Posted: 9/21/2012 6:14:09 PM EDT
|
I got my voter's guide today. Haven't had a chance to thumb through it yet, but I thought it would be nice to have a thread where we list how we plan to vote and why. Most issues are pretty simple to me but every now and then there are propositions that can have some unexpected consequences and it's nice to hear other folks' reasoning.
Whatddya say? |
|
Quoted:
sigh..... I hate tryin to decipher some of these things involving land rights and whatnot. Ill post up what I find out later this weekend or next. Tag for now. If you're talking about the state trust land propositions, I feel you. I know it's important but it's outside my lane. |
|
Propositions that start with 100 were referred to the people by the legislature. That means that it's something the politicians want to do but are either unable (constitution) or unwilling (votes) to do themselves.
Props that start with 200 were placed on the ballot by the people directly (or rather the big signature firms) Prop 114 - Complicated measure that benefits big businesses with some pseudo-tort reform. Promises to prevent victims of crime from being sued but it's already in state law that a criminal harmed during the commission of a crime cannot sue. VOTING NO Prop 115 - Proposition to reduce the independence of the judiciary and make it more subject to the whims of whoever is the Governor (for good or bad) - VOTING NO Prop 116 - exempts up to 2.4 million dollars of taxable income of medium and large businesses for capitol expenditures. UNDECIDED Prop 117 - Limits property tax evaluations to an increase of 5% per year. (not as good as a true California Prop 13 but a good start) Voting YES. Prop 118 - complicated measure that changes the rate at which the legislature can remove funds from the "permanent fund" - Basically a way to shuffle money around . When in Doubt VOTING NO Prop 119 - Supposedly reforms the process of swapping land in the State Trust. Normally I'd say YES, but this measure is supported by both the Sierra Club AND the Democratic party. If they are for it, I'm against it. Voting NO. Prop 120 - Exerts State Sovereignty over state lands currently controlled by the Feds. F' the Feds. Voting YES. Prop 121 - Jungle Primary - Turns our primary system into a monetary free for all regardless of party affiliation. Voting NO simply because HELL NO is not an option. Prop 204 - Permanent increase of the sales tax plus budgeting by initiative which ties the legislature to the spending priorities of the leftist wackos who sponsored the initiative. Not only no but Hell No with a hot Poker. |
|
Voting No on all of them.
Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! Prop 120 State Trust land was given to the state by the Feds when the State was created so that it could be used for schools. So essentially it was designed to last for a very very long time to benefit the schools for a very very long time. The only reason to remove a check form how that land is used would be to help corporate lobbyists influence one less layer to gain use of that land for little return. While I don't like the Fed any more than anyone else, I don't trust corporate interest in doing the right thing when it comes to funding schools. See above. |
|
Quoted: Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. |
|
Quoted: You didn't answer my question. They can't artificially raise home values to soak up more tax revenue. Also whats wrong with businesses making more money in a good economy? You really think you aren't already paying for it when they hammer on a higher property tax? Every dollar they get taxes is a dollar you can't earn or an extra dollar you have to spend to buy their product or service. They get hit on higher state taxes for their profits already. Quoted: Quoted: Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. IMO all this seems to do is stop property values from being taxed excessively during real estate bubbles like the last one. It wont reduce revenue so the schools wont be missing anything. It just keeps TEMPORARY revenue from property value booms from growing to a point that government depends on it then has to crash when property values come back down. When property values are inflating well beyond the rest of the economy it makes sense to me to realize it is a fucking bubble that will pop and hammering businesses with higher tax rates the cant seem to get rid of when that bubble does pop is a HUGE contributor to all the empty strip malls and unemployment you see around here. You could write a bill that somehow makes sure the taxes are reduced when things are crashing but it is easier to just stop the inflated tax increase in the first place if you ask me. Property taxes are horseshit imo anyways. Theres no place on earth you can call your own nowdays whether it be a house or a business. It's fucking disgusting to me and I support anything that limits the states ability to tax property in any way whatsoever. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You didn't answer my question. They can't artificially raise home values to soak up more tax revenue. Also whats wrong with businesses making more money in a good economy? You really think you aren't already paying for it when they hammer on a higher property tax? Every dollar they get taxes is a dollar you can't earn or an extra dollar you have to spend to buy their product or service. They get hit on higher state taxes for their profits already.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. IMO all this seems to do is stop property values from being taxed excessively during real estate bubbles like the last one. It wont reduce revenue so the schools wont be missing anything. It just keeps TEMPORARY revenue from property value booms from growing to a point that government depends on it then has to crash when property values come back down. When property values are inflating well beyond the rest of the economy it makes sense to me to realize it is a fucking bubble that will pop and hammering businesses with higher tax rates the cant seem to get rid of when that bubble does pop is a HUGE contributor to all the empty strip malls and unemployment you see around here. You could write a bill that somehow makes sure the taxes are reduced when things are crashing but it is easier to just stop the inflated tax increase in the first place if you ask me. Property taxes are horseshit imo anyways. Theres no place on earth you can call your own nowdays whether it be a house or a business. It's fucking disgusting to me and I support anything that limits the states ability to tax property in any way whatsoever. If you don't like property taxes, then you won't like Prop 117 unless you're a corporation. Because as I've stated, it's just a shift of property tax from property that earns revenue from property that does not earn revenue. It's an untaxed corporate gain, money that won't be taxed on the corporate side and made up for on the residential side. Your home taxes will increase and effective commercial property tax will decrease and that's just math. And because the way commercial property is valued (capitalizing income), you're going to see artificial bubbles and corporate greed that hasn't been seen before. And when your house is at $100/sf in value and the office on the corner is at $400/sf and you're both being taxed the same, you'll know why. http://campverdebugleonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=35998 |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You didn't answer my question. They can't artificially raise home values to soak up more tax revenue. Also whats wrong with businesses making more money in a good economy? You really think you aren't already paying for it when they hammer on a higher property tax? Every dollar they get taxes is a dollar you can't earn or an extra dollar you have to spend to buy their product or service. They get hit on higher state taxes for their profits already. Quoted: Quoted: Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. IMO all this seems to do is stop property values from being taxed excessively during real estate bubbles like the last one. It wont reduce revenue so the schools wont be missing anything. It just keeps TEMPORARY revenue from property value booms from growing to a point that government depends on it then has to crash when property values come back down. When property values are inflating well beyond the rest of the economy it makes sense to me to realize it is a fucking bubble that will pop and hammering businesses with higher tax rates the cant seem to get rid of when that bubble does pop is a HUGE contributor to all the empty strip malls and unemployment you see around here. You could write a bill that somehow makes sure the taxes are reduced when things are crashing but it is easier to just stop the inflated tax increase in the first place if you ask me. Property taxes are horseshit imo anyways. Theres no place on earth you can call your own nowdays whether it be a house or a business. It's fucking disgusting to me and I support anything that limits the states ability to tax property in any way whatsoever. If you don't like property taxes, then you won't like Prop 117 unless you're a corporation. Because as I've stated, it's just a shift of property tax from property that earns revenue from property that does not earn revenue. It's an untaxed corporate gain, money that won't be taxed on the corporate side and made up for on the residential side. Your home taxes will increase and effective commercial property tax will decrease and that's just math. And because the way commercial property is valued (capitalizing income), you're going to see artificial bubbles and corporate greed that hasn't been seen before. And when your house is at $100/sf in value and the office on the corner is at $400/sf and you're both being taxed the same, you'll know why. http://campverdebugleonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=35998 you still haven't answered my question. How is the state going to artificially raise residential property values in order to tax it more? The market sets home values. Not government. All this does with residential porperty taxes is keep it from being taxes more than 5 percent if home values go up more than 5 percent in a year. They can't shift more taxes onto residential property without passing legislation or a ballot initiative to raise the property tax rate and the government cant just decide your house is worth more money. All this does is put limits on property tax increases which is a good thing even if it only affects business property value most of the time. Would you rather businesses profit in good times or the state? Id preffer the businesses profit because the only results from more business profit is price reduction through competition, higher wages, and more job opportunity. When the state profits more we get bigger government, more parasites on the dole and a future obligation to keep it that way. You aren't making any sense. |
|
Quoted: 121 I am divided upon; plan to read the full text. Let me explain it to you this way. If we had that primary system in my district which is a republican district, we would have two democrats to pick from in the general election. Does that sound good to you? We had a lot of republicans in our primary and only two democrats. Those two democrats got more votes than any of our republicans even though the republicans totalled more votes combined than the two democrats. So we would end up having to elect someone that would not win in my district in a straight up race against a republican. In order to get a republican on the ticket we would have to limit our primary choices to make sure we have one in the top two total vote count. This law actually limits your choices or puts people up that the people don't want. It is also pointless because an independent is free to run if they don't want to be affiliated with the party. Nothing good can come from this law. Im pretty sure this was thougt up by democrats observing that republican primaries now have lots of contenders due to tea party and libertarian groups that put up candidates. Democrats are less divided in their base and will only a couple of contenders giving them opportunities to shut republicans out of republican districts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You didn't answer my question. They can't artificially raise home values to soak up more tax revenue. Also whats wrong with businesses making more money in a good economy? You really think you aren't already paying for it when they hammer on a higher property tax? Every dollar they get taxes is a dollar you can't earn or an extra dollar you have to spend to buy their product or service. They get hit on higher state taxes for their profits already.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. IMO all this seems to do is stop property values from being taxed excessively during real estate bubbles like the last one. It wont reduce revenue so the schools wont be missing anything. It just keeps TEMPORARY revenue from property value booms from growing to a point that government depends on it then has to crash when property values come back down. When property values are inflating well beyond the rest of the economy it makes sense to me to realize it is a fucking bubble that will pop and hammering businesses with higher tax rates the cant seem to get rid of when that bubble does pop is a HUGE contributor to all the empty strip malls and unemployment you see around here. You could write a bill that somehow makes sure the taxes are reduced when things are crashing but it is easier to just stop the inflated tax increase in the first place if you ask me. Property taxes are horseshit imo anyways. Theres no place on earth you can call your own nowdays whether it be a house or a business. It's fucking disgusting to me and I support anything that limits the states ability to tax property in any way whatsoever. If you don't like property taxes, then you won't like Prop 117 unless you're a corporation. Because as I've stated, it's just a shift of property tax from property that earns revenue from property that does not earn revenue. It's an untaxed corporate gain, money that won't be taxed on the corporate side and made up for on the residential side. Your home taxes will increase and effective commercial property tax will decrease and that's just math. And because the way commercial property is valued (capitalizing income), you're going to see artificial bubbles and corporate greed that hasn't been seen before. And when your house is at $100/sf in value and the office on the corner is at $400/sf and you're both being taxed the same, you'll know why. http://campverdebugleonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=35998 you still haven't answered my question. How is the state going to artificially raise residential property values in order to tax it more? The market sets home values. Not government. All this does with residential porperty taxes is keep it from being taxes more than 5 percent if home values go up more than 5 percent in a year. They can't shift more taxes onto residential property without passing legislation or a ballot initiative to raise the property tax rate and the government cant just decide your house is worth more money. All this does is put limits on property tax increases which is a good thing even if it only affects business property value most of the time. Would you rather businesses profit in good times or the state? Id preffer the businesses profit because the only results from more business profit is price reduction through competition, higher wages, and more job opportunity. When the state profits more we get bigger government, more parasites on the dole and a future obligation to keep it that way. You aren't making any sense. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You didn't answer my question. They can't artificially raise home values to soak up more tax revenue. Also whats wrong with businesses making more money in a good economy? You really think you aren't already paying for it when they hammer on a higher property tax? Every dollar they get taxes is a dollar you can't earn or an extra dollar you have to spend to buy their product or service. They get hit on higher state taxes for their profits already.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Voting No on all of them. Prop 117 is just a shift from corporation tax to homeowners. The corporate lobby that created the proposition has already shifted 20% of corporate tax to homeowners over the last 5 years (with very very few knowing). Now they've come up with the guise to shift more by suggesting it'll stabilize values. Sorry but you can't artificially slow values on the taxation side without being able to slow values on the free market side. They've figured that home values don't go up by more than 5% on average in any given year but commercial value does. So now when commercial growth exceeds 5% which it will easily do, it won't be taxed where before it would be. But the schools will want their money so the tax rates will have to go up because now they can't tax that high commercial value. The difference will be made up by the homeowners. What's worse is commercial value hasn't bottomed out yet because commercial foreclosure lags years behind residential. The valley is still 2-3 years away from rock bottom commercial values while home value is starting to creep upward. Hooray! How will they artificially raise home values above market value if they don't naturally increase 5 percent or more? That seems impossible. It also seems to me that in good times not raping the businesses just because their porperty is worth more is a good thing. We don't need huge increases in revenue when the business cycle is good. All that does is balloon funding for government and when those revenues dry up on the swing side of the business cycle they come after us for sales tax increases and income tax increases "for the children" since they are unwilling to share the cuts that all of us make . That prop does nothing to tax rates. Nothing. It just prevents corporate value from being taxed. That's all it does. Corporations will be reaping millions in dollars that won't be taxed. But that won't stop the bills from coming from the school districts. The homeowners will make up the difference. Home value is at rock bottom but corporate value is not. You want simple math? You earn $10/hour and an office building earns $10/square foot. Next year you earn $10.50/hr and the office earns $11/square foot. But you're both taxed the same. Only in reality you'll only be earning $10 because the politicians will just bump 5% for good measure even if you didn't get the 5% raise but the office will be at $11. Hooray! That's an oversimplification and retard math but it illustrates a point. Homes for the most part do not earn revenue but commercial property does. And that's partially why you see different appreciation rates between property types. Limiting everything to 5% just lets corporate value go nuts while doing nothing to residential which really doesn't fluctuate in value more that 5% on average. IMO all this seems to do is stop property values from being taxed excessively during real estate bubbles like the last one. It wont reduce revenue so the schools wont be missing anything. It just keeps TEMPORARY revenue from property value booms from growing to a point that government depends on it then has to crash when property values come back down. When property values are inflating well beyond the rest of the economy it makes sense to me to realize it is a fucking bubble that will pop and hammering businesses with higher tax rates the cant seem to get rid of when that bubble does pop is a HUGE contributor to all the empty strip malls and unemployment you see around here. You could write a bill that somehow makes sure the taxes are reduced when things are crashing but it is easier to just stop the inflated tax increase in the first place if you ask me. Property taxes are horseshit imo anyways. Theres no place on earth you can call your own nowdays whether it be a house or a business. It's fucking disgusting to me and I support anything that limits the states ability to tax property in any way whatsoever. If you don't like property taxes, then you won't like Prop 117 unless you're a corporation. Because as I've stated, it's just a shift of property tax from property that earns revenue from property that does not earn revenue. It's an untaxed corporate gain, money that won't be taxed on the corporate side and made up for on the residential side. Your home taxes will increase and effective commercial property tax will decrease and that's just math. And because the way commercial property is valued (capitalizing income), you're going to see artificial bubbles and corporate greed that hasn't been seen before. And when your house is at $100/sf in value and the office on the corner is at $400/sf and you're both being taxed the same, you'll know why. http://campverdebugleonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=35998 you still haven't answered my question. How is the state going to artificially raise residential property values in order to tax it more? The market sets home values. Not government. All this does with residential porperty taxes is keep it from being taxes more than 5 percent if home values go up more than 5 percent in a year. They can't shift more taxes onto residential property without passing legislation or a ballot initiative to raise the property tax rate and the government cant just decide your house is worth more money. All this does is put limits on property tax increases which is a good thing even if it only affects business property value most of the time. Would you rather businesses profit in good times or the state? Id preffer the businesses profit because the only results from more business profit is price reduction through competition, higher wages, and more job opportunity. When the state profits more we get bigger government, more parasites on the dole and a future obligation to keep it that way. You aren't making any sense. They aren't going to raise your values, they are going to restrict your value and raise the shit out of taxes. The reason is because as the economy recovers and things get reset, the systems that has been curtailed through cut backs, job attrition, pay freeze and the like are going to demand recovery too. And now there is less value to tax. And before as the system recovered, the value would return and again the value that recovered could be taxed as it always has been. Don't think of it as a tax as more an apportionment. Here's a bill, who's gonna pay for it. Distribute the bill to value, those with more value pay more of the share. So now let's look at cycles. One of the reasons home values went through the roof was not free market. It was because value was driven by what the banks would loan. Banks set the value because banks were buying homes for people. Why did that occur? Well, Clinton decided that he would protect loans to people who would normally not qualify. Thus the banks had little risk because they were protected by government backing of risky loans. It worked for a while until the system fed on itself and eventually it got to the point where more and more risk was being marginalized by stupid investors being sold something with so much leverage that when just a few stopped paying their loans, the whole system crashed. This was all allowed by a government who tried to stabilized risky investment by guaranteeing it. That's not free market. Of course, that system crashed and now is gone. So now loans are hard to get (banks won't buy a house for just anyone now) and the value was corrected. You are not going to see the type of increase in value for houses until once again bad loans are protected. If Obama gets elected, it's possible that Ponzi could be started again. What's funny is it could happen again under Romney, too, because the system likes those types of runs because those controlling it make money regardless if it eventually collapses. So, what's this corporate lobby wanting to do? They want to limit your home value to only 5% increases in a market that will likely not support a 5% increase because they system is just not in place. This is supposed to protect you? How? Well, it turns out it doesn't, because the bill is also removing a stop in taxation. Yes, there was a 1% maximum increase in how much taxes could be increased on the primary side which is now the only side of value that will be taxed. To make that happen, this bill will remove that check and allow the taxes to flow however your elected officials see fit. So while your value will not be raised, there will be no protection from your tax rate going to where ever it needs to go. The reason that was necessary is because commercial property value is still falling. And while it falls there is less value to tax and so more of the bill gets allocated across the value that exists. Your taxes will increase because that's what you're voting for. Your voting to allow the politicians to freeze a value that can't increase anyway because the system has changed and in return, they get to set the tax rate however they feel. Go back and read the article I linked to and read the comments section very carefully. And then go to the links that were posted in the comment section. At least you'll have a better understanding of why your taxes are spiking back to previous levels so quickly once you vote for this legislation. Value does not equal tax. Tax rates equal tax and your tax rate is going up because your house will be a bigger part of the share as commercial value falls and the restriction on rate is removed by your vote. |
|
Quoted: If you don't like property taxes, then you won't like Prop 117 unless you're a corporation. Because as I've stated, it's just a shift of property tax from property that earns revenue from property that does not earn revenue. It's an untaxed corporate gain, money that won't be taxed on the corporate side and made up for on the residential side. Your home taxes will increase and effective commercial property tax will decrease and that's just math. And because the way commercial property is valued (capitalizing income), you're going to see artificial bubbles and corporate greed that hasn't been seen before. And when your house is at $100/sf in value and the office on the corner is at $400/sf and you're both being taxed the same, you'll know why. http://campverdebugleonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=35998 When I start seeing the term "corporate greed" being tossed out, I start to get suspicious of the person's intent. Increased corporate profits means more hiring, more product being sold at a lower cost and more taxes being collected. The above benefits everyone in the community and the government. Keeping taxes down is a good thing, but so is corporate profit. In a free market when a corporation, or any business, gets overly greedy they lose money as people take their business elsewhere. This leads that business to lower costs or offer other incentives to get business back. On the other hand, when the government makes less money they simply increase taxes since they've got us by the balls. The time has come to stop demonizing corporations and start putting the blame for our problems where it belongs, on our government and ourselves for electing the people we do.
|
|
Yes, because it's a buzzword for you.
This isn't small garage in the avenues stuff. This is mines and APS, Intel and Enron like stuff (REITS real estate investment trusts), the guys who really fund the lobbyists who wrote this. And if you think corporations like the Enrons and those peddling mortgage backed security derivatives benefits you, then go for it! The gentleman who first said he was voting yes on this wants Prop 13. And yet, the Prop 13 initiative group is completely against this as you'll read in the link. There's a reason for that. This isn't a big deal either way (other than altering the state constitution). Prop 117 just turns a truly progressive tax into another regressive one. You can google progressive regressive tax to find out what that is. Prop 117 is going to pass and your taxes are going up in favor of commercial property (once again not that tiny garage in the avenues, we're talking the big stuff). |
|
Quoted: Yes, because it's a buzzword for you. This isn't small garage in the avenues stuff. This is mines and APS and Enron stuff, the guys who really fund the lobbyists who wrote this. And if you think corporations like the Enrons and those peddling mortgage backed security derivatives benefits you, then go for it! The gentlemen who first said he was voting yes on this wants Prop 13. And yet, the Prop 13 initiative group is completely against this as you'll read in the link. There's a reason for that. This isn't a big deal either way. Prop 117 just turns a truly progressive tax into another regressive one. You can google progressive regressive tax to find out what that is. Prop 117 is going to pass and your taxes are going up in favor of commercial property (once again not that tiny garage in the avenues, we're talking the big stuff). theres no such thing as a progressive tax. All taxes on business are overhead. We pay them as employees or consumers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, because it's a buzzword for you. This isn't small garage in the avenues stuff. This is mines and APS and Enron stuff, the guys who really fund the lobbyists who wrote this. And if you think corporations like the Enrons and those peddling mortgage backed security derivatives benefits you, then go for it! The gentlemen who first said he was voting yes on this wants Prop 13. And yet, the Prop 13 initiative group is completely against this as you'll read in the link. There's a reason for that. This isn't a big deal either way. Prop 117 just turns a truly progressive tax into another regressive one. You can google progressive regressive tax to find out what that is. Prop 117 is going to pass and your taxes are going up in favor of commercial property (once again not that tiny garage in the avenues, we're talking the big stuff). theres no such thing as a progressive tax. All taxes on business are overhead. We pay them as employees or consumers. A progressive tax is one that you can't hide from. You can't hide from property tax. The value exists, it's identified, it's taxed. The more you own, the more it's worth, the more it's taxed. That's a progressive tax. When homes increase less than 5%, they will be 100% taxed. When commercial increases greater than 5% and it will, it won't be. That's regressive. The portion that increases and not taxed will be taxed anyway in an apportionment shift. That means higher rates for houses that would not normally have increased because there would have been commercial value to tax (apportion it to). |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yes, because it's a buzzword for you. This isn't small garage in the avenues stuff. This is mines and APS and Enron stuff, the guys who really fund the lobbyists who wrote this. And if you think corporations like the Enrons and those peddling mortgage backed security derivatives benefits you, then go for it! The gentlemen who first said he was voting yes on this wants Prop 13. And yet, the Prop 13 initiative group is completely against this as you'll read in the link. There's a reason for that. This isn't a big deal either way. Prop 117 just turns a truly progressive tax into another regressive one. You can google progressive regressive tax to find out what that is. Prop 117 is going to pass and your taxes are going up in favor of commercial property (once again not that tiny garage in the avenues, we're talking the big stuff). theres no such thing as a progressive tax. All taxes on business are overhead. We pay them as employees or consumers. A progressive tax is one that you can't hide from. You can't hide from property tax. The value exists, it's identified, it's taxed. The more you own, the more it's worth, the more it's taxed. That's a progressive tax. When homes increase less than 5%, they will be 100% taxed. When commercial increases greater than 5% and it will, it won't be. That's regressive. The portion that increases and not taxed will be taxed anyway in an apportionment shift. That means higher rates for houses that would not normally have increased because there would have been commercial value to tax (apportion it to). You are avoiding every statement I have made here. Home property taxes will be assesed according to the homes value. It is impossible for state government to artificially raise home values to make up for comercial taxes they wont get due to the tax increase limits. Government isn't losing existing money from this. It simply limits the government from taking more . The only people who wont benefit from businesses being taxed less property tax when their property values and profits increase are the fucking parasites looking to soak up more benefits and create a bigger government burden. That money will do far better in the private sector than in the government anyways. All taxes on business are regressive. A business cannot and does not pay a tax. It's called overhead. It is passed down to us and we get nothing in return except a ballooning government obligation when they fill the surplus with more bullshit programs and handouts we can't get rid of. It rewards the shitbags and keeps those of us who strive to be the best down. I think you are wrong but even if you are right it is a GOOD thing if the parasites come after the homeowner somehow to try and take more of our money. At least this way we will see it as a direct tax on us and probably resist it. We pay it either way whether its from lower wages and higher prices when they get it from the businesses , or if they come after us directly. The direct approach will get more resistance which is a very good thing in my eyes. It's too easy to let the government grow when it is "someone elses money" it's growing on. Problem is there is no such thing as someone elses money. All taxes are regressive. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, because it's a buzzword for you. This isn't small garage in the avenues stuff. This is mines and APS and Enron stuff, the guys who really fund the lobbyists who wrote this. And if you think corporations like the Enrons and those peddling mortgage backed security derivatives benefits you, then go for it! The gentlemen who first said he was voting yes on this wants Prop 13. And yet, the Prop 13 initiative group is completely against this as you'll read in the link. There's a reason for that. This isn't a big deal either way. Prop 117 just turns a truly progressive tax into another regressive one. You can google progressive regressive tax to find out what that is. Prop 117 is going to pass and your taxes are going up in favor of commercial property (once again not that tiny garage in the avenues, we're talking the big stuff). theres no such thing as a progressive tax. All taxes on business are overhead. We pay them as employees or consumers. A progressive tax is one that you can't hide from. You can't hide from property tax. The value exists, it's identified, it's taxed. The more you own, the more it's worth, the more it's taxed. That's a progressive tax. When homes increase less than 5%, they will be 100% taxed. When commercial increases greater than 5% and it will, it won't be. That's regressive. The portion that increases and not taxed will be taxed anyway in an apportionment shift. That means higher rates for houses that would not normally have increased because there would have been commercial value to tax (apportion it to). You are avoiding every statement I have made here. Home property taxes will be assesed according to the homes value. It is impossible for state government to artificially raise home values to make up for comercial taxes they wont get due to the tax increase limits. Government isn't losing existing money from this. It simply limits the government from taking more . The only people who wont benefit from businesses being taxed less property tax when their property values and profits increase are the fucking parasites looking to soak up more benefits and create a bigger government burden. That money will do far better in the private sector than in the government anyways. All taxes on business are regressive. A business cannot and does not pay a tax. It's called overhead. It is passed down to us and we get nothing in return except a ballooning government obligation when they fill the surplus with more bullshit programs and handouts we can't get rid of. It rewards the shitbags and keeps those of us who strive to be the best down. I think you are wrong but even if you are right it is a GOOD thing if the parasites come after the homeowner somehow to try and take more of our money. At least this way we will see it as a direct tax on us and probably resist it. We pay it either way whether its from lower wages and higher prices when they get it from the businesses , or if they come after us directly. The direct approach will get more resistance which is a very good thing in my eyes. It's too easy to let the government grow when it is "someone elses money" it's growing on. Problem is there is no such thing as someone elses money. All taxes are regressive. National and mufti-national corporations operating here do not pass the tax on to just the people living in Arizona. They pass it to all. This does not effect every tiny little corporation operating here. It's a windfall for the giant ones (once again, the ones who fund the lobbyists who wrote this garbage, you're not listening). You will be voting to not tax the value that exceeds 5% gains for the big corporations. That value that is not taxed will be apportioned to you. You will be paying the tax normally passed on to those outside the state. What's worse is large corporations capitalize the savings to value. It's called the income approach to value and that's how large properties are bought and sold by investors. So your apportionment gift just makes their property worth more and devalues yours at the same time by higher tax cost. Your tax is not based on value solely. It's based on an apportionment of value controlled through the tax rate. And your tax rate is going to go up (because you're voting for it to). There will be no choice because there's less value to tax. Whenever you lower a taxable base, tax just gets apportioned to that which is left. That would be you assuming you own a home. http://www.iaao.org/uploads/Dornfest.pdf Ya know, it always amazes me how folks can be fed snake oil by others and they just eat it up because it sounds so good. They don't care where it came from or what's in it. Sounds good, I want some. I have to admit this is a tricky one. Seems really good on paper. The good news is that even when it passes it's unlikely to survive a challenge in court because the guys the wrote it missed a very important aspect in the constitution called the uniformity clause. So, too bad, a lot of effort for nothing. Once it gets thrown out, perhaps you'll get to vote on a Prop 13 in 2014 and jump on California's success. HA! |
|
Prop 204 - Permanent increase of the sales tax plus budgeting by initiative which ties the legislature to the spending priorities of the leftist wackos who sponsored the initiative. Not only no but Hell No with a hot Poker.
Quoting NVGdude because it's worthy of saying again. 
|
|
Yes, vote no on 204.
However, voting no on 204 while voting yes on 117 is a huge killer. You see, a lot of sales tax is paid by tourism. So essentially you have a quantifiable amount of visitors paying for our school system. By removing the tax rate cap on property in 117, and killing the 1 cent school transaction tax, where do you think the politicians will get the money? That's right, they'll get it by increasing property tax rates because we allowed them in return for preventing our home values from increasing by a rate they cannot possibly increase by in the foreseeable future. Vote no on everything. |
|
A couple of points to niggle:
On 114, the current law prevents the perpetrator (or estate) from filing suit over damages directly caused by your use of force to defend yourself. In other words, douchenozzle can't sue you for his hospital bills because you had to give him a few speed holes. Theoretically, he CAN sue you for busting his ankle trying to carry your 80" TV down the stair case. At least, that's how I understood it. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. On 117, Victorgonzales, the point that I think Yelpers is trying to make is that while the valuation of property would be capped, the proposition does NOTHING to affect rates. That means that our homes would normally stay under the 5% ceiling anyway, while the commercial properties gain value at a faster rate but still don't get assessed at more than 5% more than the previous year. If there is a budget shortfall, the state comes after us by increasing the RATE. I don't think it's a good idea to jump on either bandwagon of "corporation, baaad" OR "corporation, gooood." Generally, corporations are good because they are the real engines of the economy. If you don't like them, quit your job and dump your 401(k) and any other investments or interest bearing accounts. Still, they shouldn't be getting off easier than individuals. They should be paying the same rate of property tax as everybody else. The natural response is that they will pay the same RATE but if the full value of their property is not assessed, while the full value of MY property is, I've got a problem with that. Bottom line, I'm undecided on 117. For the rest: 114: Y 115: N 116: undecided 117: undecided 118: undecided 119: undecided 120: Y 121: HELL fucking NO! 204: Are you fucking kidding me? You get coloring books for Christmas? Fuck no. As someone said above, when in doubt I vote no so the "undecideds" will turn into "nos" on the 6th of November, unless someone changes my mind before then. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 121 I am divided upon; plan to read the full text. Let me explain it to you this way. If we had that primary system in my district which is a republican district, we would have two democrats to pick from in the general election. Does that sound good to you? We had a lot of republicans in our primary and only two democrats. Those two democrats got more votes than any of our republicans even though the republicans totalled more votes combined than the two democrats. So we would end up having to elect someone that would not win in my district in a straight up race against a republican. In order to get a republican on the ticket we would have to limit our primary choices to make sure we have one in the top two total vote count. This law actually limits your choices or puts people up that the people don't want. It is also pointless because an independent is free to run if they don't want to be affiliated with the party. Nothing good can come from this law. Im pretty sure this was thougt up by democrats observing that republican primaries now have lots of contenders due to tea party and libertarian groups that put up candidates. Democrats are less divided in their base and will only a couple of contenders giving them opportunities to shut republicans out of republican districts. Since I know Tim doesn't live in Phoenix, and I do all you have to do is look at the scum that keeps getting elected as mayor of this city. Since the city of Phoenix has the same thing that is being proposed in 121. This last election we had a choice of the biggest Liberal (Stanton) and the biggest Rino (Can't remember his name). If you are a conservative, your choice is gone because the first election is the top 2 of the 15 that are running. There are NO party run offs. The selection last year was so bad that I didn't vote. This state will really be screwed if 121 passes. We will look like California in less than 5 years. |
|
Quoted: Yes, vote no on 204. However, voting no on 204 while voting yes on 117 is a huge killer. You see, a lot of sales tax is paid by tourism. So essentially you have a quantifiable amount of visitors paying for our school system. By removing the tax rate cap on property in 117, and killing the 1 cent school transaction tax, where do you think the politicians will get the money? That's right, they'll get it by increasing property tax rates because we allowed them in return for preventing our home values from increasing by a rate they cannot possibly increase by in the foreseeable future. Vote no on everything. This man does not live in Arizona or he is an admin/principle at one of our school systems. |
|
Adding money to an inefficient and notoriously wasteful system is NOT a good plan. We've been pouring money into the public school system for decades because teacher unions keep telling us that if we only give them more, this time they'll actually start teaching the kids. Honest this time. Really. We mean it.
How much money do you think actually goes to education in this state? Do you know? 
Or, if you don't have the attention span to watch those:
Or, if you can't even sit through a ten minute video: 
(please note that the graph is adjusted for inflation) |
|
Quoted: National and mufti-national corporations operating here do not pass the tax on to just the people living in Arizona. They pass it to all. This does not effect every tiny little corporation operating here. It's a windfall for the giant ones (once again, the ones who fund the lobbyists who wrote this garbage, you're not listening). You will be voting to not tax the value that exceeds 5% gains for the big corporations. That value that is not taxed will be apportioned to you. You will be paying the tax normally passed on to those outside the state. What's worse is large corporations capitalize the savings to value. It's called the income approach to value and that's how large properties are bought and sold by investors. So your apportionment gift just makes their property worth more and devalues yours at the same time by higher tax cost. Your tax is not based on value solely. It's based on an apportionment of value controlled through the tax rate. And your tax rate is going to go up (because you're voting for it to). There will be no choice because there's less value to tax. Whenever you lower a taxable base, tax just gets apportioned to that which is left. That would be you assuming you own a home. http://www.iaao.org/uploads/Dornfest.pdf Ya know, it always amazes me how folks can be fed snake oil by others and they just eat it up because it sounds so good. They don't care where it came from or what's in it. Sounds good, I want some. I have to admit this is a tricky one. Seems really good on paper. The good news is that even when it passes it's unlikely to survive a challenge in court because the guys the wrote it missed a very important aspect in the constitution called the uniformity clause. So, too bad, a lot of effort for nothing. Once it gets thrown out, perhaps you'll get to vote on a Prop 13 in 2014 and jump on California's success. HA! Hers how I see it. scenario A 117 does not pass. Comercial property values go up 20 percent home values go up . You know damned well the state will spend every dime of that increases revenue. Businesses will have less profits and effectively be taxed higher just because they are doing well. That means less raises for people in a position to ask for one, less investment and new jobs than what could have been. It also means a lot of new government programs and spending that down the road the assholes will tell us we cannot possibly live without. It creates a BIGGER shortfall if hard times come because it creates a BIGGER government due to higher revenues. Commie fucks come after more tax revenue. It doesn't matter who it's from because as I said. We all pay taxes whether they get it directly from us or from our employer or the places we shop. Scenario B prop 117 passes. Commercial property values go up 20 percent. The government still makes more money up to the five percent cap. Government still grows but not as much. What does grow at a faster pace though is the private sector because the government isn't sucking up more of the profit simply because the property is worth more. INcome taxes and other taxes are providing plenty of revenue in good times. When hard times come the commie fucks still want to raise taxes but it will be less than in scenario A because government grew less than scenario A. Government cannot artificially raise residential property taxes to make up the difference. They will have to raise the rates. They can't do that backdoor. In either scenario government grows in good times and they will come for your paycheck in bad times . The only difference is that if we pass prop 117 more money stays in the private sector in good times. As it should because it is a far better investment and leads to far less trouble down the road. Caps on government GROWTH are a good thing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
National and mufti-national corporations operating here do not pass the tax on to just the people living in Arizona. They pass it to all. This does not effect every tiny little corporation operating here. It's a windfall for the giant ones (once again, the ones who fund the lobbyists who wrote this garbage, you're not listening). You will be voting to not tax the value that exceeds 5% gains for the big corporations. That value that is not taxed will be apportioned to you. You will be paying the tax normally passed on to those outside the state. What's worse is large corporations capitalize the savings to value. It's called the income approach to value and that's how large properties are bought and sold by investors. So your apportionment gift just makes their property worth more and devalues yours at the same time by higher tax cost. Your tax is not based on value solely. It's based on an apportionment of value controlled through the tax rate. And your tax rate is going to go up (because you're voting for it to). There will be no choice because there's less value to tax. Whenever you lower a taxable base, tax just gets apportioned to that which is left. That would be you assuming you own a home. http://www.iaao.org/uploads/Dornfest.pdf Ya know, it always amazes me how folks can be fed snake oil by others and they just eat it up because it sounds so good. They don't care where it came from or what's in it. Sounds good, I want some. I have to admit this is a tricky one. Seems really good on paper. The good news is that even when it passes it's unlikely to survive a challenge in court because the guys the wrote it missed a very important aspect in the constitution called the uniformity clause. So, too bad, a lot of effort for nothing. Once it gets thrown out, perhaps you'll get to vote on a Prop 13 in 2014 and jump on California's success. HA! Hers how I see it. scenario A 117 does not pass. Comercial property values go up 20 percent home values go up . You know damned well the state will spend every dime of that increases revenue. Businesses will have less profits and effectively be taxed higher just because they are doing well. That means less raises for people in a position to ask for one, less investment and new jobs than what could have been. It also means a lot of new government programs and spending that down the road the assholes will tell us we cannot possibly live without. It creates a BIGGER shortfall if hard times come because it creates a BIGGER government due to higher revenues. Commie fucks come after more tax revenue. It doesn't matter who it's from because as I said. We all pay taxes whether they get it directly from us or from our employer or the places we shop. Scenario B prop 117 passes. Commercial property values go up 20 percent. The government still makes more money up to the five percent cap. Government still grows but not as much. What does grow at a faster pace though is the private sector because the government isn't sucking up more of the profit simply because the property is worth more. INcome taxes and other taxes are providing plenty of revenue in good times. When hard times come the commie fucks still want to raise taxes but it will be less than in scenario A because government grew less than scenario A. Government cannot artificially raise residential property taxes to make up the difference. They will have to raise the rates. They can't do that backdoor. In either scenario government grows in good times and they will come for your paycheck in bad times . The only difference is that if we pass prop 117 more money stays in the private sector in good times. As it should because it is a far better investment and leads to far less trouble down the road. Caps on government GROWTH are a good thing. THERE IS NO CAP ON TAX RATES (well there won't be after 117 passes). Sell me some of that tobacco, I'll take a dime bag. http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/08/03/special-interest-lobbyist-dupe-legislature-again/ I suppose you'll be voting yes on Prop 204 because by your logic, corporations don't pay sales tax only individuals, and individuals don't have to pay sales tax because they can just buy from Amazon or on the internet. By helping out Amazon, you're creating a better life for everyone because they can hire more people. Tell me you're voting for 204 and I'll believe everything you say. VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING! Victor, your a good guy and I respect your opinion. Like I said, doesn't matter to me either way. Just thought I take a shot at my beliefs on the subject because I don't think most understand the property tax system in Arizona. And like I said, even if it passes, it's such a bad piece of legislation, more than likely it won't survive a court challenge. And yes, there will be a court challenge, the complaint is already written. Take care. |
|
Quoted: I know there isn't a cap on tax rates. There will be a cap on taxes collected from increased property values. this in NO WAY WHATSOEVER reduces government funding. It reduces THE SIZE OF INCREASES in government funding. Quoted: Quoted: National and mufti-national corporations operating here do not pass the tax on to just the people living in Arizona. They pass it to all. This does not effect every tiny little corporation operating here. It's a windfall for the giant ones (once again, the ones who fund the lobbyists who wrote this garbage, you're not listening). You will be voting to not tax the value that exceeds 5% gains for the big corporations. That value that is not taxed will be apportioned to you. You will be paying the tax normally passed on to those outside the state. What's worse is large corporations capitalize the savings to value. It's called the income approach to value and that's how large properties are bought and sold by investors. So your apportionment gift just makes their property worth more and devalues yours at the same time by higher tax cost. Your tax is not based on value solely. It's based on an apportionment of value controlled through the tax rate. And your tax rate is going to go up (because you're voting for it to). There will be no choice because there's less value to tax. Whenever you lower a taxable base, tax just gets apportioned to that which is left. That would be you assuming you own a home. http://www.iaao.org/uploads/Dornfest.pdf Ya know, it always amazes me how folks can be fed snake oil by others and they just eat it up because it sounds so good. They don't care where it came from or what's in it. Sounds good, I want some. I have to admit this is a tricky one. Seems really good on paper. The good news is that even when it passes it's unlikely to survive a challenge in court because the guys the wrote it missed a very important aspect in the constitution called the uniformity clause. So, too bad, a lot of effort for nothing. Once it gets thrown out, perhaps you'll get to vote on a Prop 13 in 2014 and jump on California's success. HA! Hers how I see it. scenario A 117 does not pass. Comercial property values go up 20 percent home values go up . You know damned well the state will spend every dime of that increases revenue. Businesses will have less profits and effectively be taxed higher just because they are doing well. That means less raises for people in a position to ask for one, less investment and new jobs than what could have been. It also means a lot of new government programs and spending that down the road the assholes will tell us we cannot possibly live without. It creates a BIGGER shortfall if hard times come because it creates a BIGGER government due to higher revenues. Commie fucks come after more tax revenue. It doesn't matter who it's from because as I said. We all pay taxes whether they get it directly from us or from our employer or the places we shop. Scenario B prop 117 passes. Commercial property values go up 20 percent. The government still makes more money up to the five percent cap. Government still grows but not as much. What does grow at a faster pace though is the private sector because the government isn't sucking up more of the profit simply because the property is worth more. INcome taxes and other taxes are providing plenty of revenue in good times. When hard times come the commie fucks still want to raise taxes but it will be less than in scenario A because government grew less than scenario A. Government cannot artificially raise residential property taxes to make up the difference. They will have to raise the rates. They can't do that backdoor. In either scenario government grows in good times and they will come for your paycheck in bad times . The only difference is that if we pass prop 117 more money stays in the private sector in good times. As it should because it is a far better investment and leads to far less trouble down the road. Caps on government GROWTH are a good thing. THERE IS NO CAP ON TAX RATES (well there won't be after 117 passes). Sell me some of that tobacco, I'll take a dime bag. http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/08/03/special-interest-lobbyist-dupe-legislature-again/ I suppose you'll be voting yes on Prop 204 because by your logic, corporations don't pay sales tax only individuals, and individuals don't have to pay sales tax because they can just buy from Amazon or on the internet. By helping out Amazon, you're creating a better life for everyone because they can hire more people. Tell me you're voting for 204 and I'll believe everything you say. VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING! Victor, your a good guy and I respect your opinion. Like I said, doesn't matter to me either way. Just thought I take a shot at my beliefs on the subject because I don't think most understand the property tax system in Arizona. And like I said, even if it passes, it's such a bad piece of legislation, more than likely it won't survive a court challenge. And yes, there will be a court challenge, the complaint is already written. Take care. Nothing you have posted or said makes it any more likely that residential tax rates will go up whether this passes or not. Going after residential is a political death sentence. Sure a bunch of big government cry babies will throw a fit that they didn't get as much extra money in the good times as the private sector did. I think it is a good thing that they don't . Just look what happened in the housing boom.. All this extra government revenue we made dried up and they came after us with a bullshit sales tax increase threatening to cut all the things we need rather than cutting all the new bullshit we gave them with growth in funding. The government will never accept cuts in bad times which is why I think it is a good thing to limit government growth in good times. If I had my way I would put caps on all government growth. Tie it down to whatever the 10 year rolling average gdp growth of the state is. In good times government would not grow. The people would just keep a fuck lot more of their money as surpluses are returned to the taxpayers. Bad times wouldn't require cuts in government because government wouldn't balloon in cost during the good times. If the government dependent asswipes want to come at us with tax increases because they don't think we are sharing enough of the money we are earning Ill fight that battle when the time comes. Until then I support ANYTHING that deprives government of more funding. They take enough of our money already. They need to learn to use it better. When my boss is making record profits Ill get my raise rather than the government getting it's raise. NO on 204. They need less of our money. Not more. |
|
You haven't read any of the links I've posted. That's fine. Perhaps others will read and understand. Here's what you need to know. The lobbyists who wrote this do not care about you. They care about their boss. And their boss is not going to give you a raise because you don't work for a Real Estate Investment Trust, or Intel or APS or the Mining conglomerates.
Your tax bill is going up very quickly to mid 2000 levels because you're voting for it. Whenever a tax base is removed, it will be allocated to that which exists. And if you believed in what you say or understood what you say, you'd be voting for 204 because you just made the argument for it without even realizing it. It is possible the politicians are too scared to increase your tax rate. I wouldn't bet on it, because it's for the children, (and the police and the fireman). VOTE NO ON EVERYTHING! |
| I was with you up until you started claiming that the evil, greedy corporations don't give merit raises when their profits go up. Evil greedy corporations like productive employees and reward them so they can make more money for the evil, greedy corporations. It ain't minimum wage laws that allow a skilled technician to pull down $65k or a VP to earn $120k. It is merit based incentive pay. Thank you for making up my mind for me, I was leaning "yes" on this one anyway. |
|
Quoted:
I was with you up until you started claiming that the evil, greedy corporations don't give merit raises when their profits go up. Evil greedy corporations like productive employees and reward them so they can make more money for the evil, greedy corporations. It ain't minimum wage laws that allow a skilled technician to pull down $65k or a VP to earn $120k. It is merit based incentive pay. Thank you for making up my mind for me, I was leaning "yes" on this one anyway. Ok, let's try this again because you need help. Grabbing on to buzzwords like you're some corporate freedom fighter is not going to help you keep your taxes lower. Let's start out with something very very simple. Let's see if there's anyone on here that knows what an assessment ratio is? And here's a little bit tougher question. What is the assessment ratio for owner occupied property vs. commercial property? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I was with you up until you started claiming that the evil, greedy corporations don't give merit raises when their profits go up. Evil greedy corporations like productive employees and reward them so they can make more money for the evil, greedy corporations. It ain't minimum wage laws that allow a skilled technician to pull down $65k or a VP to earn $120k. It is merit based incentive pay. Thank you for making up my mind for me, I was leaning "yes" on this one anyway. Ok, let's try this again because you need help. Grabbing on to buzzwords like you're some corporate freedom fighter is not going to help you keep your taxes lower. Let's start out with something very very simple. Let's see if there's anyone on here that knows what an assessment ratio is? And here's a little bit tougher question. What is the assessment ratio for owner occupied property vs. commercial property? Commercial is .2 Residential is .1 Assessment ratios have nothing to do with this. I am assuming that you claim it isn't fair if commercial property values go up to the point where their assessment ratio is less than residential due to the cap on property values at five percent. My point is that it is fair because all those evils profits that businesses will be able to keep rather than dish out to government not only wont reduce overall government funding but will be reinvested in the private sector which is exponentially better for every citizen of the state. Government can cry me a river that they got a slightly less drastic increase in funding. Ill do the backstroke in their commie tears and tell them to fuck off as will most AZ citizens. People don't take kindly to people bitching about the size of their raise. |
|
Quoted:
But if we get her in she'll help us with her "friends"!! http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c314/Z06M16A1/Wacky%20Images/Janet-Napolitano_Kyrsten-Sinema.jpg Not in her district. Wouldn't vote for her if I was. It still wouldn't be the end of the world if Krysten gave a titty-fuck followed by a knob-slobbering. 
|
|
Quoted:
Adding money to an inefficient and notoriously wasteful system is NOT a good plan. We've been pouring money into the public school system for decades because teacher unions keep telling us that if we only give them more, this time they'll actually start teaching the kids. Honest this time. Really. We mean it. How much money do you think actually goes to education in this state? Do you know?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtaoe-1d6-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Or, if you don't have the attention span to watch those: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBNvnTUrfM
Or, if you can't even sit through a ten minute video: http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/200909_blog_coulson1.jpg (please note that the graph is adjusted for inflation) Thank you Bluefalcon. This country spends more money per capita than any other country and yet our students test scores have not changed. It is not the amount of money spent on education, it is the educational system that has a problem and clearly money is not solving it! My biggest pet peeve when it comes to talks about education and spending. I don't know how anyone can argue we need more money for the school systems with that being the case. |
|
Hey AZHTF, I will be voting on the 6th, & I was trying to find out which judges might be worth voting for on the 6th, so I decided to see " Who & What " the "Enemy" was recommending... Pretty close to what a lot of you are ( or already have ) voted for. I will also vote NO on all of the props. Just don't know enough about them to trust them!
Definetly NO on Judge John Pelander ! Anyone have a clue to any of the other judges that are on the ballot for the... Court of appeals & the Superior court ?! Just a bunch of meaningless names right now to me. 
Here's what I found to help with info on the judges on the ballots... |