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 (434898)	11/15/2008 11:17:38 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573116

Ted, > Housing/commericial real estate prices went up during that period.......that increases assessments and in turn,tax revenues. Going up 40%, however, doesn't guarantee the state will sufficient funds. No Ted, the actual tax revenues went up 40% under Ah-nuld. Without Prop. 13, it might have gone up even faster, but then again, a lot of people would have been forced out of their homes because of crushing property taxes. It's not fair for the state to have "guaranteed sufficient funds," yet force the taxpayer to pay up for real estate appreciation they themselves are not responsible for. Once again, tell me how California is on a "starvation diet" if tax revenues went up 40% over the past five years. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Thank God for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association.