When does a Fine become a TAX?

[Jim Bremner]

Right now in California traffic fines have increased from last month.

A new term is Penalty assessment has been coined.

Parking illegally in a handicap space was $250, now it has several other fees and fines and comes in at $250 + sate pa $250 county pa $175 dNA pa $50 Court pa $125 Surcharge $50 ems pa $50 court security fee $30 Conviction assessment, night court $1.00

Grand total? $1016!!!!!!

Speeding ticket went from $70 as a base to $332

Holding a cell phone? $20 is now $142

Running a red light is $446 ( I agree with this value of fine.)

Do I feel that this is just. No.

When I drove home tonight I made a rough calculation that 85% of the people traveling the highway where driving greater than the speed limit of 65 mph.

I drove at 75 mph and I would guess that 50% where in the 80mph range and 35% where around 75ish.

How can the 65 mph limit be just when the VAST majority of people are traveling greater than the speed limit?

Is it that the 15% of the people traveling the speed limit or near it, are part of the law enforcement,judges and other people that create the laws?

I'm waiting for my hope and change.

[Hugh R]

Good to know. This is a national epidemic. I think most states are doing pretty much the same thing. After all, they have to make those welfare, aid to families with dependent children, section 8 housing, earned income tax credits, home health care and other "entitlements".

[red-beard]

I guess I'll put off my vacation to California.

[enzo1]

won't be able to tax enough ..... without vacation $$$

[Jim Bremner]

The big Q is how do we reverse the perverse fines?

[jyl]

State budgets have been crushed in this recession. Not totally surprising as states go into the red in every recession. When you have fixed costs and variable revenues, that's going to happen. It's not so much the social safety net stuff, as the increase in such spending during a recession is partly reimbursed by the federal govt. It is stuff like education, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc.

California is particularly bad off for reasons we've discussed ad nauseum. Your revenue is dependent on the most cyclical sources - income tax on high earners which tends to move with the stock market, sales tax on discretionary purchases, etc. If you wanted to design a more volatile revenue source, it would be hard to do better. Your legislature is dominated by extremes from both parties, you have a super-majority requirement for budgeting, prop 13 shields much property from full taxing, and overuse of "propositions" has created too many spending mandates.

But every state is struggling. Oregon has some stupid features too, like the "kicker".

The good thing is that employment is turning the corner, and will very likely be growing by mid-year, so more income tax revenue. Consumer spending is coming back, so more sales tax revenue. Housing prices are rising, so property tax revenue will stabilize. We are in an economic recovery, so just try not to illegally park in any handicapped spaces for awhile.

[Jim Bremner]

The good thing is that employment is turning the corner, and will very likely be growing by mid-year, so more income tax revenue. Consumer spending is coming back, so more sales tax revenue. Housing prices are rising, so property tax revenue will stabilize. We are in an economic recovery, so just try not to illegally park in any handicapped spaces for awhile.

Wife's handicapped!

They raised the sales tax 1/2 a cent we're damn near 10cents on the $1.00

I was told that this has caused a ton of people who would never cheat on tax to buy items out of state to save a buck.

They're boiling us frogs slowly here. I'm a firm beliver in prop 13 ( It freezes your tax at the rate that you bought your home. If you paid $300,000 for your home in 1996 and it went up to $750,000 in 2010 there's zero reason to tax you 1.5 x more.) It's save a ton of people from being taxed out of their home.

[Scuba Steve]

I really wonder what they would do if there were no speeders to catch or people committing traffic violations to charge. Proclaim it's a great day for safety and law and order, or quietly try and come up with a new way for bringing in revenue?

[Tobra]

Steve, I am saying option "B"

John, that is nonsense, the state of Kalifornia is so badly mismanaged it would not matter what happened to the economy. Without massive, constant growth, this state is hosed. Spending problem, not revenue problem.

[jyl]

Tobra, do some research on how much California's revenue has declined in the recession. I think in 2009 it went down about 14%. Meanwhile, there's not much state spending that naturally declines in a recession. So the state's budget naturally had a big hole blown through it. The state's political system is also screwed up, that's clear.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

If you paid $300,000 for your home in 1996 and it went up to $750,000 in 2010 there's zero reason to tax you 1.5 x more.) It's save a ton of people from being taxed out of their home.

I dunno. How would you feel if you were trying to buy the house nextdoor now and it was your first home? You pay 2.5x more in property tax for the same house and same services. Is that fair?

[RWebb]

rather than fair, ask if it is legal - start trolling thru the Calif. Const. & statutes and see if "tax" is defined anywhere

otherwise, you will need to put the heat on the legislature...

[Jim Bremner]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I dunno. How would you feel if you were trying to buy the house nextdoor now and it was your first home? You pay 2.5x more in property tax for the same house and same services. Is that fair?

Hmm, did my income double plus in the last ten years? no, so I should pay more tax?

In the early 79's when my house was built the value was $60k If I was a 40 year old guy back then and retired in the '90s with a house worth 500k should I be taxed out of my home when my retirement budget doesn't cover it?

Now, since my wife is a disabled person we have another thing with prop 13.

She and I can sell our home and move anywhere in the state and carry the prop 13 rate with us as long as our next house is less than the value of our last home. We will pay the same as our old 1996 tax value

8 percent of our income goes to the State, 9% of what we spend for goods goes to the state, 2% of the worth of our vehicles goes to the state, (when you buy a car you pay the sales tax, + the 2% for "registration" ) and 1.2% of the value of our house goes to the state. We bought our house for $306,500 BUT we pay tax on $360,000 due to the county assessor rated the house higher than what we paid.

[john70t]

Because property values are so low, it is a good time to re-value your home through the local Assessors then the state Tax Tribunal to reflect the true market value(comps). Examples of these can be found on websites or through RE agents.
Many states have limits on future changes.
If the difference is extreme enough, it may be worth hiring an attorney.

Worth re-mentioning that when federal dollars dry up the states will become "creative".

[Jim Richards]

Jim, we all (across the nation) pay property tax based on the assessed value of our property. It has nothing to do with our income or ability to pay. Most of us don't have the Prop 13 shield.

I don't understand your concern about illegally parking in a handicap zone. If your wife is handicapped, don't you have a sticker, tag, or plate that indicates you are allowed to park in handicap spots?

[Joeaksa]

Police just drove through our neighborhood two nights ago at 02:35 in the morning. Ticketed anyone who they thought they could get away with it.

My truck was parked in my driveway as far forward as it can go but the bumper hangs over the edge of my driveway/sidewalk about 3-4 inches.

Got a $37 ticket/fine for "parking on the sidewalk!" So did numerous other vehicles. One RV that had just arrived the night before parked legally in the street got a $267 ticket for illegal parking.

Guess the police do not want this neighborhood to ever assist them again. The ill will they are doing in the area just to drum up money will bite them in the rear in the future.

[jyl]

The fear that old folks will be taxed out of their long-time homes, as house values rise, is easily handled.

Simply allow the property tax payments to be deferred until the home's owner (and spouse) pass away, then the tax is paid from the sale of the house. Easy.

I don't think one group of homeowners should subsidize the other group.

Prop 13 did huge damage to California's finances, by reducing a stable source of revenue (property taxes) and forcing the state to rely more on volatile sources (as explained above). This makes the state more vulnerable in recessions.

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

Hmm, did my income double plus in the last ten years? no, so I should pay more tax?

In the early 79's when my house was built the value was $60k If I was a 40 year old guy back then and retired in the '90s with a house worth 500k should I be taxed out of my home when my retirement budget doesn't cover it?

Now, since my wife is a disabled person we have another thing with prop 13.

She and I can sell our home and move anywhere in the state and carry the prop 13 rate with us as long as our next house is less than the value of our last home. We will pay the same as our old 1996 tax value

8 percent of our income goes to the State, 9% of what we spend for goods goes to the state, 2% of the worth of our vehicles goes to the state, (when you buy a car you pay the sales tax, + the 2% for "registration" ) and 1.2% of the value of our house goes to the state. We bought our house for $306,500 BUT we pay tax on $360,000 due to the county assessor rated the house higher than what we paid.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jyl

The fear that old folks will be taxed out of their long-time homes, as house values rise, is easily handled.

Simply allow the property tax payments to be deferred until the home's owner (and spouse) pass (OR MOVE) away, then the tax is paid from the sale of the house. Easy.

I don't think one group of homeowners should subsidize the other group.

Prop 13 did huge damage to California's finances, by reducing a stable source of revenue (property taxes) and forcing the state to rely more on volatile sources (as explained above). This makes the state more vulnerable in recessions.

+1

Prop 13 is a tax on new homeowners and a subsidy to existing homeowners.

[lowyder993s]

Originally Posted by jyl

Prop 13 did huge damage to California's finances, by reducing a stable source of revenue (property taxes) and forcing the state to rely more on volatile sources (as explained above). This makes the state more vulnerable in recessions.

Shoulda been in green, right? Since when do you think the state would have lived w/in its means w/ regard to what it takes in? Give them a buck, they'll spend 1.50. It's one of the only laws out there that rewards frugality.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by lowyder993s

Shoulda been in green, right? Since when do you think the state would have lived w/in its means w/ regard to what it takes in? Give them a buck, they'll spend 1.50. It's one of the only laws out there that rewards frugality.

And has Prop 13 kept the state living within its means? Do property taxes even go to the state? Wherever I've lived, they go to the county. And I vote no on every spending/bond issue on every ballot.