California -- America's first failed state?

I'm still waiting for specific programs you consider waste. They had to cut the welfare to work program, even though it would've saved money to keep it. You want to cut school spending? We've already got NCLB unfunded mandates. Road building? Have you taken a drive on the 10 lately? You'll need a new set of struts after you do. Prisons? I haven't heard any Republicans call for lighter sentences for criminals to save money.

Like I said, I choose not to live in a place where businessmen to make huge profits while paying their employees next to nothing, then vote against programs that would let them have a standard of living better than that of the average Bangladeshi.

And you need to decide if I'm heated or blue. Please choose one.

 

The 10 would fall under federal funding, but I get your point. We'll agree to disagree.

I'm not sure why you keep putting down these third world countries. Without the deficit spending that the federal and state governments use, what do you think the United States of America would look like?

 

One of the GF's best friends is a Presby minister in Sonoma County.
The church there offered her the gig and her husband, who is a doctor, took a look and they decided no at first. Even with a doctor's income, they couldn't afford to live there.
The church really wanted her and threw a house into the deal.
So now they have a beautiful, tax-free home and don't even pay utilities.
The church picks up the entire bill.
But when doctors can't afford to live some place, that just screams trouble.

Oh, and in the rest of the world, where retired people live, real estate agents have a term called "California millionaires." Californians who retire and the modest home they bought in the 60s or 70s is suddenly worth a fortune. So they sell, net more than a million bucks and go buy a spread in a place like Mountain Home, Ark., and live like kings.

 

Sonoma County is one of the priciest counties in the whole state, the whole nation. A 1000 sq. ft. home was around $800k.

 

I hope that's what happens with me.

 

Then I suggest you do it soon. That crazy price disparity has to be closing soon, at least if all these stories about Cali's upper middle class fleeing are true. If those demographic trends don't change this will only be the beginning of the real estate collapse out there.

 

Otherwise known as Californicators in this neck of the woods.

 

I bought low. In fact, the house I bought was last sold in 2005 (the height of the bubble) before it foreclosed and was sold to me. I paid 55 percent of what it sold for three years earlier.

 

poindexter"

i've lived in CA -- specifically Manhattan and Hermosa Beaches -- since moving from NYC 15 years ago. I rent.

i think part of the property tax argument -- at least as it manifests here -- is a significant group of long-time owners in these communities pay absurdly low property taxes. As an example, both of my landlords have owned their homes for nearly 40 years; both live here; both paid 70,000 or less and both live no further than three blocks from the beach. Neither pays anywhere close to what their assessed value would be -- nor should they.

But i'd argue they should be paying more than what they paid 40 years ago. For the 700 bucks a year it costs them in taxes, they shouldn't be allowed outside their driveways. The state shouldn't turn into NJ where people are taxed out of their homes, but the immense disparity in property taxes paid (see W. Buffett comment during A. Schwarzenegger running for governor) needs to be addressed.

As too does the referendum process, and the legislative supermajority. But mostly, people of a certain generation here want government services but don't want to pay for them.

 

The joke around here is a few of the schools in the DFW burbs should join the CIF Lone Star Section.

 

Can't believe someone's property taxes would not go up in 40 years. Even if the assessed value stays low, you still likely have more taxes because you have more schools and roads and other things being built.

I live in a state with something similar to Prop 13. When I had my house built 13 years ago, it cost $129,000, and I was paying $2,400 in property taxes.

Today it has a "zillow.com" value of $250,000, and I pay $3,050 in property taxes --- a 25% increase over 13 years.

Without our state's "Prop 13", I would be paying $3,800 --- a 55% increase.

 

Zillow.com is an interesting site, but you have to take their prices with a grain of salt.

I've seen them rate houses at high amounts that were basically abandoned, and ended up being sold for much less amounts than what Zillow said they were worth.