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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (283386)	4/7/2006 4:32:28 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572098

Jarvis. He's the butthole who got Prop 13 passed. I bet the sucker lives in Idaho or Montana now. Howard Jarvis died 20 years ago. TP

To: tejek who wrote (283386)	4/7/2006 4:50:14 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572098

Arthur Laffer helped write prop 13 if I recall correctly.

To: tejek who wrote (283386)	4/7/2006 5:36:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572098

Returning spending to 1978 levels did nothing to stop the infrastructure crisis in CA. Because there are so many people living in CA and visiting CA as tourists, the wear and tear on infrastructure is much greater than it is in most other parts of the country. The spending measurement was as a percentage of the economy. There are so many people in CA, and largely as a result of that it has a bigger economy. I'm not sure if real per capita spending was lower in CA in 1979 than it was in 1978. If it was it didn't take long to increase over the 1978 levels. Real per capita spending already accounts for "so many people" as well as adjustment for inflation. The measure the web page I linked to used was "as a percentage of personal income". Spending can go up even after adjusting for population increase and inflation, but go down "as a percentage of personal income". The fact that it is now noticeably larger as a percentage of personal income than it was in 1978, and that it has been greater for close to 20 years, suggest that revenue generation wasn't the source of the problem. It is possible that to little, even far to little, was spent on certain critical areas, but if so its because too much was spent on less critical areas, not because the government's revenue shrunk. CA government revenue has grown by leaps and bounds since 1978, and once again that is after adjusting for inflation and for "so many people". Ask Ten about his freeway commute. What about it. The area where I live doesn't have anything like Prop 13 but it has some of the worst commute times in the country. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (283386)	4/7/2006 5:59:22 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572098

Ted, it is my firm belief that California's troubles didn't start w/ Proposition 13. Think about it, if Prop. 13 created a boom in housing prices, then the CA state treasury will still cash in no matter what. People moving into the state will get the shaft, along with people who move from one house to another within California. The big problem is the influx of new residents. The legal ones have helped create a supply-demand imbalance in real estate (myself included), while the illegal ones have burdened public services and exacerbated the conditions of poverty in areas that are already poor. You could argue that without Prop. 13, many current residents will be forced to move out because of real estate speculation and its impact on property taxes, but no Californian politician would ever stand for that. And the illegals will still be pouring in anyway. Tenchusatsu