that cost money in the form of taxes that other states don't have. For example attending UC Berkeley or UCLA is dirt cheap for a Californian. Most state campuses are not nationally ranked to the degree that the UC system is, and CA residents pay for that. But if we had a fair property tax system, costs here would be much more inline with everywhere else imho.