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: Steve_C who wrote (205400)	5/31/2009 12:51:07 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

dufus by your own argument high income buyers get higher tax breaks in more expensive areas. find the light switch yet?

To: Steve_C who wrote (205400)	5/31/2009 12:02:24 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

>>Sure you were. So now let's play this game. Community A and Community B are identical except that community A taxes itself at a higher rate so as to provide higher quality services - some of which attract high income buyers (education comes to mind immediately). Which community has the higher priced homes?<< something else changed - not just the tax rate. it is irrational to believe the repeal of prop 13 will turn average school districts into stellar performers - the kind of school districts of which you speak. why? because the experiment has already been done - which is why government spending has increased 80% in the last 10-11 years and why it has increased ~60% FASTER than population plus inflation growth. all that money was poured into the education system and the dropout in LA unified school district is still 30 to 50%. if you want more taxes, you will have to convince the citizens of CA that the marginal services are worth the marginal extra taxes. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU! WE'VE BEEN HAD BEFORE. we pay teachers more than any state in the nation and OUR SCHOOLS GENERALLY FINISH BELOW AVERAGE. utah spends the LEAST amount on education per pupil AND GETS THE BEST OUTCOMES. if they want better schools, they can CARPOOL to utah and figure out how their more effective teachers DO MORE WITH MUCH LESS. their current view is to tell tax and special interest spenders like you to pound sand by a 2 to 1 margin. as of right now, the citizenry of CA has cut off the greed bags and will kick any republican out of office that ever votes for raising taxes. the greed bag supports like you don't have to like it, but you will have to live with it. THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIZENS THINK YOUR STORYLINE ABOUT BETTER MARGINAL SERVICES FOR INCREASED TAXES IS AN EXTREMELY POOR VALUE INVESTMENT THEY WILL NOT MAKE. get used to losing. i think you have a lot of practice coping with loss.

To: Steve_C who wrote (205400)	5/31/2009 3:55:22 PM
From: Live2Sail	Respond to of 306849

Steve, You are comparing two different things: local taxes vs. state taxes. Prop 13 was about state revenues. The high-tax communities you are talking about are ones that issue special parcel taxes to raise money for schools or libraries or whatever. Regardless, those extra revenues are raised by the town for the town, not by the state, so it makes sense in the case that you speak of that high-tax towns will have higher home prices because, presumably, they offer a higher level of service. State revenues based on property taxes will not necessarily go back to everyone evenly (or anyone period as Skeeter Bug will try to tell you), so there isn't that correlation that you seek. Why will prices go down if prop. 13 were repealed. Simply because the cost of ownership would go up as would the unpredictability of the changes in expense. I only have anecdotal evidence. Many people in my neck of the woods are interested in moving, but because their tax bill would jump, they may as well stay put. At least, that's what they have told me. Now, let's see your data. L2S PS: do I live in a fantasy world, or am I reasonable? You've written both.