"I just don't want to work"
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 10-09-2007 - 10:06pm |
Hi all... I'm new to the board and I am curious.
I am in my mid twenties, unmarried, no children. I work in an extremely competitive field with many other women my age. Many of us are making six figures and the job is very stressful. We all have a great work ethic, but sometimes when the stress gets really bad, I'll often hear the girls (never the guys) saying things like "Arrgghh... I'm so sick of work. I just want to marry a rich man, have kids, stay home and NOT WORK."....... I was raised by two working parents (two very loving, caring hardworking parents). My mother was very successful in her career, and I feel that when I get married, I will (like my mom) continue to work and raise children at the same time (my mom was definitely "super mom" ---she did it all and was great!)...... My main question: many of the women in my work stay in the position for about 5-7 years and then leave.....the funny thing is...

Pages
>>pays more than actual value to subsidize the former.<<
Who is paying more than the actual value? And CA RE inflates far far far more quickly than actual inflation, hence the law. If it were only inflation there would be no need. Like I said, property taxes for EVERYONE increase something like 1 or 2 % per year. (It depends on what county you live in, and I'm too tired to look up the max allowed.) It's only your assessed value that cannot be increased.
On top of that, Prop 13 is way closer to a socialist policy than a libertarian policy. It is very different than other states, but it would have to be. Our real estate does not behave the same way.
As to how it is a sound fiscal policy... It all evens out in the end. Yeah, some people pay relatively low property taxes. But a lot of people pay high property taxes because they decided they wanted to pay 1.2 million for a home. Fine with me. The state gets plenty of dough because real estate turns over, and the price of homes go up so much that the revenue is still comparable. Frankly, I don't spend my time worrying about whether my state has enough money to waste. I'd prefer they had less. Are you going to explain to me why you think it's not a sound fiscal policy yet?
Edited 10/26/2007 12:06 am ET by campbelllover
Kitty
"I'm my own cats' Mom
Click on the Virginia Rescue Center and search for Roxey, VA5165
~~~~~~~~~
Kitty
"BTW, I hate Lifetime. Their movies will suck you in and all of a sudden you've watched 3 in a row, used every tissue in t
Too funny:) And secretly you *know* you've wanted to paint a door yellow;)
BTW, I love tatoo's. Small ones in particular. I've just never had the nerve to get one! My best friend has a tiny star on her shoulder and its adorable. My sister has a rather large fish on her lower back, also really pretty. Me, until I did IVF 5 years ago fainted when I saw needles. And after I got used to needles --
I live in the NE. We may not be NoCa, but our prop values are rising close to NoCa values. Our prop values have increased exponentially, but our property tax has increased comparable to our rate of inflation. Is is different in your neck of the woods? We bought at 250K with a 2K tax burden, we're now valued at 750K with a 2,200 tax burden after 7 years. Most of us can deal, and those who can not can, can apply for property tax relief. We're socialist that way.
< Are you going to explain to me why you think it's not a sound fiscal policy yet?>
So you think it is sound fiscal policy to pay base property taxes not on value, but on a base that is not tied to actual value? How does that even out prop values? Why should you neighbor pay pennies on the dollar for community services? It really doesn't all even out, IME. Why should new homeowners subsidize the old?
< It all evens out in the end. Yeah, some people pay relatively low property taxes. But a lot of people pay high property taxes because they decided they wanted to pay 1.2 million for a home. Fine with me.>
Why is this fine with you? Cos you're already in the market? I'd personally rather see market value and see more people in the market.
BTW- My state gets nothing from prop taxes; is it different in cali?
>>Our prop values have increased exponentially, but our property tax has increased comparable to our rate of inflation. Is is different in your neck of the woods?<< The way property taxes are structured here I can't even answer that question. But yes, it is different here. The reason our tax structure had to be changed was because property taxes were skyrocketing for some people. There is another facet of Prop 13 that has to do with distributing property tax funds evenly rather than keeping them local, but that's a different discussion. But yes, property taxes go to the state, in a way.
If your property taxes are based on the actual value of your home, and the actual value of your home has increased 33%, how exactly is it that your property taxes have only increased by 10%? Even with taxes being based on purchase price, my inlaws, who purchased their home for $289k in 1989 are paying more than $4k/year. (It's actual value now is probably somewhere between $800k and $1mil.)
>>Why should you neighbor pay pennies on the dollar for community services? It really doesn't all even out, IME. Why should new homeowners subsidize the old?<<
I'm afraid I can't understand your stance here. At the top of your post, you go on about how you're socialist and you are all for tax relief, and down here, you're complaining about subsidizing people? So do you think tax relief is ok or is it not? Plus, this was supposedly your reasoning for why it's fiscally irresponsible, but all I can see is reasoning as to way it's "not fair". The program has turned out to be a positive fiscally, because while tax revenues (when adjusted) are slightly lower than they would be the other way, it is a much more stable system and delinquencies and failure to pay dropped *dramatiically*. That's what I mean by it all evens out. I don't even think it's unfair. I think it would be unfair for someone who saved a budgeted and purchased a $250k house all of a sudden has to come up with the cash to pay property taxes on an assessed value of almost a million dollars. Someone who BUYS a house that costs almost a million dollars most likely is aware what their property taxes will be.
I don't think a tax structure like ours would work in places where real estate doesn't inflate as much. Yes, many places have had a RE boom in the last 5 years or so, but this was put into law here when it became a problem here.... *30 years ago*. It's a cost effective way to apply taxes on ability to pay. As it should be. And considering our property taxes on similar properties (when bought cheap) are twice what yours are, I fail to see the problem.
_________________
Here's an overview of the tax policy, if you want to know:
Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of residential property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property is resold. At the time of sale, the assessment may increase by an arbitrary amount, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase. If the property's market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California have appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% over the course of several years) or if inflation exceeds 2% (common), the differential between the owner's taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large.
The property may be reassessed under certain conditions other than a sale, such as when additions or new construction occur. The assessed value is also subject to reduction if the value of the house declines, for example, during a real estate slump.
my dh's place of business has been under a long-term expansion plan.
Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man-The Big Lebowski
Pages