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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4049)	9/20/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: LKO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Everybody in the US gets their salary dictated by the free mkt right, even baseball players, oh except technology workers - we need to keep those salaries down based on our view of what that skill is really worth? Aren't you redefining what "free-market" means ? The H1 quota is what prevents it from being a "free-market" and I am not saying that should go. Also, have you checked recently where many of the fines the baseball players come from ? [ Hint: Dominican Republic and Cuba are not part of USA (yet :-)) ] Have you checked the nationality of many star NBA and NFL players ? (Within reason), attracting talented people is one of the factors that keeps innovation and economy (and sports talent) booming here. Don't whine, work harder and compete ! The slave...errr...shareholders need a good return on their investment. :-)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4049)	9/20/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

OFF TOPIC >>It is blatant age discrimination because 50 yr olds that bought their house in 1980 now might pay $200/yr in property tax, but if I bought that same house I would pay $10000. The republicans back the law because it "keeps the neighborhoods consistent" or some silly quote like that. Whose business is it of theirs. Everyone should have to pay taxes on what the house is worth period. Thats what the dems think and the libertarians but the repubs are in bed with the landlords etc<< And when you are 50 you get the same deal. Do you really want to take away a home from an elderly person on fixed income as their property value rises beyond their control? Or from a student with limited resources as was my case? This law has removed real estate property tax from politicians' whim. You can now buy a house and know in advance how much it will cost. My own experience: I bought a house in 1977. It was a small house and it was all I could afford. The property taxes were $500. Within the year I got a property tax bill for $1500. I would have lost my house if it were not for the voters placing handcuffs on the governments ability to raise taxes at will. Many elderly people on fixed incomes did lose their homes as their property taxes tripled. I have since sold the house and now have a new tax based on the value of my new home. I can plan for retirement because I know what my expenses will be. I do not find it unfair that my tax bill is higher than my neighbor. I have once again extended myself and could only do so with confidence as I have a fixed rate mortgage, fixed taxes ( they increase 2 percent per year by law..not too far off the inflation rate) and I know what my income is and what it will likely be when I retire. ( unless I make some lucky stock picks.) Be careful what you wish for as you might get it. What the opponents of prop 13 want is an open checkbook and the money will come out of your pocket. Putting this ability to tax at will back in the hands of the democrats or the republicans would be a big mistake IMO. Independent Zeuspaul

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (4049)	9/21/1998 9:23:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Proposition 13 which is a very unfair law that locks Ca property taxes in at the basis of the cost of the house when it was purchased>> Yes, but......the average time between sales and reassessment is 5 years for residential property. Apparently, that has not caused the problems you refer to. Hwoever, the turnover time for business is much longer. Perhaps if Proposition 13 were revisited to correct for this (it was never meant to protect businesses), you might feel differently. Also, remember why the proposition was passed in the first place. An out-of-control legislature was so intent on tax-and-spend politics, that large numbers of people were being taxed out of their homes after they retired. If the legislature would have dealt with their problems, the people would not have reacted in so draconian a fashion. As to the H1-B visas - the common argument in favor of the visas is that the jobs would move overseas, since that's where the skills are and the labor costs are right. After all, we live with a global economy, and there is nothing to prevent companies from moving their programming operations overseas. In fact, many are beginning to do just that. I'm not commenting on the quality of that argument, just pointing out the other side.