If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SacBee)   Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational Democratic supermajority. At least they won't have anyone else to blame when it all falls apart   (sacbee.com) divider line 124
    More: Scary, Democrats, supermajority, President Pro Tem, Steinberg, one-party state, Sacramento County, power corrupts, Jon Coupal  
•       •       •

4852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2012 at 11:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 08:19:40 PM  
Doesn't California actually have to be considered "together" before it can fall apart?
 
2012-11-08 08:28:17 PM  
Nice to see fixing their stupid referendum process is on the list.
 
2012-11-08 08:46:59 PM  
So I'm guessing Subby would also say the new Republican supermajority here in TN is bad too, right? After all, they have enough power they can suspend the normal rules of order and do whatever the fark they want.
 
2012-11-08 09:07:15 PM  
Speaking of supermajorities, why is it that Republicans want California to become a red state again? It's seriously their dream every election.
 
2012-11-08 09:28:57 PM  

themindiswatching: Speaking of supermajorities, why is it that Republicans want California to become a red state again? It's seriously their dream every election.


Because, all the leaves are brown, and the sky is gray.
 
2012-11-08 09:45:09 PM  
This should be... interesting

MorrisBird: themindiswatching: Speaking of supermajorities, why is it that Republicans want California to become a red state again? It's seriously their dream every election.

Because, all the leaves are brown, and the sky is gray.


And 55 Electoral votes

/on a Winter's day
 
2012-11-08 09:53:59 PM  
Anyway, I can definitely see the Democrats farking this up somehow and causing another Proposition 13.
 
2012-11-08 10:04:49 PM  

GAT_00: So I'm guessing Subby would also say the new Republican supermajority here in TN is bad too, right? After all, they have enough power they can suspend the normal rules of order and do whatever the fark they want.


Or the one here in WY.
 
2012-11-08 10:35:39 PM  
No, we can still blame Prop. 13 and Grover Norquist.

This state has been continually f*cked by a pack of scared retirees in the '70s, and the assholes that pandered to them, because inflation would totally last forever, so we can never, ever adjust property taxes or reassess old properties.
 
2012-11-08 10:43:15 PM  

kmmontandon: No, we can still blame Prop. 13 and Grover Norquist.

This state has been continually f*cked by a pack of scared retirees in the '70s, and the assholes that pandered to them, because inflation would totally last forever, so we can never, ever adjust property taxes or reassess old properties.


Most of those retirees from the 70s are long dead. When a property is sold, it gets reassessed and taxed thereafter at current market value. About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?
 
2012-11-08 10:49:30 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?


Remove the 1% property tax rate cap, lock the yearly increase cap to CPI and make Proposition 13 only apply to residential property.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 10:53:39 PM  
Massachusetts has had a Democratic supermajority for a long time. I think the majority will be 37-3 and 127-33 next session. What happens is, the Democrats split into factions. You might call them progressive and traditional, but don't worry too much about the labels. One of the factions chooses a Speaker of the House, who decides how much taxes will go up. The Senate president has a say too. The rank and file mostly do what the boss says. As in parliamentary systems, occasionally they are allowed to vote their conscience instead of following orders.

The last effective thing Massachusetts Republicans did was side with the minority traditional Democrats to block a progressive Speaker. It was like 50 traditional Democrats, 70 progressives, and 40 Republicans. Republicans added their votes to traditional Democrats' to install Thomas Finneran as Speaker. People disagree about whether he was better for Republicans. He was eventually indicted for obstruction of justice, pleaded guilty, was sentenced to probation, and became a talk show host.

And it's true that nobody blames Republican legislators for Massachusetts' problems. It's also true that being a Democrat means you can screw up the state as much as you like. They don't fear being voted out in favor of Republicans. Personal misconduct, drunk driving or drunk groping, is a problem. Professional misconduct and mismanagement is not.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 10:58:46 PM  
MaudlinMutantMollusk

According to a quick Google, California voters passed a law exempting property inherited from parents from reassessment. How many children and grandchildren of 70s retirees are still living in the family house, nearly tax free?
 
2012-11-08 11:22:55 PM  

ZAZ: MaudlinMutantMollusk

According to a quick Google, California voters passed a law exempting property inherited from parents from reassessment. How many children and grandchildren of 70s retirees are still living in the family house, nearly tax free?


Probably some. I did for a while, but it wasn't exactly tax-free. I just inherited the then current tax rate and got the 1.whatever% annual increases while the values were going up. A lot more people who inherited under those circumstances sold while the market was good, so the tax values got reset anyway

themindiswatching: MaudlinMutantMollusk: About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?

Remove the 1% property tax rate cap, lock the yearly increase cap to CPI and make Proposition 13 only apply to residential property.


Works for me

/but then, I'm no longer a property owner, so I shouldn't have much of a say in the issue
 
2012-11-08 11:39:02 PM  
Your kids will meditate in school.
 
2012-11-08 11:39:53 PM  
I'm hoping for an oil extraction tax. We'll see.
 
2012-11-08 11:44:35 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: kmmontandon: No, we can still blame Prop. 13 and Grover Norquist.

This state has been continually f*cked by a pack of scared retirees in the '70s, and the assholes that pandered to them, because inflation would totally last forever, so we can never, ever adjust property taxes or reassess old properties.

Most of those retirees from the 70s are long dead. When a property is sold, it gets reassessed and taxed thereafter at current market value. About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?


That's not really true, though - what many rich(er) people have done is place their houses into ownership by a trust, which then can let the house get passed down to their kids without actually changing ownership of the house and triggering reassessment.
 
2012-11-08 11:44:53 PM  
Holy cow. I'm so used to having resistance to everything ... it's like when that sticky door suddenly stops being sticky and you throw yourself at it and end up sprawled on the bathroom floor and you hadn't even been drinking...
 
2012-11-08 11:45:47 PM  
Well, if there's any state in the union capable of totally screwing the pooch with a Democratic supermajority, it's California.
 
2012-11-08 11:48:07 PM  
Congratulations. Now use this power for good, set an example for the rest of the country, and don't fark it up!
 
2012-11-08 11:49:08 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ZAZ: MaudlinMutantMollusk
/what do you think we should change?

Remove the 1% property tax rate cap, lock the yearly increase cap to CPI and make Proposition 13 only apply to residential property.

Works for me


Me three. Who recommended that? MaudlinMutantMollusk for Governor! Or themindiswatching? ZAZ? I can't tell.

"Whoever can improve Fark's comment quoting for Governor!"
 
2012-11-08 11:49:18 PM  
I have lived in CA for 15 years and I think this is awesome. I find it amusing to hear the Republicans and "Taxpayer" people act like this is something other than the will of the people.

I mean face it, GOP. In the nations largest state and the nation itself your party is being blamed -- and now punished -- for gridlock and failing to meaningfully address the challenges we face. Stop yelling, stop casting blame, and really look at and think about what's happening here.
 
2012-11-08 11:50:40 PM  
Should be interesting the next few years. Surely the population of California will plummet as people flea the state... amirite?
 
2012-11-08 11:51:59 PM  
The phrase super-majority should have no meaning.. It is sick and warped that it has come to be the only majority with any meaning.

Anything too important to be decided by a simple majority of whatever is the legislative body in an area should be decided either by direct democracy or by a supreme court, whichever is appropriate in the case. Things such as tax rates, spending plans etc should never fall into this category. The major items for direct democracy should be changes to the democratic process, and for the courts matters of human rights or interpretation of constitutions.
 
2012-11-08 11:53:34 PM  

theknuckler_33: Should be interesting the next few years. Surely the population of California will plummet as people flea the state... amirite?


I'm hoping...

/I'm hoping
//go ahead... make my commute easier
///I dare you
 
2012-11-08 11:56:58 PM  
In ca a supermajority is required to raise taxes, which is a huge part of the reason why the state continually lurches from one fiscal crisis to another for years on end with nothing getting structurally fixed. The republicans have never even entertained the idea of raising taxes to go along with spending cuts. It's the model of the 2010 Congress, yes, but in CA we've been stuck here for decades now.
 
2012-11-08 11:57:07 PM  
even tho I'm a Dem, there's nothing I hate more than those crooks in Sacramento, from both parties
 
2012-11-09 12:00:27 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Most of those retirees from the 70s are long dead. When a property is sold, it gets reassessed and taxed thereafter at current market value. About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?


Except it doesn't just apply to "retirees from the 70s," nor does the fact that property values have decreased "lately" wipe out 30 years of untaxed value increases.

I'll use myself as an example. Property tax in California is assessed at 1% of assessed value. My home is probably worth, in today's market, around $400K. A couple of years ago, it was probably worth $550K. So my tax should be, what, $4000/yr?

That's less than what my neighbor's property tax is (even though her house is smaller and with less than mine), because she bought hers about 2 years ago, and it was reassessed then. Mine's only about $1700/yr, though, because I bought mine in at the bottom of the market in 1997 and paid only around $130K, and due to Prop 13 the cap on increases hasn't even remotely kept up with the value. How is it fair that my neighbor (a senior citizen, incidentally--the group that Prop 13 was sold as protecting) pays $4500/yr for her smaller, lower value house, whole I pay only $1700 for mine, solely by virtue of when I bought it?

My situation is not the exception--it's the rule. If it weren't for Prop 13, taxes could be equalized, and the percentage rate could be lowered, though based on current value--old farts who owned their home a long time would have a somewhat larger bill, but younger people and other newer buyers would see large tax decreases, and revenue as a whole would increase.

Then, of course, there's the problem that Prop 13--which was sold as a way to keep grandma and grandpa in the family home, also applies to commercial properties. Not only that, commercial landowners completely avoid reassessment even on sale of the property. The do this by holding title in the name of a corporation or other fictitious entity, and instead of selling the "property" they sell 100% of the shares in the holding company (whose only asset is the building). So if the biggest skyscraper in town at 1 Main Street is "owned" by "1 Main Street Management, Inc.," the buyer simply buys 100% of the shares (and assets) of "1 Main Street Management, Inc.," and there's been no change in the title of the property, and thus no transfer of ownership or reassessment under Prop 13 standards. It's a farking scam.

Because California gets little of its tax revenue from property tax--a very stable source of revenue regardless of cyclical economic trends-it's forced to rely on higher income tax and sales tax sources, which are highly dependent on boom-and-bust economic cycles. So when the economy crashes and there's more of a need for government services, California has a lot less income, which puts the state into a double dip death spiral.

Prop 13, more than any other factor, is killing this state.
 
2012-11-09 12:01:22 AM  
I was listening to John and Ken (KFI talk show dickbags) complaining about this, and taking calls from people now moving out of state cause of this.

I'm all

"YOU FIRST, DICKBAGS!" I used to listen to these guys all the time. Then I slowly started to realize they were idiots with a poor grasp on diplomacy, tact, and the actual defintiion of politics. Radio shock-jocks indeed.

They helped out the Tea Party get started in California. They complain about all the brown people (But not black, although I may remember a dogwhistle or two).
 
2012-11-09 12:01:37 AM  

unit63: In ca a supermajority is required to raise taxes, which is a huge part of the reason why the state continually lurches from one fiscal crisis to another for years on end with nothing getting structurally fixed. The republicans have never even entertained the idea of raising taxes to go along with spending cuts. It's the model of the 2010 Congress, yes, but in CA we've been stuck here for decades now.


Yeah... we missed that in our changes to Prop 13 ideas

/I'm not sure I like the idea of a simple majority rule, but the 2/3 thing hasn't been working well at all
//how can we fix that? Set some other percentage as minimum?
 
2012-11-09 12:01:48 AM  
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said it would create a dangerous, one-party rule and leave California "very close to becoming a banana republic."

And I'm sure he'd say the same thing about a GOP supermajority, right? Right?
 
2012-11-09 12:01:55 AM  
Oh man, this should be fun. Let's see if Dem has the ball to raise those taxes.
 
2012-11-09 12:04:24 AM  
Actually, California just voted to raise taxes. That's right folks. We realized we would have to cut expenses and increase revenues to fix our economy so we did it. And what starts in California...
 
2012-11-09 12:04:46 AM  

Cyberluddite: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Most of those retirees from the 70s are long dead. When a property is sold, it gets reassessed and taxed thereafter at current market value. About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?

Except it doesn't just apply to "retirees from the 70s," nor does the fact that property values have decreased "lately" wipe out 30 years of untaxed value increases.

I'll use myself as an example. Property tax in California is assessed at 1% of assessed value. My home is probably worth, in today's market, around $400K. A couple of years ago, it was probably worth $550K. So my tax should be, what, $4000/yr?

That's less than what my neighbor's property tax is (even though her house is smaller and with less than mine), because she bought hers about 2 years ago, and it was reassessed then. Mine's only about $1700/yr, though, because I bought mine in at the bottom of the market in 1997 and paid only around $130K, and due to Prop 13 the cap on increases hasn't even remotely kept up with the value. How is it fair that my neighbor (a senior citizen, incidentally--the group that Prop 13 was sold as protecting) pays $4500/yr for her smaller, lower value house, whole I pay only $1700 for mine, solely by virtue of when I bought it?

My situation is not the exception--it's the rule. If it weren't for Prop 13, taxes could be equalized, and the percentage rate could be lowered, though based on current value--old farts who owned their home a long time would have a somewhat larger bill, but younger people and other newer buyers would see large tax decreases, and revenue as a whole would increase.

Then, of course, there's the problem that Prop 13--which was sold as a way to keep grandma and grandpa in the family home, also applies to commercial properties. Not only that, commercial land ...


OK... your ideas for change, then?

/we've already covered removing the increase cap
 
2012-11-09 12:05:16 AM  
Well, alright. Let's see what they can do.
 
2012-11-09 12:06:36 AM  

theknuckler_33: Surely the population of California will plummet as people flea the state... amirite?


stadium-arcadium.com

Dream of Californication
 
2012-11-09 12:07:21 AM  

themindiswatching: Anyway, I can definitely see the Democrats farking this up somehow and causing another Proposition 13.


Oh great... yet another tard who doesn't know shiat from shinola when it comes to Prop 13.

assets.sbnation.com



/Fricking get out of this state ya fricking moran.
 
2012-11-09 12:08:11 AM  

ZAZ: MaudlinMutantMollusk

According to a quick Google, California voters passed a law exempting property inherited from parents from reassessment. How many children and grandchildren of 70s retirees are still living in the family house, nearly tax free?


Farmers. Don't mess with farmers. They don't have to sell their food to the cities.
 
2012-11-09 12:10:18 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: ZAZ: MaudlinMutantMollusk

According to a quick Google, California voters passed a law exempting property inherited from parents from reassessment. How many children and grandchildren of 70s retirees are still living in the family house, nearly tax free?

Farmers. Don't mess with farmers. They don't have to sell their food to the cities.


Engineers. Don't mess with Engineers. They can build farms in the middle of the cities and we don't have to buy from farmers.
 
2012-11-09 12:11:24 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk:
themindiswatching: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ...
Remove the 1% property tax rate cap, lock the yearly increase cap to CPI and make Proposition 13 only apply to residential property.

Works for me

/but then, I'm no longer a property owner, so I shouldn't have much of a say in the issue


couldn't disagree with this more. i believe in property rights at least as much as the average American, i imagine, but whether or not property is taxed in a democracy is a decision for everyone to make. don't abdicate your say in the matter just because you don't own property - if we only allowed those with skin in the game to make each individual decision, i think it's clear where taxes would be.
 
2012-11-09 12:11:41 AM  
What are the farmers going to do, eat all that food themselves?
 
2012-11-09 12:12:00 AM  
This supermajority will last exactly as long as it takes for a splinter group of the majority party to realize that by threatening to vote against legislation they can force the rest of the party to send some pork bellies their way.
 
2012-11-09 12:12:30 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: Don't mess with farmers. They don't have to sell their food to the cities.


Sure, just avoid the markets where you make money. That will show em.
 
2012-11-09 12:13:08 AM  

GAT_00: So I'm guessing Subby would also say the new Republican supermajority here in TN is bad too, right? After all, they have enough power they can suspend the normal rules of order and do whatever the fark they want.


4 years from now TN will be complaining that college acceptance standards are unfairly biased against their students.
 
2012-11-09 12:14:06 AM  
Indiana has a super majority in both houses as well, let's see how that ends up.
 
2012-11-09 12:15:17 AM  

Cyberluddite: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Most of those retirees from the 70s are long dead. When a property is sold, it gets reassessed and taxed thereafter at current market value. About the only thing I can see left of Prop 13 is the cap on yearly increases (which is moot since property values have decreased lately), and the really stupid part about commercial property taxes

/what do you think we should change?

Except it doesn't just apply to "retirees from the 70s," nor does the fact that property values have decreased "lately" wipe out 30 years of untaxed value increases.

I'll use myself as an example. Property tax in California is assessed at 1% of assessed value. My home is probably worth, in today's market, around $400K. A couple of years ago, it was probably worth $550K. So my tax should be, what, $4000/yr?

That's less than what my neighbor's property tax is (even though her house is smaller and with less than mine), because she bought hers about 2 years ago, and it was reassessed then. Mine's only about $1700/yr, though, because I bought mine in at the bottom of the market in 1997 and paid only around $130K, and due to Prop 13 the cap on increases hasn't even remotely kept up with the value. How is it fair that my neighbor (a senior citizen, incidentally--the group that Prop 13 was sold as protecting) pays $4500/yr for her smaller, lower value house, whole I pay only $1700 for mine, solely by virtue of when I bought it?

My situation is not the exception--it's the rule. If it weren't for Prop 13, taxes could be equalized, and the percentage rate could be lowered, though based on current value--old farts who owned their home a long time would have a somewhat larger bill, but younger people and other newer buyers would see large tax decreases, and revenue as a whole would increase.

Then, of course, there's the problem that Prop 13--which was sold as a way to keep grandma and grandpa in the family home, also applies to commercial properties. Not only that, commercial land ...
blah blah blah...


27.media.tumblr.com


Jesus Christ tap dancing on a Saltine cracker... just how dense are you???? It's the SPENDING that's the problem, not Prop 13.







Prop 13 is probably the one good thing that actually has been done here in CA.






Let me guess, you voted for prop 30 this year, didn't you? Don't bother answering... I already know the answer. Fricking tard.

Get a BRAIN, ya MORAN.
 
2012-11-09 12:15:39 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: OK... your ideas for change, then?

/we've already covered removing the increase cap


The elimination of the annual increase cap and indexing it to CPI or some similar standard (with or without exempting commercial properties from Prop 13) pretty much makes prop 13 a moot point, because that's its centerpiece.

Works for me.
 
2012-11-09 12:17:02 AM  
High Speed Rail everywhere!!!!

/seriously...hoping the LA to SF plan happens
 
2012-11-09 12:18:31 AM  
California >>>>>>>>>>>>. Texas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the shiat holes in the south.

Just FYI, people.
 
2012-11-09 12:19:10 AM  
Richard Roth beat Jeff Miller in District 31, Riverside County

Wow, usually the dems don't run anyone in Riverside because it was so red.

This could be real good but I could see some issues with the legislature having so many dems in control getting away with piss poor legislation


Such a supermajority would also allow Democrats voting as a bloc to place constitutional amendments on the ballot


They could delete prop 8 out of the constitution if the supreme court upholds it.

or override vetoes of Gov. Jerry Brown.

California had a bill that would recognize more than 2 people as guardians of a child and Jerry Brown vetoed it. Imagine the cluster fark in the courts if that had passed.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report