What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

California will soon be the world's 5th largest economy. (1 Viewer)

HSR in CA is a joke. Behind schedule and over budget already. Ridership projections are way too high, as are fares. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Please show a similar set of policies that were put in place in a similar period of time in California prior to 2011 that resulted in 10% unemployment.  Or more importantly an unemployment rate that was out of line with similar states that did not enact such policies.

ETA: The author's list is here

So this is factually wrong?

  • California has made major investments in public infrastructure. In 2014, the state allocated 25 percent of the revenue raised from its cap and trade program to the construction of its high-speed rail link between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. During the 2014 election, California voters approved $7.5 billion in bond financing to improve the state’s water infrastructure
Click to expand...
The article itself points out why what you are asking is flawed.

The analyses discussed above compare California to an average of Republican-controlled states on various economic and social indicators in order to evaluate the effects of the CPM. But this may not be an appropriate comparison. The Republican states may differ from California in ways that bring bias into the comparison.

The articles’ examples of “major investment” are actually factually wrong. 

Less than 5% of the water bond money has actually been spent.  The legislature can’t agree on what to do with it.  To be considered a “major investment” the money has to actually be invested. 

25% of revenue raised from cap and trade ends up being less than 0.25% of an annual California budget.  I don’t consider that a “major investment”.  I don’t see how anyone could.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
The article itself points out why what you are asking is flawed.

The analyses discussed above compare California to an average of Republican-controlled states on various economic and social indicators in order to evaluate the effects of the CPM. But this may not be an appropriate comparison. The Republican states may differ from California in ways that bring bias into the comparison.

The articles’ examples of “major investment” are actually factually wrong. 

Less than 5% of the water bond money has actually been spent.  The legislature can’t agree on what to do with it.  To be considered a “major investment” the money has to actually be invested. 

25% of revenue raised from cap and trade ends up being less than 0.25% of an annual California budget.  I don’t consider that a “major investment”.  I don’t see how anyone could.
Click to expand...
The make up of the comparison states is not evidence of whether or not "California’s policy on the environment, worker’s rights, taxation, the continued expansion of Medical have been the same for the last 20 years".   And the study is not factually inaccurate because infrastructure projects briefly mentioned are off to slow starts with normal political and environmental challenges.  

 
High speed rail will be a boon to California.  One of the smartest investments this country will ever see.  It's not surprising it's coming from California

I suspect an informal poll would show that the people against the HSR are probably very much for spending 30 billion on a border wall that won't work

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
High speed rail will be a boon to California.  One of the smartest investments this country will ever see.  It's not surprising it's coming from California

I suspect an informal poll would show that the people against the HSR are probably very much for spending 30 billion on a border wall that won't work
Click to expand...
Why use an informal poll?  There are plenty of California voter polls demonstrating how Californian’s currently feel about HSR.

The rail was supposed to go from San Francisco to LA, but public opinion has turned because it ended up being a giant political scam. All of the money is actually being used to buy construction jobs, and votes, in the Central Valley.

 
jonessed said:
Why use an informal poll?  There are plenty of California voter polls demonstrating how Californian’s currently feel about HSR.

The rail was supposed to go from San Francisco to LA, but public opinion has turned because it ended up being a giant political scam. All of the money is actually being used to buy construction jobs, and votes, in the Central Valley.
Click to expand...
The process is one thing and I don't know who to believe on with all that garbage.

Project wise it is a brilliant idea

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
The process is one thing and I don't know who to believe on with all that garbage.

Project wise it is a brilliant idea
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter.  The few who can’t wait to rocket themselves from Fresno to Bakersfield are bound to be disappointed.  Democrats are fleeing from it.  It’s largely being driven by Brown who is at the tail end of his last term.  They are at least $60B short on funding (and likely much, much more).  With no public or political support it has no chance.  Even Newsome finally threw in the towel.

HSR from LA to SF was a fantastic idea, but it was a lie.  Brown never had any intention of building it from LA to SF.  Once voters figured that out it was dead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed said:
It doesn’t matter.  The few who can’t wait to rocket themselves from Fresno to Bakersfield are bound to be disappointed.  Democrats are fleeing from it.  It’s largely being driven by Brown who is at the tail end of his last term.  They are at least $60B short on funding (and likely much, much more).  With no public or political support it has no chance.  Even Newsome finally threw in the towel.

HSR from LA to SF was a fantastic idea, but it was a lie.  Brown never had any intention of building it from LA to SF.  Once voters figured that out it was dead.
Click to expand...
The problem is thusly Politics. Not HSR.

 
jonessed said:
It doesn’t matter.  The few who can’t wait to rocket themselves from Fresno to Bakersfield are bound to be disappointed.  Democrats are fleeing from it.  It’s largely being driven by Brown who is at the tail end of his last term.  They are at least $60B short on funding (and likely much, much more).  With no public or political support it has no chance.  Even Newsome finally threw in the towel.

HSR from LA to SF was a fantastic idea, but it was a lie.  Brown never had any intention of building it from LA to SF.  Once voters figured that out it was dead.
Click to expand...
the first stage of CA HSR - Wasco to Merced -  is only 43% over budget.

and they haven't even begun trying to tunnel through mountains.

absolute. #######. joke.

 
It’s good news. But I see problems on the horizon. One is that the Democrats want to get rid of Propisition 13 for all commercial properties. (All properties in California are subject to Prop 13 which states that their value for taxation purposes can only be reassessed after sale or major improvements.) 

I’m not opposed to raising taxes but this would have a huge negative impact on small business. Common area charges on small retail would go through the roof. Lets not kill the goose that’s laying the golden eggs! 

 
<Pulls up talking points from right wing anti-tax think tanks>

Hmm, yes, prop 13 is good. All kneel down and worship at the altar of the mostly imaginary small businesses that will be hurt by every tax plan.

Prop 13 is just rent control for land owners and it contributes to the bad housing market by reducing home turnover, as well shifting the burden on paying taxes from corporations and older people who tend to have more money to younger people who tend to have less money. There is no reason why my parents property taxes should be 10% of what mine are for a similarly valued house. If a certain amount of tax dollars are needed to fund things, repealing prop 13 could lead to a decrease in other taxes in a more fair manner assuming we want to stay budget neutral. Alternatively it could be used to fund additional services with the extra billions it would generate. 

I am the sole inheritor of two houses in the bay area, one bought in the 40's and one bought in the 60's, so I benefit from prop 13. It is still a terrible policy and it should be repealed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
<Pulls up talking points from right wing anti-tax think tanks>

Hmm, yes, prop 13 is good. All kneel down and worship at the altar of the mostly imaginary small businesses that will be hurt by every tax plan.

Prop 13 is just rent control for land owners and it contributes to the bad housing market by reducing home turnover, as well shifting the burden on paying taxes from corporations and older people who tend to have more money to younger people who tend to have less money. There is no reason why my parents property taxes should be 10% of what mine are for a similarly valued house. If a certain amount of tax dollars are needed to fund things, repealing prop 13 could lead to a decrease in other taxes in a more fair manner assuming we want to stay budget neutral. Alternatively it could be used to fund additional services with the extra billions it would generate. 

I am the sole inheritor of two houses in the bay area, one bought in the 40's and one bought in the 60's, so I benefit from prop 13. It is still a terrible policy and it should be repealed. 
Click to expand...
First off I wasn’t referring to residential valuations, only to commercial. The proposal is only to repeal the commercial part, because the legislators are too afraid to repeal the residential part. 

Beyond that even if I agreed with your argument (and I agree with some of it) I am NEVER for sudden changes like this. As a commerical property manager I can guarantee you that landlords will not absorb a large hike in property taxes; they will pass them along. Corporate tenants will be able to absorb them; small tenants won’t. The net result will be higher expenses to the consumer and more small businesses failing and more corporations taking over. This will not be a good thing. 

 
huthut said:
shifting the burden on paying taxes from corporations and older people who tend to have more money to younger people who tend to have less money. There is no reason why my parents property taxes should be 10% of what mine are for a similarly valued house. If a certain amount of tax dollars are needed to fund things, repealing prop 13 could lead to a decrease in other taxes in a more fair manner assuming we want to stay budget neutral. Alternatively it could be used to fund additional services with the extra billions it would generate. 
Click to expand...
:wub:

 
timschochet said:
First off I wasn’t referring to residential valuations, only to commercial. The proposal is only to repeal the commercial part, because the legislators are too afraid to repeal the residential part. 

Beyond that even if I agreed with your argument (and I agree with some of it) I am NEVER for sudden changes like this. As a commerical property manager I can guarantee you that landlords will not absorb a large hike in property taxes; they will pass them along. Corporate tenants will be able to absorb them; small tenants won’t. The net result will be higher expenses to the consumer and more small businesses failing and more corporations taking over. This will not be a good thing. 
Click to expand...
I think the commercial part is much worse than residential, and should be repealed first. There are many ways to game the system where the tax value is never reassessed even after the ownership of the building changes.

 
huthut said:
There are many ways to game the system where the tax value is never reassessed even after the ownership of the building changes.
Click to expand...
Really? Please clue me in as my clients would love to hear them. I could make a ton of money with this information. What do you got? 

 
Apparently if you buy something and no one assumes >50% ownership?

https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-finally-had-enough-of-prop-13/

"Nine years ago, when the computer magnate Michael Dell was planning to buy the old Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica, his tax lawyers urged him to rethink the purchase. If Dell became the sole owner of that prime beachfront property, its value would be subject to a reassessment that would significantly raise the property taxes. But if he could find a way to buy it so that no single owner could claim more than 50 percent of the property, no reassessment would take place.

Dell’s team urged him to rewrite the contract. In the revised deal, an entity 99 percent owned by Dell bought 42.5 percent of the hotel; an entity run by Dell’s wife, Susan, acquired 49 percent; and a third company, also ­majority-owned by Dell, bought the remaining 8.5 percent. This preserved the legal fiction that no single person or entity owned more than 50 percent of the hotel, and as a result the Dells were able to avoid paying market-­rate property taxes on their $200 million investment. Los Angeles County asked the Assessment Board to take another look, which it did. But Dell challenged the board’s reassessment, and ultimately a Court of Appeals upheld the fiction. The Dells would not have to pay higher taxes on the Miramar Hotel, which, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles Times, would have amounted to about $1 million per year."
Click to expand...

 
How was it caught? I am not sure if there is some follow up article you are referring to, but it says right there that he was able to keep it at the previously assessed value and pay lower taxes?

 
The main point I am trying to stress to you huthut, is that whenever you do these things it’s never  the big boys that get hurt. They can find ways around it, or pass it on. It’s the small people that get hurt, particularly small businesses. The reason youbhear this complaint made a lot is because it’s true.  

 
huthut said:
How was it caught? I am not sure if there is some follow up article you are referring to, but it says right there that he was able to keep it at the previously assessed value and pay lower taxes?
Click to expand...
I’ll have to look but I think they changed some of the laws since. In any case it won’t work for small landlords. Even limited liability corporations are carefully scrutinized these days, as is forming a corporation in another state and then having that corporation own the property- that doesn’t work either. 

 
How do you define a small business? Usually when you hear small business it is just Republican speak for trying to massively benefit large corporations while trying to sell it to the yokels. If you mean landlords for smaller units like duplexes or whatever, I doubt they are rolling the cost savings into their tenants rent anyway, so there is really no benefit for anyone but that specific landlord which does not seem like a good thing to base policy around.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
How do you define a small business? Usually when you hear small business it is just Republican speak for trying to massively benefit large corporations while trying to sell it to the yokels. 
Click to expand...
I define small business as owned by the guy who runs it on a daily basis. A nail shop, a donut shop, a cleaners. I walk in and the person that greets me at the door is often the owner of the establishment. That’s a small business. 

My real estate company is owned by my father and myself. That’s a small business. I agree that Republicans often extend this term for their own purposes. 

 
I am sure a lot of businesses would be more profitable if they did not have to pay taxes, what makes those special? Especially if somehow prop 13 is fixed the property tax could probably get lower and benefit all small businesses using your example, not just ones that were founded 20-30 years ago. Why should one nail salon pay $1000 in taxes a month and another $10,000?

 
huthut said:
I am sure a lot of businesses would be more profitable if they did not have to pay taxes, what makes those special? Especially if somehow prop 13 is fixed the property tax could probably get lower and benefit all small businesses using your example, not just ones that were founded 20-30 years ago. Why should one nail salon pay $1000 in taxes a month and another $10,000?
Click to expand...
If one nail salon is making $10,000 a month, and the other $100,000 a month (although that’s no nail salon I’m aware of) I suppose it’s OK. Otherwise it isn’t. 

I don’t have the answer to your very reasonable concerns. I simply know that removing commercial properties from Prop 13 protection would have a negative effect on small businesses. Perhaps you believe this negative effect would be outweighed by the positive aspects. I’m very skeptical of this. 

 
timschochet said:
I’ll have to look but I think they changed some of the laws since. In any case it won’t work for small landlords. Even limited liability corporations are carefully scrutinized these days, as is forming a corporation in another state and then having that corporation own the property- that doesn’t work either. 
Click to expand...
So what if it’s scrutinized? If it’s legal that’s not a problem. 

 
Henry Ford said:
So what if it’s scrutinized? If it’s legal that’s not a problem. 
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s legal to manipulate ownership percentages as a means to avoid property reassessment. But I’m no expert on this specific; you’d have to ask an accountant or an attorney. 

 
We have new next door neighbors from California (San Jose area). Said that they moved to Michigan because they couldn't afford to continue living there.

Both had good paying jobs. Their 1300 sq ft house in Calif. sold for over $900,000. Mortgage and taxes were killers.

Michigan house they bought was a little over 2,000 sq ft. and paid @ $240,000 for it.

 
badmojo1006 said:
Jerry Brown has signed his final budget which leaves California with a 13.8 billion dollar surplus. He started 8 years ago with a 27 billion deficit

Not bad for Governor Moonbeam
Click to expand...
That is very impressive.

How much schtick did he get for:  "By spring, he convinced lawmakers to cut $8.2 billion from programs like higher education, daytime elderly care services and doctor visits for the poor."?  That's a lot of coin being "taken from the children and the vulnerable" (a Con would have been crucified).  Takes guts.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
921
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
937
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
[icon]
"Anatomy of the Deep State" - Unsettling look at American Poli
Replies
1
Views
800
Slapdash
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top