8 ms·

1) I agree volatility is cut which may be favorable. However, 2% is a very low maximum. The overall effect is to reduce taxes, especially on those who held ho

1) I agree volatility is cut which may be favorable. However, 2% is a very low maximum. The overall effect is to reduce taxes, especially on those who held houses long. 2) cities overspending: The better answer is to require neutral-cyclical spending. e.g. if revenues greatly rise, a large % must be placed into a fund. 3) Ignoring federal funds (which tend to be associated with mandates out of the state's hands), the state's expenditures have risen by $18B since 2005 and $25B since 2000. The $20B number represents a 20% rise, which might seem high. But then again inflation accounts for 25% and population growth another 9% - in a sense California is spending less than it was in 2000.

anamax 16y ago
> The overall effect is to reduce taxes, especially on those who held houses long. You say that like it's a bad thing. You're also ignoring the fact that CA's property tax rates tend to be among the highest in the country, even ignoring the various surcharges and so on. (Almost every jurisdiction is at the statutory max. The surcharges in San Jose are almost equal to my base tax.) > 2) cities overspending: The better answer is to require neutral-cyclical spending. e.g. if revenues greatly rise, a large % must be placed into a fund. And then they'll spend the fund.... That's why I mentioned that we have experience with this. After you demonstrate that actually working, we'll talk. In other words, we've heard that story. Excuse us for insisting that you demonstrate that things will be different this time. CA spends far more per person than most other states. What are we getting for it? > But then again inflation accounts for 25% Median wages haven't gone up by 25% since 2000, so why would govt expenses, which are wage-dominated, have gone up significantly? Oh yes, more govt employees, higher govt wages, and better govt pensions.

anamax 16y ago

> The overall effect is to reduce taxes, especially on those who held houses long. You say that like it's a bad thing. You're also ignoring the fact that CA's property tax rates tend to be among the highest in the country, even ignoring the various surcharges and so on. (Almost every jurisdiction is at the statutory max. The surcharges in San Jose are almost equal to my base tax.) > 2) cities overspending: The better answer is to require neutral-cyclical spending. e.g. if revenues greatly rise, a large % must be placed into a fund. And then they'll spend the fund.... That's why I mentioned that we have experience with this. After you demonstrate that actually working, we'll talk. In other words, we've heard that story. Excuse us for insisting that you demonstrate that things will be different this time. CA spends far more per person than most other states. What are we getting for it? > But then again inflation accounts for 25% Median wages haven't gone up by 25% since 2000, so why would govt expenses, which are wage-dominated, have gone up significantly? Oh yes, more govt employees, higher govt wages, and better govt pensions.