Comments on: How Con Con Could Change Prop. 13

By: Wally

Wally — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:04:02 +0000

Bifurcating business property taxation will only drive still more business out of this state. Eventually, the only “business” that will remain in this state is government. It will be interesting then to watch government employees tax each other for their huge wages, benefits, and 100%-at-age 50, COLA adjusted retirement plans.

By: miquel95929

miquel95929 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:39:13 +0000

I think everyone is in a California’s busted bubble that could crash just like the Housing Market or Wall Street. All we need are a few corrections:
1) A Governor who can govern. I used to think we were stuck w/ the current one till Jan 2011 but I’ve seen the light. Send him to Argentina – he even has his own plane. Let the LTG do the job til the 10TH opens up. 2) Get Rid Of 2/3RDS for Both Budgets & Taxes. 3) Modify 98 so that funds that are debt service do not count toward the cap – at least for a while. Try these 3 simple remedies plus a little time and then see where we are. There’s always time for major surgery later.

By: 1Greensix

1Greensix — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:36:43 +0000

Since major corporations and big landowners paid for Prop 13, and have been the major recipiants of its tax breaks, they should pay for their lack of increased taxes by a corresponding decrease in government services. Corporate farms should not recieve police protection, nor road improvements, nor government water. Big businesses shouldn’t get fire or police protection from local governments. Let them supply their own protection. Don’t fix roads in industrial area nor out in the country where the large farms are located. I’m sure these conservatives don’t mind reducing services for the state’s poor, elderly, young, and sick, so why shouldn’t their services be reduced also. Anyone with any common sense knows that Prop 13 was sold to California’s voters as a way for the elderly and middle class to reduce their taxes, but no one happened to mention that it was the state’s wealthiest families that would harvest the fortunes of tax breaks.

By: jskdn

jskdn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:25:19 +0000

Here’s what I submitted to RepairCalifornia.org:

“If the constitutional convention is representative of the electorate, why does the Bay Area Council have to limit their activities at all? If the convention has that representational legitimacy, that is they are chosen in some random way to create a scientifically accurate sample of the electorate that will be called upon to later ratify whatever they produce, why should a body that doesn’t have representational legitimacy, like the Bay Area Council, substitute their judgment for the conventions? It seems the convention should be able to deliberate and consider whatever changes to the laws and constitution it wishes. I would expect those who perform that duty to consider political realities when deciding what if any legislation or constitutional changes they want to put before the voters. After all isn’t this about creating some body that voters can trust because our existing political system lacks that? Yet the constraints being considered suggest the promoters of the concept don’t have that trust. If you don’t trust them to do the right thing, why should voters? “

By: OC Progressive

OC Progressive — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:52:11 +0000

Erroneously thought I could use blockquotes, but this part was a quote from the Citizens for Tax Justice presentation.

“Reforming California’s property tax, even on a revenue-neutral basis, would significantly improve the fairness of California’s tax system. The gross unfairness imposing widely different taxes on similar homes and businesses should be gradually ended by repealing the current limits on assessment increases.”