FanDuel - WFBC

April 07, 2010

Arena League Purposely Avoided California: Now that it has returned to play after a year's hiatus, the Arena Football League is avoiding a return to California partially due to the state's workers compensation system, which allows retired players to receive $100,000 or more for claims. The AFL's insurance covers all of its 15 teams, but had a California franchise been added, "California brings such high and uncertain liability for football-related injuries that an ownership group there would probably have to absorb most of the insurance cost for all the teams itself."

posted by rcade to football at 10:45 AM - 44 comments

Thats California the most expensive place to do business. Taxes and regulation are killing business here. Special thanks to those liberal do gooders the state is going broke. OOOOOPs I correct myself, it is already broke.

posted by Atheist at 11:24 AM on April 07

Going immediately back to sports after this, but just for the record, it's not as though the right doesn't have a role to play in the woes of the Golden State.

posted by beaverboard at 11:37 AM on April 07

Hopefully someone will delete Atheist's comment before this degrades.

Atheist- I'd think you'd know better. What exactly did you hope to gain from your post? Grow up.

posted by DudeDykstra at 01:16 PM on April 07

Atheist, here's a little history lesson.

Proposition 13, passed in 1978 created most of, if not all of the budget issues California faces today. Here's an overview:

The proposition lowered property taxes by rolling back property values to their 1975 value and restricted annual increases in assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except upon (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.

In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds vote majority in local elections for local governments wishing to raise special taxes.

In a nutshell, the Property taxes most states use to pay for the state infrastructure is simply not available. And people who purchased property in the last ten years are subsidizing the home ownership of the elderly homeowners who have stayed in their houses 30 or 40 years because of the ridiculously low property taxes. George Soros pays less property taxes for his beachside mansion than I do for my modest three bedroom home in the valley.

Why is this? Because of the right wing tax revolt of 1978. Howard Jarvis (may he rot in hell) was just an very early version of the republican teabaggers now. And it was Jarvis who led the charge back in 1978.

So maybe you should shut up and learn the situation before you post another stupid comment.

oh and REPEAL PROP 13!

posted by cjets at 04:49 PM on April 07

Given they avoided America for a year (clearly they weren't financially stable if they worried about the recession) -- and fell from NBC to the NFL Network -- should we really care anymore?

posted by jjzucal at 12:58 AM on April 08

What's that? Your business cripples its employees so badly that if you're required to part-cover the costs of those injuries you'll lose money?

I'm not seeing that as a big loss, then.

posted by rodgerd at 04:22 AM on April 08

cjets, with all due respect, to blame cali's problems on a prop. that limits the gov'ts ability to confisicate it citizens money and not blame the true root cause of the problems facing cali and every state and federal gov't in fiscal difficulty, overspending and overregulation; is either disingenuous or coming from a point of view that disrespects the rights of the individual. You mentioned property taxes like they are a panacea for what ails your state,Really? so the cali legislature would somehow become more fiscally responsible if they had more money to spend? How anyone views property taxes as anything more than a unconstitutional gov't intrusion into the lives of it's citizens is beyond me. Property taxes in essence tell you the citizen that you do not own your own home, the gov't does and unless you pay them a fee once or twice a year, they will take it.

I applaud any individual or business like the AFL who avoids high regulation, high tax, states like cali, if for no other reason, to send a message to their legislators that their policies need to be changed.

You told the other poster to "shut up and learn the situation" maybe you should tone it down a little ("teabaggers" nice homophobic insult there) and take some of your own advice, learn a little.. about basic economics, individual liberty, and the principles the USA was founded on. (hint, the right of every citizen to be overtaxed and overreggulated are not among them)

posted by tnip23 at 07:49 AM on April 08

"teabaggers" nice homophobic insult there

Not to take sides, but it's what the current Republican movement named itself. I think we can all agree it was a poor choice of words.

posted by yerfatma at 08:34 AM on April 08

How anyone views property taxes as anything more than a unconstitutional gov't intrusion into the lives of it's citizens is beyond me. Property taxes in essence tell you the citizen that you do not own your own home ...

That's ridiculous. You elected the government bodies that set the tax rate on your home and decide how the money is spent. You can vote them out of office if you don't like what you're paying or what it's being spent on. Your state constitution and the U.S. Constitution both decree the power of their respective governments to tax the citizens.

If you have children in public schools or you attended one yourself, you benefited from the payment of property taxes. Nearly half of all property taxes in the U.S. are spent on elementary and secondary schools.

posted by rcade at 09:30 AM on April 08

Hate to get into this but--US Constitution; Article 1, Section 8 [1] - "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..."

That, of course is on a national level. I am not familiar with the California Constitution, but I imagine it gives their legislature a similar right. Like rcade said, the remedy to taxes you disagree with is political; you can vote those responsible out of office or you can move elsewhere. The Arena league did what was appropriate to their agenda; they stayed out of a political subdivision with whom they did not agree.

"Overtaxed" and "overregulated" are matters of opinion. Some lean toward less, some lean toward more, but taintstains like Glen Beck who accuse those who disagree with them of somehow being unpatriotic or unAmerican for not having opinions homogeneous with their own show a base misunderstanding of this country's constitution. As did at least one previous poster. If you'd like to read the Constitution, I'm sure there is a copy available at your local library (your tax dollars at work).

posted by tahoemoj at 10:27 AM on April 08

For the record the reason Californians voted for Prop 13 back in the day was that there were people of modest incomes that purchased homes for $30,000 that could not afford to keep their homes because real estate bubbles were over inflating the paper values to ridiculous levels and they could not afford the assessed taxes as a inflated market might assess their house at $700,000. Prop 13 put assessed tax levels in line with what the homes were purchased for or changed hands for and capped a tax to a reasonable inflation rate. So for someone who may have retired in a paid for home and might be on social security would not be assessed unaffordable taxes because now the value is determined to be whatever. California prospered long after prop 13.

The issue in California is the state over spends, while at the same time is over taxes and over regulates its workers, and businesses. Every year lawmakers fail to reach a budget and we are threatened with government shut down, IOUs for our state income tax refunds , and government vendors and employees. The tax and regulatory environment here not only prevents new businesses from starting up, as the article demonstrates, but it has chased a multitude of business out of the state to more business friendly states. Even the entertainment business has fled California.

I made a couple of sentence comment reflecting exactly what has kept the AFL out of California, and frankly there is a very good reason why the NFL does not have a team in what is probably the most lucrative market in the entire country, Los Angeles and its metropolitan area. The over taxed citizens of a broke city, refuse to contribute more tax money to build rich NFL owners a new stadium. I run a California business that closed our Ca. factory and 60 workers lost their jobs due to the very issue discussed in the article, which has nothing to do with property tax revenue. One point that seems to elude a lot of people is that it isn't just the percentage rate of property tax that makes it excessive, in California you have to pay a lot of money for very little house, and when your annual property tax on a very average 1500 sq ft house is $7500 per year, the state is getting plenty.

posted by Atheist at 11:31 AM on April 08

Yerfatma--the terms tea party and teabagger are completly different. The tea party movement is a non-partisan movement taking their name from the original boston tea party carried out by the Son's of Liberty in reaction to tyrannical taxation. The term teabagger was adopted by some snarky, leftist, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher types as an insult to those they disagreed with in the tea party. Teabagging is a sex act, Tea partier would be the correct term.

Rcade, I see nothing ridiculous about believing that once I purchase something with my hard earned $, that it should be mine and not the gov'ts. Read your history of the founding of our nation. The founders valued the right to private property very highly. The preamble was to include the rights to life, liberty, and private property. However because of the concern that some slave owners would take this to mean that a human being's ownership could be considered a God-given right, it was changed to "pursuit of happiness". The founders would have neve abided a property tax or many of the inumerable, truly ridiculous taxes we have in this country today.

Also I have a huge problem with prop. taxes going to public education. Education was never intended to be run by the gov't. Still if we must have public education (which I believe we now must in some form), the only fair way to pay is for a tax on parents such as myself. However, I suppose this "extreme" constitutional approach would require too much personal responsibility for some

posted by tnip23 at 12:34 PM on April 08

The founders would have neve abided a property tax or many of the inumerable, truly ridiculous taxes we have in this country today.

So you are an expert of constitutional interpretation? Or are you parroting something you heard at a tea party meeting? Again, you are asserting that your value system is the correct interpretation of the constitution, which was meant to be a dynamic, timeless document which could accommodate multiple views by instituting a political system that would change according to the will of the people.


Also I have a huge problem with prop. taxes going to public education.

I think you kind of overplayed your hand there. How do you think America got to where it is today in terms of world stature? You think kids here are just born smarter than anywhere else?

posted by tahoemoj at 12:57 PM on April 08

cjets - while your opinion is that Howard Jarvis should rot in hell, and I should shut up because in your opinion my comment was stupid or disagrees with you, I think you should take a serious look at your discussion technique. I never mentioned property tax per se and the entire issue is basically off topic in the sense that the article clearly was proof of at least one business purposely avoiding the state of CA, because of a tax and regulatory environment, despite the fact that it is a huge market. This is common in this state. I suspect your bitterness may come from being negatively impacted by some aspect of Prop 13 which really has nothing to do with business fleeing or staying away from California. All it ever did was allow people to keep from loosing their homes due to excessive taxes.

posted by Atheist at 01:00 PM on April 08

The term teabagger was adopted by some snarky, leftist, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher types as an insult to those they disagreed with in the tea party.

Bill Maher, leftist ? News to me.

posted by tommytrump at 01:57 PM on April 08

tommytrump?? Maher, not leftist??? Watch his show lately? He is to the left of Michael Moore.

tahoemoj: Not a constitutional expert, nor do I need to be. Just study the federalist papers, the constitution, and the founders and tell me how a group of people who placed extreme value on private property rights and fought a war against a tyrannical gov't over taxation would be for property taxes.

I'm not a member of any tea party group or am I playing a hand here, just expressing what I know and believe. I do believe in public education, not in federal funding of it or of using property taxes to pay for it. Constitutionally, education is a state and local issue and that's where it should be handled. I simply do not care for the way it is funded in many cases and for the federal intervention in a state's issue.

posted by tnip23 at 02:05 PM on April 08

Rcade, I see nothing ridiculous about believing that once I purchase something with my hard earned $, that it should be mine and not the gov'ts.

Move to Somalia. No taxes, no regulation, no government services of any kind. You might have some trouble keeping ownership of your property there, though.

... fought a war against a tyrannical gov't over taxation ...

They fought a war for taxation without representation. Big difference. They were not against all taxation.

I do believe in public education, not in federal funding of it or of using property taxes to pay for it.

Your idea of taxing only parents to fund schools would greatly increase your own tax burden, since you've said that you are a parent. So though you regard some taxes as an unconstitutional government intrusion, you favor a system that would cost you substantially more money.

What are the odds -- if public schools were funded that way -- you would actually favor those taxes?

posted by rcade at 02:42 PM on April 08

Just study the federalist papers, the constitution, and the founders and tell me how a group of people who placed extreme value on private property rights and fought a war against a tyrannical gov't over taxation would be for property taxes.

Neither you nor I know what sort of taxes the founding fathers would support in 2010. What they did unequivocally support was the right of the duly elected legislature to make tax and spend decisions for their constituents. just expressing what I know hear and believe.

posted by tahoemoj at 03:28 PM on April 08

Not a constitutional expert, nor do I need to be. Just study the federalist papers, the constitution, and the founders

It's stunning to me just how literate this country has become with the rise of the Internet. I ran across a gun collectors' forum last week (don't ask) with a 100+ post thread about whether Joe McCarthy was a misunderstood hero. Judging by the comments flying back and forth about obscure books that one would only likely stumble across by . . . doing a search on Amazon or Google for a very specific string, and the absolute insistence that all of the books in question had to be read before one could speak knowledgeably about the subject, there must be some very rich, very obscure non-fiction authors living it up. They're probably all tax exiles too, the bastards.

I'll agree with your first assertion and doubt the rest. My high school history teacher said "life, liberty and property" came from John Locke, not any Founding Father and a cursory search seems to bear him out (though it does not back his suggestion "private property" was changed to "pursuit of happiness" because the FFs didn't have the backbone to leave it in). I know it's the completely unreliable Wikipedia, which contains only incorrect assertions that disagree with people who post crank mash notes on the 'net, but let's drop the pretense anyone is "studying" anything before posting here. I have an issue with the very idea of "studied" materials as Holy Books of Fact because posters on the 'net tend to study things that dovetail with their preconceived notions.

Also, a little consistency in one's position never hurt. Property taxes, ok or not ok?

posted by yerfatma at 03:32 PM on April 08

The term teabagger was adopted by some snarky, leftist, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher types as an insult to those they disagreed with in the tea party.

Yeah, no.

"It should be noted that the term "teabagger" appears on Oxford's list because of the usage cited on that list, not because of any other meaning. Citations for the political sense were found in a number of legitimate sources throughout the year. As a reference to members of the currently active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term "teabagger" is a reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009.

Having deliberated carefully over the word-usage evidence, Oxford's lexicographers are confident in their judgment that "teabagger" the political term stands distinctly apart from "teabagger" the vulgar term."

- Oxford American Dictionary Senior Lexicographer Christine Lindberg (2009)

posted by grum@work at 03:46 PM on April 08

Just study the federalist papers, the constitution, and the founders and tell me how a group of people who placed extreme value on private property rights and fought a war against a tyrannical gov't over taxation would be for property taxes.

No, a reading of the federalist papers and the Constitution won't lead you to that conclusion. The federalist papers (and the Constitution) are very clear that taxes are not the problem. The problem is that taxes have to be applied equally by the people who are being taxed (see Federalist paper #10 for details). Therefore, taxes have to start in a representative body (the legislature). Of course, this is all federal government stuff and completely irrelevant to state law. Nothing in the Federalist Papers or the Constitution speak to property taxes assessed by state and local authorities.


I applaud any individual or business like the AFL who avoids high regulation, high tax, states like cali, if for no other reason, to send a message to their legislators that their policies need to be changed.

And, this pro-business stuff is a little over the top. No, you don't want any business in your state. If a sport is damaging the citizens of your state and costing the state money to care for them, then keep the sport out. The key to prosperity in a state is not a lack of regulation. If that were the case, the states in the south would be the most prosperous. They aren't.

posted by bperk at 03:57 PM on April 08

A lot of arguments here, a few staw men, a few good one's. I'll respond to a couple while I have the time and then I am done. I don't think I am going to convince anyone that values gov't services over individual liberty to think any different, so it's only a vain pursuit.

rcade--your first statement on Somalia, ridiculous, irrelevant, straw dog and not applicable to the discussion.

Secondly saying they fought a war against a tyrannical gov't over taxation and saying it was fought over taxation without representation is the same thing. tyrannical being the key word.

I agree that a parents only tax would increase my burden, but would be fairer than a property tax. A fairer solution, if you agree that society as a whole benefits from a good education system, is an education tax spread equally among all individuals and business' instead of just on the backs of those who own a house or piece of land.

bperk--I basically agree with your first argument on the issues of the constitution and states rights. The issues of property tax and education are ones the federal gov't should have no say over. I still maintain that the founders from everything they said and fought for would not favor a property tax, but either way it is a state and local issue. Just on the grounds of fairness/morality I disagree with any tax that allows the gov't to take a person's bought and paid for home, for non payment of a tax on that home.

Also, I am pro individual and pro-freedom, not pro-business. California, NY, NJ, and all the high tax/high reg./big spending states get just what they deserve when they have these self-inflicted fiscal crises. I don't believe any business is too big to fail and the same goes for states. The AFL is in plenty of other states that don't have cali's unfriendly regulations.

posted by tnip23 at 04:51 PM on April 08

A fairer solution, if you agree that society as a whole benefits from a good education system, is an education tax spread equally among all individuals and business' instead of just on the backs of those who own a house or piece of land.

Unless you think that landlords are eating the cost of property taxes, rather than factoring them into their rental price, property taxes affect more than homeowners.

I don't see what the problem is here. I went to a public school in Texas and got an education that enabled me to buy a house in adulthood. I bought a house knowing that property taxes would fund the public schools, and I chose the location of my home based in part on the reputation of some local schools.

posted by rcade at 05:21 PM on April 08

My use of teabagger is both pejorative and ironic (because it was the tea party who first used that word). It was meant to be insulting but not homophobic (how ironic that a right winger would call me homophobic. How many pro gay marriage rallies have you been to Tnip?)

while your opinion is that Howard Jarvis should rot in hell, and I should shut up because in your opinion my comment was stupid or disagrees with you, I think you should take a serious look at your discussion technique.

Once again I revel in the irony. Athiest, you began this conversation with a LIBERALS SUCK AMIRITE? troll of a post. I'd agree that I was less than civil but at least I backed up my point with a link and an explanation. And Howard Jarvis should still rot in hell.

Prop 13 put assessed tax levels in line with what the homes were purchased for or changed hands for and capped a tax to a reasonable inflation rate. So for someone who may have retired in a paid for home and might be on social security would not be assessed unaffordable taxes because now the value is determined to be whatever. California prospered long after prop 13.

1% is too low. And an inflation rate of 2% is too low. And the outcome is staggeringly unfair. Longtime home owners pay something like $500 for their property taxes. Newer homeowners (2000 and beyond) pay $8000 to $10000 for a house identical in value. How is that an equitable distribution of taxes.

Why should homeowners who purchased a home in 2000 or beyond subsidize a long time home owner?

I do believe in public education, not in federal funding of it or of using property taxes to pay for it. Constitutionally, education is a state and local issue and that's where it should be handled.

Property tax is a state issue, not federal. No one is talking about federal funding of education. And if you do believe in public education how is the state supposed to pay for it?

Good Public Education (like public health care) is the responsibility of a mature society. It is also a great benefit to all of society. Prop 13 has crippled CA's ability to do that.

ON PREVIEW: What RCADE said.

posted by cjets at 05:55 PM on April 08

Also I have a huge problem with prop. taxes going to public education. Education was never intended to be run by the gov't.

You have a cite for this? Or is this just another right wing talking point?

posted by cjets at 05:59 PM on April 08

tommytrump?? Maher, not leftist??? Watch his show lately? He is to the left of Michael Moore.

Please realize that I live in Canuckistan, and perhaps my idea of leftist (and what is wrong with being liberal, anyway) ? is different from yours.

That said, Bill Maher strikes me as being quite conservative on some issues.

posted by tommytrump at 06:00 PM on April 08

Bill Maher strikes me as being quite conservative on some issues

In hopes of helping all involved, I will go into my Libertarian spiel here, because Bill Maher claims to be one. I posit there is no such thing as a Libertarian. Conceptually there is and I tend to agree with the theoretical Libertarian positions. In practice, however, people who describe themselves as Libertarian are actually:

  • rabidly pro-guns
  • rabidly pro-pot
  • contrarian assholes who think they're smarter than everyone else
Maher fits at least the latter two. You can't really use him as an example on any topic because his position is always that you're stupid and he's smart.

posted by yerfatma at 06:37 PM on April 08

Ok, i thought I was done and this will be my last post. Buuuttt. cjets, how in the name of anything you consider sacred can you blame Californias problems on lack of taxing? I agree that direct democracy is no way to run a nation, that is why we are a representitive republic. However, I also live in a blue state (PA) and envy cali's binding referendums and recalls, as here as elsewhere, we have a ton of corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. I guess you value services and gov't control more than personal freedom. I think money is better spent in the hands of those who earned/created it, gov't does neither. You and others here may label me a right winger, I am a libertatian, a true liberal, who believes in less gov't at every level. Leave me alone so I can become the best that I can and do what I want as long as I don't hurt anyone else. I don't believe in trading freedom for security or comfort. That's what Reagan and many conservative's espouse until they get into social issues.

Gov't interference via taxes and regulation to support gov't programs,entitlements, and over the top enviromental concerns has put California in the situation they are in. Across the board tax cuts have raised revenue every time they have been tried on a national level, whether it was JFK, Reagan, or the evil GWB. To blame under taxation on Californias problems is folly.

Finally, I only wish the best for any man, woman, and child, as I believe most people do. I just believe the way for that to happen is for all of us to have as much freedom to pursue happiness as possible, and that doesn't happen when you have a few "elites" dictating on high what is best for us, instead of letting us live our lives and determine it for ourselves. Some are always going to be better off than others, gov't can let us free to determine our fate or try to fix us and make us all equal, equal in misery that is. Life isn't fair, but it's a whole lot fairer if the individual can decide how to live his life and not the gov't.

edit-now i se yerfatamamams post about libertarians and can only beg to differ. I believe in the 2nd amendment applying to citizens and I don't really care about pot, but it is a plant--should we criminalize it? However the libertarian viewpoint is the antithesis of thinking you're smarter than everyone else. It instead espouses that each person should decide their own life direction with as little interference from the gov't as possible. Maher represents the Progressive point of view, as does our current POTUS, the progressives have always believed that an elite few know better and they should decide for everyone else. That is a pov on the tyranny side of the spectrum, while libertarianism falls closer to the anarchy side.

posted by tnip23 at 06:43 PM on April 08

However the libertarian viewpoint is the antithesis of thinking you're smarter than everyone else

You misunderstand me. I think we agree on most of that. What I'm saying is people who describe themselves as Libertarians (like Bill Maher) tend to be something else.

posted by yerfatma at 07:18 PM on April 08

Buuuttt. cjets, how in the name of anything you consider sacred can you blame Californias problems on lack of taxing?

In Atheist's original post, he said that California is broke. Prop 13 is the reason why. Here are some more residual effects: Our state income tax went up. Our sales tax went up. Public services are being eliminated while things like car registrations are going up. All of this to cover the shortfall caused by prop 13.

And because the public schools are so weak, I will probably have to send all three of my kids to private high schools. That's a minimum of $300K. Once again thanks to prop 13 (I got my kindergartner in a magnet school program and my wife and I celebrated like he got in Harvard).

I guess you value services and gov't control more than personal freedom. I think money is better spent in the hands of those who earned/created it, gov't does neither.

What nonsense. I value civilization. I pay taxes so that government can provide the services that I can not provide myself. Like a police department and a fire department and the military. Like roads and highways and street lights and access to water and power. The list goes on and on and on.

There is a cost to civilization. It's called taxes.

I agree that most politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt venal scumbags. I wish I knew how to fix this. But six years after the Terminator recalled Grey Davis, things are even worse in CA and for the same reason. Prop 13.

posted by cjets at 07:49 PM on April 08

Our state income tax went up. Our sales tax went up. Public services are being eliminated while things like car registrations are going up. All of this to cover the shortfall caused by prop 13.

oh and REPEAL PROP 13!

You elected the government bodies that set the tax rate on your home and decide how the money is spent. You can vote them out of office if you don't like what you're paying or what it's being spent on. AMIRITE?

Or just move to Somalia.

Prop 13 was passed under a democrat governor. You've had Boxer and Feinstein for like twenty years. Who the heck are you talking to?

Can I call Pelosi a taintstain around here and get away with it?

The term teabagger is a political epithet used by critics of the American Tea Party movement.

posted by tselson at 10:54 PM on April 08

The term teabagger was a self-adopted term of the Tea Party movement before it was adopted by critics because it was so damn funny the other side was using it. I don't think people should use the term and avoid using it myself, but acting like it always was a slur is misleading.

posted by rcade at 11:09 PM on April 08

You elected the government bodies that set the tax rate on your home and decide how the money is spent. You can vote them out of office if you don't like what you're paying or what it's being spent on. AMIRITE?

And in this case, prop 13 was passed by the people of California themselves. So what? CA has added almost 500 amendments to its State Constitution. More evidence that direct democracy doesn't work. Prop 13 also contained a poison pill. It requires a 2/3 vote requirement for any new taxes. (By the way, U.S. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have nothing to do with state property taxes. The governors of CA for the last twenty years have largely been republican).

Who am I talking to? Anyone that will listen. Anyone who might share the same values of enlightened self interest. People that realize that an educated public and a healthy public will ultimately benefit me in the long run.

posted by cjets at 11:45 PM on April 08

Can I call Pelosi a taintstain around here and get away with it?

Most likely; and I happen to think it's kind of a funny word. But I reserve the right to respond with this.

posted by tahoemoj at 11:52 PM on April 08

By the way, U.S. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have nothing to do with state property taxes. The governors of CA for the last twenty years have largely been republican).

I'm not letting you count the governator as a Republican. I don't know wtf he's all about. So that about evens up the Governor thing.

So Boxer should shut up then?

posted by tselson at 12:13 AM on April 09

I'd rather listen to you bash me for the Jets beating the Bengals (twice) than discuss this crap. But, we've been down this road before. Alas, your still a dick and I can't quit you;)

And tahoe, I think a lot words are funny. Taintstain, is pretty damn gross no matter who you're referring to. That's like just my opinion.

posted by tselson at 12:23 AM on April 09

ON PREVIEW: Same here T, some of my best friends are republicans.

posted by cjets at 12:26 AM on April 09

People that realize that an educated public and a healthy public will ultimately benefit me in the long run.

That "me" really should be "all of us."

Damn. I really thought I'd nailed that.

posted by cjets at 12:32 AM on April 09

Most likely ...

This subject is so political that I let it slide along with some other hard-edged comments. It would not be good if taintstain escaped this discussion into the wild.

posted by rcade at 09:31 AM on April 09

Ironically, today is considered tax freedom day in the USA. Today is the day when the average American has worked enough days for the year to cover his federal and state tax obligations and can finally start to keep his earnings. Also it was announced that government statistics show on average individuals are paying more money in combined taxes (ie federal, state, local, gas etc..) than we do for food, shelter and clothing combined.

cjets - I will reiterate - I never mentioned Prop 13 in my original post. My comment was about a liberal state government that has over taxed, and over regulated business to the point that doing business in this state is very undesirable for employers. Businesses are leaving the state, and rather than making it attractive for business they have created a situation that is driving business away. Which is why the AFL bypassed the state and in the state lost revenue and jobs were not created. Their answer to this is rather than giving incentives for business to come to California which in turn increases employment and state revenue, they want to continue spending, increase tax burdens and ignore the will of the residents. Your argument about Prop 13 is like saying if you bought a TV in 1990 and paid tax on the purchase, when TV's in 2010 cost five times as much, lets send a new bill to the owners of those TVs and make them pay more tax. For the record, yes prop 13 does allow people to pay a property tax on the value of a house at the time they purchase it. Of course the tax remains low until that house is resold, or a upgraded or building permit is granted which will trigger a reassessment of its new market value and increase the taxes accordingly. So why should a person who in 1960 bought a home for all they could afford for $30,000, is probably living on a fixed income, could not afford to buy their own house back even if they were to sell it at current market prices, as the new assessment would be a tax burden that is unaffordable. Maybe I just believe once you have bought and paid for your home, the government should not be able to reassess the value and create a tax burden beyond your ability to pay, that in turn, would allow them to seize it or force its sale. If a person ever sells their home, upgrades it or repurchases another, then of course the state gets their fair share in the event of any transaction.

posted by Atheist at 02:41 PM on April 09

Your argument about Prop 13 is like saying if you bought a TV in 1990 and paid tax on the purchase, when TV's in 2010 cost five times as much, lets send a new bill to the owners of those TVs and make them pay more tax.

Really? That's your comparison? TV's will never appreciate in value over the years. Real Estate can. If my house and a neighbor's house are both worth $500K, we should both pay taxes on $500K. TV's? Really?

And the flip side is also true, if the houses depreciate in value, then the taxes could depreciate as well.

So why should a person who in 1960 bought a home for all they could afford for $30,000, is probably living on a fixed income, could not afford to buy their own house back even if they were to sell it at current market prices, as the new assessment would be a tax burden that is unaffordable.

If they can't afford the property taxes on a million dollar home (based on fair market value), let them sell the house for fair market value and use that million dollars to rent an apartment.

Why should I subsidize their home ownership? And, by the way, I would be fine if it the taxes were gradually reassessed to bring them up to full market value. Or if FMV were capped at 15% or 20% per year.

There are a lot of reasonable ways to do assess property taxes. Prop 13 is far from one of them.

posted by cjets at 03:08 PM on April 09

Hopefully someone will delete Atheist's comment before this degrades.

How could it degrade? Dudedykstra is a psychic!!

posted by Demophon at 03:33 PM on April 09

Today is the day when the average American has worked enough days for the year to cover his federal and state tax obligations and can finally start to keep his earnings.

Yeah, that's not true. The average American is not paying such a high burden. You should take a look at the Tax Foundation's own literature and calculations.

So why should a person who in 1960 bought a home for all they could afford for $30,000, is probably living on a fixed income, could not afford to buy their own house back even if they were to sell it at current market prices, as the new assessment would be a tax burden that is unaffordable.

Certainly there could have been less drastic options to remedy this particular problem. Apply it to only residential properties or apply it to only owner-occupied houses, for instance.

Still, what are the negative effects of over-regulation? Every state is suffering fiscal crisis right now. California seems to be the worse, but it doesn't seem to be the fault of over-regulation. California has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. You would think that you would be complaining about the disproportion share of federal taxes paid by Californians vs. what you receive back in federal aid.

posted by bperk at 03:40 PM on April 09

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.