On 8/7/2014 2:26 AM, Danny D. wrote:
CRNG wrote, on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 05:49:29 -0500:

Those look like good ideas. Any idea what they cost?

BTW, there was a really small fire about a mile away today,
so I stopped by the firetruck to ask some questions.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3914/1...52b29c0f_b.jpg

CY: Fairly short truck, compared to what I
see in NYS.

That truck is 500 gallons, and it has a 4-inch, 2-1/2 inch, and
1-1/2 inch connector on the sides (the four inch is on the other
side of the truck).

The guys told me they generally abhor the wharf hydrants that
are in everyone's property (so why do we have them?) because
the flow is so bad. They pump in from one side and out the other,
as you can see in the middle of the truck.

CY: Hmm. Some trucks in NY pump in or out of
front, but mostly from sides.

They also pump out the front of the truck, and the back, from
the tank, but they only use the sides to pump from a pool or
wharf hydrant.

The four inch connector (in the driver's side) is for pumping
out of ponds and pools, while the 2-1/2 is on both sides and
it's for the hydrants.

CY: Sounds a bit like NY. The larger black rigid
hose is for suction.



Just FYI ...

CY: Thanks. Bummer about the wharf hydrants not
being useful.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:23:49 -0400:

CY: Hmm. Some trucks in NY pump in or out of
front, but mostly from sides.

Yea, that's what I meant.

I'll clarify that it had two 2-1/2 inch connections on the
passenger side, which are used together (one in, and one out)
to suck from hydrants.

The 1-1/2 inch connection on both sides (and in the front bumper)
was only an out, for the 500 gallon tank.

Likewise with the driver side, the same 2-1/2 and 1-1/2 inch
connections existed, but, in addition, there was a single 4-inch
suction connection on that side.

Seems similar to your NY trucks ...

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:14:59 -0400:

Wish I lived closer, and can help.

One way you guys can help is to advise me what I should
advise the lady whose middle conjoined circuit breakers
appear to have the copper wire cut.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3909/1...c2a8bb6d_b.jpg

First off, WHY would anyone cut the joining wire?
Secondly, is it dangerous?

While I understand that each breaker is handling 120V,
and each can now trip individually, what does that mean,
with respect to what I should advise the homeowner?

On 8/7/2014 7:45 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Yea, that's what I meant.

I'll clarify that it had two 2-1/2 inch connections on the
passenger side, which are used together (one in, and one out)
to suck from hydrants.

The 1-1/2 inch connection on both sides (and in the front bumper)
was only an out, for the 500 gallon tank.

Likewise with the driver side, the same 2-1/2 and 1-1/2 inch
connections existed, but, in addition, there was a single 4-inch
suction connection on that side.

Seems similar to your NY trucks ...


In NY, I've had limited experience with fire trucks.
I was a fire explorer for 2.5 years, and a volunteer
FF for two, and took the pump operators course (about
1990 or so).

Generally the hydrant is used with either 2.4 or 4 or
5 inch connections, based on several factors. The pump
goes to valves, which go to discharge threads. Some FD
have preconnect lines, which are made to dump and run,
often 200 feet of 1 1/2 hose. Now they use 1 3/4, which
flows a lot more water with not much size. Grey hair
old guys like me holler "pull an inch and a half" which
gets blank looks from the kids.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 8/7/2014 7:47 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:14:59 -0400:

Wish I lived closer, and can help.

One way you guys can help is to advise me what I should
advise the lady whose middle conjoined circuit breakers
appear to have the copper wire cut.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3909/1...c2a8bb6d_b.jpg

First off, WHY would anyone cut the joining wire?
Secondly, is it dangerous?

While I understand that each breaker is handling 120V,
and each can now trip individually, what does that mean,
with respect to what I should advise the homeowner?


If the pump is 220 volts, it should have two
breakers tied together. Maybe the pump is 110
volts, and the tie isn't needed any more.

If I was there, I'd pull the front of the panel.
See if the two center breakers wires go into the
same tube. Might be she needs a double breaker to
restore safety?

If the pump is 220, and if the breakers are separate,
there is safety risk.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:09:03 -0400:

If the pump is 220, and if the breakers are separate,
there is safety risk.

That's what I'm afraid of.

I've seen people cut the wire just to remove the front
panel, to get at the back.

On 8/5/2014 12:02 PM, Danny D. wrote:
CRNG wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 05:59:06 -0500:

I thought Prop-13 passed in the mid 1970s limited property taxes to 1%
of the owner's purchase price with a *very small* increase allowed
every year? Did that change or did the politicos find a way around
it?

What California does, is raise the price of the property up to 2% every
year (invariably), & they constantly add additional "assessments",
which all seem to past the ballot procedure out here (Californians
don't seem to feel that they're taxed enough yet).

The 2% limit is a good thing! Prior to that they were basing the
property tax on the actual value, not the the purchase price plus a
maximum of 2% per year.

But Prop 13 should have applied to one, owner-occupied, residential
property, not to commercial property or rental property.

They have Measure A, Measure B, Measure C.... Measure F, etc. all of
which are assessments such as the most recent $17/100,000 of assessment
just for the open space that you don't even live on.

All of which pass.

Our schools must have the most amazing restrooms since every parcel tax
for schools seems to mention "provide safe, clean, restrooms."

In addition to that, they add cleverly crafted "fees" (which aren't
taxes but in all ways, are exactly like taxes, down to the fact they
can take away your house if you don't pay them), which only need a
50% majority (instead of a super majority) to pass.

True. But here's why I kind of like the fees and parcel taxes. There's a
great many people making high incomes that are paying extremely low
property taxes either because of the loopholes in Prop 13, or because
they are living in their parent's house, or because they have turned a
former personal residence into an income property. They can't escape the
parcel taxes and fees and as these become a larger percentage of the
total tax burden it becomes fairer.

For example, on the street next to me, one family is living in the
wife's parent's house. They are probably paying about $1000 per year in
property taxes. If the house was taxed at the assessed value it would
bring in about $18,000 per year. If it were assessed at the value when
they moved in, plus 2% annual increases, it would probably be taxed at
$6000-7000. They send their kids to the same public schools as the kids
of parents paying $8000-16,000 in property taxes. They are free-loading.

These taxes and fees usually have an exemption for seniors (but
ironically seniors still get to vote to impose them) so the argument of
"taxing seniors out their homes" doesn't work.

On 8/4/2014 3:59 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 00:12:12 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote in

A "nice" house, is over a million, and, if you want any land
to speak of, then you're looking at multiple millions. Assume
about 1.5% (give or take) for taxes every year, and you begin
to see what it costs us to live here.

I thought Prop-13 passed in the mid 1970s limited property taxes to 1%
of the owner's purchase price with a *very small* increase allowed
every year? Did that change or did the politicos find a way around
it?

Maximum of 2% per year increase.

This would be pretty fair, and would provide sufficient revenue, if it
applied to one, primary, non-commercial, owner-occupied, residence, with
no exceptions. Unfortunately there are loads of exceptions. So with so
many people able to pay far less than their fair share, the property
taxes need to be supplemented with parcel taxes.

Additional parcel taxes can be passed with a 2/3 vote. School taxes in
areas with good schools always seem to pass. With good reason because
houses in areas with good schools increase in value and are fairly
immune to housing bubbles. A 1960's era, 1500-2000 square foot, tract
home, on a 6000 square foot lot, in a neighborhood with good schools, is
around $1.5 million. Property taxes would be about $20K per year.

Housing and college tuition are what are the biggest expenses in
California. Other expenses are not really greater than a lot of other
states. Food is cheap.

On 8/7/2014 8:26 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:09:03 -0400:

If the pump is 220, and if the breakers are separate,
there is safety risk.

That's what I'm afraid of.

I've seen people cut the wire just to remove the front
panel, to get at the back.



Please go into some detail. When you say "cut the
wire" do you mean the wire that ties the two
handles together?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

sms wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:47:58 -0700:

They are probably paying about $1000 per year in property taxes. If the
house was taxed at the assessed value it would bring in about $18,000
per year.

This is true, I can't disagree. Steve is almost a neighbor, he's so close.
In fact, Steve, if you want, let me know if this is your true email (it's
not mine), and I'll send you an email, since we practically live next
door.

If you've been in your house since, oh, say, the mid 90's, your taxes
are likely less than $10K per year, while if you've bought it since then,
your takes are easily double that.

It's an unfair system, which, can't even afford yellow school buses, but
which gives wonderful pensions to the San Jose police department.

sms wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:56:42 -0700:

With good reason because houses in areas with good schools increase in
value and are fairly immune to housing bubbles. A 1960's era, 1500-2000
square foot, tract home, on a 6000 square foot lot, in a neighborhood
with good schools, is around $1.5 million. Property taxes would be about
$20K per year.

I don't think a single school parcel tax measure has ever failed in
Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Willow Glen, Los Altos,
Mountainview, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Woodside, etc., do you?

They rebuild or renovate the schools about once every five years, or so,
it seems, so, I'm sure, as you noted, the bathrooms must be fantasatic!

Yet, after all that, they can't "afford" school buses.
Makes no sense at all, to me.

Does it make sense to you?
Did California *ever* have yellow school buses?

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:02:37 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
CRNG wrote, on Mon, 04 Aug 2014 05:59:06 -0500:



I thought Prop-13 passed in the mid 1970s limited property taxes to 1%

of the owner's purchase price with a *very small* increase allowed

every year? Did that change or did the politicos find a way around

it?



What California does, is raise the price of the property up to 2% every

year (invariably), & they constantly add additional "assessments",

which all seem to past the ballot procedure out here (Californians

don't seem to feel that they're taxed enough yet).



They have Measure A, Measure B, Measure C.... Measure F, etc. all of

which are assessments such as the most recent $17/100,000 of assessment

just for the open space that you don't even live on.



All of which pass.



In addition to that, they add cleverly crafted "fees" (which aren't

taxes but in all ways, are exactly like taxes, down to the fact they

can take away your house if you don't pay them), which only need a

50% majority (instead of a super majority) to pass.



What irks me is how much they lie to the people, and the Californians

don't even realize it. If California had folks from the east, they'd

never put up with the shenanigans they pull out here. / rant

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom
2 1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:09:28 -0400:

Please go into some detail. When you say "cut the wire" do you mean the
wire that ties the two handles together?

Yes. I think someone 'vandalized' the breaker (probably a workman who
felt his time was worth more than the lady's property).

There are four 120 volt circuit breakers in this pictu
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3909/1...c2a8bb6d_b.jpg

The two outer breakers are labeled "WELL PUMP", while the two inner
circuit breakers are labeled "PRESSURE PUMP".

On one of "my" circuit breakers, you see something similar, with the two
inner breakers tied together while the two outer breakers are also tied
together (in this case, for the air conditioning system).
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3856/14...dc3bd2f7_b.jpg

There is a copper wire connecting the two inner breakers, which is cut.

I'm pretty sure that copper wire didn't break on its own, so, someone cut
it. Why would they cut it? The only reason I can think of is that they
wanted to remove the panel, and the wire gets in the way (I've seen that
before), but in this panel, it seems that wasn't an impediment.

So, I don't know *why* someone cut the wire, but, what I need to know is
*what* to tell the homeowner about it since she has precious little money.

trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2
1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square foot,
not by the acre.

Here's a lookup for Saratoga, where I think Steve hails from:
http://www.coldwellbanker.com/real_e...ch/ca/Saratoga

Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the
house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of
$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right
for where I live also.

Given the almost 10% income tax in California, with a median income of
$150K, that's another $15 in California property taxes. Add to that a
sales tax of almost 10% and you get a whoppingly high tax burden, which
when you add the marginal 36% Federal (but average is probably around 40%
), you get a tax burden that easily exceeds 60% to 70% of your income.

Yet, they keep voting for higher, and higher, and higher taxes.
(I don't get it).

Back to your question, I'll look up the median property size (I'm not
sure how to find that information) but I'll also post the income and
property value cite from that site above:

"Saratoga, California is located in Santa Clara. Nearby cities and towns
include Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Loyola and Monte Sereno. Saratoga
is a suburban community with a population of 29,972. The median household
income in Saratoga is $145,807. 73% of residents are married and families
with children reside in 41% of Saratoga households. Half the population
of Saratoga commutes 26 minutes or more to work, with 83% of residents
holding white collar jobs and 17% residents holding blue collar jobs.

The median age of homes in Saratoga, CA is 35 years, with 82% of those
homes owned, 14% rented and 3% not occupied. In the previous year, 0
Saratoga properties were sold. The median sale price of a home in
Saratoga
in the previous year was $1,340,000."

trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2
1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

Saratoga California is a good sample city, as it is where at least one of
our members reside and it's representative of the white-collar
communities around it (Monte Sereno, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Santa Clara, etc.) here in Santa Clara County.

Here are the housing trends from Trulia:
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Sa...market-trends/

For all homes in Saratoga, they list the median price at 1.85 million (so
the property taxes on that are about 1.5% to 2% of that, which is about
$30K to 35K (roughly) per year.

But for just a basic 3-bedroom home, the chart shows the average at $921
per square foot of living space. So, if it's a tiny 1,000 square foot
home, that's almost a million dollars right there, on average. For a
2,000 square foot home, we're looking at the 1.85 million median value.

So, that means, most likely, most homes in Saratoga were about 2,000
square feet (assuming 3 bedrooms), at almost 2 million dollars.

It's hard to find lot sizes in a chart, but here's a half-acre lot which
sold just recently for 3.5 million dollars (their property taxes alone
will be between $50,000 and $70,000 per year.
http://zillow.com/homedetails/14231-...w-Ln-Saratoga-
CA-95070/19657761_zpid/

Danny D. wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:45:14 +0000:

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2
1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square
foot, not by the acre.

If we look at the current homes for sale, in Saratoga:
http://www.zillow.com/saratoga-ca/

This is the first one I find that is 3 bedrooms ...
House For Sale: $1,150,000, Zestimate®: $1.23M
9 days on Zillow, Built in 1957
18256 Baylor Ave, Saratoga, CA
3 beds, 2 baths, 1,460 sqft, 8,189 sqft lot

That seems about right.

Let's say it sells for 1 million, so that would be $685/square foot,
which is way less than the average price per square foot of $921, so the
house, built in the fifties, must be a fixer-upper at that price.

The total land is 8,189 square feet (which includes the house).
What percentage of an acre is that? I don't know.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 2:45:14 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:



Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2

1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?



An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square foot,

not by the acre.



Well, funny thing that. I'm familiar with the heart of silicon valley,
been there many times. But while you were saying silicon valley, you also
were talking about 10,000 gallon water tanks, homes in the hills, etc, so
I thought you were probably a bit further out, where maybe there were some
bigger lots. In those earlier discussions I was having a hard time picturing
a 10,000 gallon tank on a hill in Santa Clara for example.





Here's a lookup for Saratoga, where I think Steve hails from:

http://www.coldwellbanker.com/real_e...ch/ca/Saratoga



Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the

house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of

$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right

for where I live also.


Well, it does make NJ look better. Here the house I described would be
worth more like $600K and paying more like $11K in taxes. And I presume
the recent real estate debacle worked itself through there and prices
adjusted a bit.



Given the almost 10% income tax in California, with a median income of

$150K, that's another $15 in California property taxes. Add to that a

sales tax of almost 10% and you get a whoppingly high tax burden, which

when you add the marginal 36% Federal (but average is probably around 40%

), you get a tax burden that easily exceeds 60% to 70% of your income.


I guess your one of the folks that can add and thinks you're taxed too much. LOL That's what gets me. You have some folks running around talking about
a top Fed rate of 34% or 39%, pretending that it's not so much, like that's
all the taxes we pay. Or comparing it to Fed rates 50 years ago, when there
was no state income tax, sales tax, property taxes were very low, etc. Today
the combined effect is staggering.



Yet, they keep voting for higher, and higher, and higher taxes.

(I don't get it).


Part of the problem is that you have more and more people who are riding in
the wagon, instead of pulling it and they vote too. But still, I agree, I
don't get it either. I guess it's like cooking a frog. If you threw the frog
in the pot of hot water, they would jump out. But when you just keep inching
it up, little at a time, people take it. We're getting hosed here in NJ good
too, but clearly it's worse for you.




Back to your question, I'll look up the median property size (I'm not

sure how to find that information) but I'll also post the income and

property value cite from that site above:



"Saratoga, California is located in Santa Clara. Nearby cities and towns

include Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Loyola and Monte Sereno. Saratoga

is a suburban community with a population of 29,972. The median household

income in Saratoga is $145,807.

So a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house is $1.3mil, taxes on it are $27K, and the median
income is $145K. That still doesn't compute.



73% of residents are married and families

with children reside in 41% of Saratoga households. Half the population

of Saratoga commutes 26 minutes or more to work, with 83% of residents

holding white collar jobs and 17% residents holding blue collar jobs.



The median age of homes in Saratoga, CA is 35 years, with 82% of those

homes owned, 14% rented and 3% not occupied. In the previous year, 0

Saratoga properties were sold. The median sale price of a home in

Saratoga

in the previous year was $1,340,000."

On Friday, August 8, 2014 3:10:08 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
Danny D. wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:45:14 +0000:



Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2

1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?



An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square

foot, not by the acre.



If we look at the current homes for sale, in Saratoga:

http://www.zillow.com/saratoga-ca/



This is the first one I find that is 3 bedrooms ...

House For Sale: $1,150,000, Zestimate®: $1.23M

9 days on Zillow, Built in 1957

18256 Baylor Ave, Saratoga, CA

3 beds, 2 baths, 1,460 sqft, 8,189 sqft lot



That seems about right.



Let's say it sells for 1 million, so that would be $685/square foot,

which is way less than the average price per square foot of $921, so the

house, built in the fifties, must be a fixer-upper at that price.



The total land is 8,189 square feet (which includes the house).

What percentage of an acre is that? I don't know.

About 1/5. Acre is like 43000 sq ft as I recall. Here, central NJ,
shore, about an hour from NYC, a 3000 sw ft, 3 bed, 2 1/2 bath on 1 acre
is about $600K. If you get real close to the shore, within 1/2 mile, it
the most exclusive areas, it could be $1.8 mil on your 1/5 acre type lot.
And it could be several million if it's waterview.

trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:37:08 -0700:

Well, funny thing that. I'm familiar with the heart of silicon valley,
been there many times. But while you were saying silicon valley, you
also were talking about 10,000 gallon water tanks, homes in the hills,
etc, so I thought you were probably a bit further out, where maybe there
were some bigger lots. In those earlier discussions I was having a hard
time picturing a 10,000 gallon tank on a hill in Santa Clara for
example.

Just up the hill, in the same town of Saratoga, are those 10,000 gallon
water tanks. Same town. Different topography.

The flatlands don't have these tanks nor the land.
The ridges have the tanks and the land.

There are no houses in the ridges less than about 2 million dollars.
The zoning is 40 acres, so, they don't want you to build there.

So even a run-down place will be millions of dollars.

trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:37:08 -0700:

I guess your one of the folks that can add and thinks you're taxed too
much. LOL That's what gets me. You have some folks running around
talking about a top Fed rate of 34% or 39%, pretending that it's not so
much, like that's all the taxes we pay. Or comparing it to Fed rates 50
years ago, when there was no state income tax, sales tax, property taxes
were very low, etc. Today the combined effect is staggering.

Actually I made a typo or two in those rates, but the point is that I do
agree with you that we're taxed tremendously.

Most we're taxed by:
- Property tax (average it to be about $10,000/year, but it varies) so
let's call that 10% of your income (give or take)

- Federal income tax (marginal is in the mid thirty percent, but let's
average around 25%, give or take)

- State income tax (here, it's closer to a flat 9.something so let's call
that 10%, give or take)

- Sales tax (here, it's roughly around 8.75% so, and assume you buy $5/
year, including your car, which is effectively sales-taxed every year,
and we can assume that's in the noise level at about 1/2% to 1% of your
income).

- Gas tax (here's it's around 30.something cents per gallon, so if you
drive 15K miles a year, that's another 1/2% to 1% of your income).

And there's more. Every time you pay your Ooma bill, which is zero
dollars for your VOIP phone, you *still* have to pay almost $5 for
service taxes, so, let's assume service taxes are another 1/2% of your
income.

I didn't even get to social security taxes, and the like, so, without
even adding that, when we add it up, it's certainly over 1/2 your income
goes directly to taxes in almost every case.

Yet, Californians seem to think they can never be taxed enough. Sigh.

On 8/8/2014 2:34 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:09:28 -0400:

Please go into some detail. When you say "cut the wire" do you mean the
wire that ties the two handles together?

Yes. I think someone 'vandalized' the breaker (probably a workman who
felt his time was worth more than the lady's property).

There are four 120 volt circuit breakers in this pictu
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3909/1...c2a8bb6d_b.jpg

The two outer breakers are labeled "WELL PUMP", while the two inner
circuit breakers are labeled "PRESSURE PUMP".

On one of "my" circuit breakers, you see something similar, with the two
inner breakers tied together while the two outer breakers are also tied
together (in this case, for the air conditioning system).
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3856/14...dc3bd2f7_b.jpg

There is a copper wire connecting the two inner breakers, which is cut.

I'm pretty sure that copper wire didn't break on its own, so, someone cut
it. Why would they cut it? The only reason I can think of is that they
wanted to remove the panel, and the wire gets in the way (I've seen that
before), but in this panel, it seems that wasn't an impediment.

So, I don't know *why* someone cut the wire, but, what I need to know is
*what* to tell the homeowner about it since she has precious little money.

Double breakers are about ten bucks each,
for common panels like Cutler Hammer. I'd
be tempted to take out the quad setup, and
put in two doubles. A good worker could move
the wires around and swap out the breakers
in a few minutes.

I'd sure not want a 220 volt appliance on
separate breakers. Unsafe.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:28:06 -0400:

I'd sure not want a 220 volt appliance on separate breakers. Unsafe.

I will tell her.
Do you think it's only the INSIDE two that are double breakers?
Or, do you think the OUTSIDE two were also tied together at one time?

On 8/8/2014 11:11 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:28:06 -0400:

I'd sure not want a 220 volt appliance on separate breakers. Unsafe.

I will tell her.
Do you think it's only the INSIDE two that are double breakers?
Or, do you think the OUTSIDE two were also tied together at one time?

The photo you sent showed a inside pair and
outside pair, so it's very likely there are
two eaches 220 volt devices. Won't know for
sure till you get the panel box open, and
check with VOM.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 06:45:47 -0400:

The photo you sent showed a inside pair and outside pair, so it's very
likely there are two eaches 220 volt devices. Won't know for sure till
you get the panel box open, and check with VOM.

The lady texted me last night her Internet was down (we hooked it up for
her about a year ago, since we hook up everyone's Internet over the air),
so I probably will go up today whenever she's home from work and take a
look.

On 8/9/2014 2:13 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 06:45:47 -0400:

The photo you sent showed a inside pair and outside pair, so it's very
likely there are two eaches 220 volt devices. Won't know for sure till
you get the panel box open, and check with VOM.

The lady texted me last night her Internet was down (we hooked it up for
her about a year ago, since we hook up everyone's Internet over the air),
so I probably will go up today whenever she's home from work and take a
look.

If the device is 220 VAC, and if it's on two
separate breakers, and if one breaker trips
the device stops working "oh, the power is
off" says me, and goes to work on it. And
then gets fried cause the other breaker is
on. It's not a totally every day thing, but
it must have happened to someone back when.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:08:22 -0400:

If the device is 220 VAC, and if it's on two separate breakers, and if
one breaker trips the device stops working "oh, the power is off" says
me, and goes to work on it. And then gets fried cause the other breaker
is on. It's not a totally every day thing, but it must have happened to
someone back when.

In addition to 120 volts still going through the motor, I would think
that it would kind of get stuck since it only has half the voltage it
wants, which, can't be good for the motor, right?

PS: The lady texted me she will be home tomorrow, so I won't be able to
look at it until them. I'll also see if the next-door neighbor to her is
still pumping gray turbid water out of the brand new 520 foot well (it
was pumping onto the ground for a week).

On 8/9/2014 7:30 PM, Danny D. wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote, on Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:08:22 -0400:

If the device is 220 VAC, and if it's on two separate breakers, and if
one breaker trips the device stops working "oh, the power is off" says
me, and goes to work on it. And then gets fried cause the other breaker
is on. It's not a totally every day thing, but it must have happened to
someone back when.

In addition to 120 volts still going through the motor, I would think
that it would kind of get stuck since it only has half the voltage it
wants, which, can't be good for the motor, right?

CY: With one breaker open, the motor "sees" zero
volts, as the circuit is open. But a worker touching
the wire feels 120 to ground.

PS: The lady texted me she will be home tomorrow, so I won't be able to
look at it until them. I'll also see if the next-door neighbor to her is
still pumping gray turbid water out of the brand new 520 foot well (it
was pumping onto the ground for a week).

CY: Bother, that would have been nice to have
at least one good well in your area.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Friday, August 8, 2014 7:07:37 PM UTC-4, Danny D. wrote:
trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:37:08 -0700:



I guess your one of the folks that can add and thinks you're taxed too

much. LOL That's what gets me. You have some folks running around

talking about a top Fed rate of 34% or 39%, pretending that it's not so

much, like that's all the taxes we pay. Or comparing it to Fed rates 50

years ago, when there was no state income tax, sales tax, property taxes

were very low, etc. Today the combined effect is staggering.



Actually I made a typo or two in those rates, but the point is that I do

agree with you that we're taxed tremendously.



Most we're taxed by:

- Property tax (average it to be about $10,000/year, but it varies) so

let's call that 10% of your income (give or take)



- Federal income tax (marginal is in the mid thirty percent, but let's

average around 25%, give or take)



- State income tax (here, it's closer to a flat 9.something so let's call

that 10%, give or take)



- Sales tax (here, it's roughly around 8.75% so, and assume you buy $5/

year, including your car, which is effectively sales-taxed every year,

and we can assume that's in the noise level at about 1/2% to 1% of your

income).



- Gas tax (here's it's around 30.something cents per gallon, so if you

drive 15K miles a year, that's another 1/2% to 1% of your income).



And there's more. Every time you pay your Ooma bill, which is zero

dollars for your VOIP phone, you *still* have to pay almost $5 for

service taxes, so, let's assume service taxes are another 1/2% of your

income.



I didn't even get to social security taxes, and the like, so, without

even adding that, when we add it up, it's certainly over 1/2 your income

goes directly to taxes in almost every case.



Yet, Californians seem to think they can never be taxed enough. Sigh.

Agree with your analysis. And here in NJ, you can also add in things like
real estate transfer taxes. Sell your house and they hit you with taxes
of hundreds of dollars on that, just for transferring the title. Sell it for
more than it costs, they tax you at the state income tax rate, I think the max
here now is 8%. Take a loss on the house? Screw you, you can't balance
that off against
ordinary income, eg salary, only capital gains. Don't have any capital gains
the year you have the profit on the house? Screw you, you can't carry it
forward for state income tax. So, a year or two later you have a capital gain
on selling stock or a business, screw you, you pay income tax on that again. Recently they instituted a "millionaire's tax" on selling
properties over 1 mil. It's 1% of the total amount, so if the house is
$1mil and $1 dollars, you pay $10,000 on that. Then there are the DMV fees
they've jacked up. And the fines. They jacked up the fines for not having
a drivers license, registration, insurance card in your possession to like
$150 each. So, if you leave the house and forget your wallet, you're likely
going to pay at least $150, could be $450, and you have a mandatory court
appearance on the insurance card. Court appearance, so then in addition to
the fines, you have court cost fees. And for the peanut gallery, that's not for
not having insurance, a license, etc, it's for just not having the document
with you. And of course the cop that pulls you over can see what you actually
have or don't have right on his PC screen when he's pulled you over. So,
what's the grave offense here for not having a little piece of paper? OF
course if you're an illegal alien, well hell, then it's OK to not have any
papers at all, and a cop better not even ask.

BTW, how's that Ooma VOIP working? I wound up going with Nettalk 6 months ago.
I've had issues with Nettalk, and would not recommend it. If I had it to do all over again, I'd go with Oooma, seems like most people are happy with it. What's your bill? About $3.50 a month?

"Danny D." writes:
sms wrote, on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:56:42 -0700:

With good reason because houses in areas with good schools increase in
value and are fairly immune to housing bubbles. A 1960's era, 1500-2000
square foot, tract home, on a 6000 square foot lot, in a neighborhood
with good schools, is around $1.5 million. Property taxes would be about
$20K per year.

I don't think a single school parcel tax measure has ever failed in
Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Willow Glen, Los Altos,
Mountainview, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Woodside, etc., do you?

They rebuild or renovate the schools about once every five years, or so,
it seems, so, I'm sure, as you noted, the bathrooms must be fantasatic!

Yet, after all that, they can't "afford" school buses.
Makes no sense at all, to me.

Does it make sense to you?
Did California *ever* have yellow school buses?


Don't you ever drive up highway 87 between 85 and 280? Take a look
to the right next time, to the school district busyard which is full
of 'yellow school buses'. Which leave every morning between 0600 and
0700 to make their rounds.

We've sure looked at wide variety of options.

Danny, did you get anything going? Or still
slugging along on a dry well?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Danny D." writes:
trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2
1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square foot,
not by the acre.

Here's a lookup for Saratoga, where I think Steve hails from:
http://www.coldwellbanker.com/real_e...ch/ca/Saratoga

Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the
house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of
$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right
for where I live also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor..._13_%281978%29

Taxes, by law, are capped at 1% of the price you paid (see prop 13). They
can adjust upwards by up to 2% every year (and can also adjust
downwards if the property market tanks (which has happened to me
twice in the last 22 years).

There are also a bunch of fees (e.g. sewer, flood control) and
parcel taxes (school district, libraries, etc) that amount, in my
case, to about $500/yr in san jose.

Houses in south san jose go from between $450k and $750k
(higher in the almaden valley). Lower in east san jose.


Given the almost 10% income tax in California, with a median income of
$150K, that's another $15 in California property taxes. Add to that a

California state property taxes are progressive. NOBODY pays 9% (the top rate)
on their entire income, and for someone making $150k, their
california state income tax after deductions and exeemptions
amounts to 5-6% of AGI.

sales tax of almost 10% and you get a whoppingly high tax burden, which
when you add the marginal 36% Federal (but average is probably around 40%
), you get a tax burden that easily exceeds 60% to 70% of your income.

Look, with an AGI of around $200k, after deductions and exemptions
you'll pay about 28% in federal tax. You should learn how a progressive
tax system works before bandying numbers about.



Yet, they keep voting for higher, and higher, and higher taxes.
(I don't get it).

Citations, please. Tax rates haven't increased in california
for years (aside from parcel taxes, which generally amount to
thirty-five dollars a year per property).


Back to your question, I'll look up the median property size (I'm not
sure how to find that information) but I'll also post the income and
property value cite from that site above:

Most lots are around 6k square feet. For new developments, that
number has decreased due to lack of available space (the valley is
hemmed in on all sides by foothills).


"Saratoga, California is located in Santa Clara. Nearby cities and towns
include Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Loyola and Monte Sereno. Saratoga
is a suburban community with a population of 29,972. The median household
income in Saratoga is $145,807. 73% of residents are married and families
with children reside in 41% of Saratoga households. Half the population
of Saratoga commutes 26 minutes or more to work, with 83% of residents
holding white collar jobs and 17% residents holding blue collar jobs.

Saratoga, Monte Serreno, parts of Cupertino, Los Altos [hills], Woodside,
Hillsborough are some of the pricer areas, for good reason. Supply
and demand, don't you know?


The median age of homes in Saratoga, CA is 35 years, with 82% of those
homes owned, 14% rented and 3% not occupied. In the previous year, 0
Saratoga properties were sold. The median sale price of a home in
Saratoga
in the previous year was $1,340,000."

Duh, have you ever been there? It's not your general run-of-the-mill
suburb. There are plenty of less expensive neighborhoods around
(obviously less desirable).

On 8/11/2014 11:23 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The median age of homes in Saratoga, CA is 35 years, with 82% of those
homes owned, 14% rented and 3% not occupied. In the previous year, 0
Saratoga properties were sold. The median sale price of a home in
Saratoga
in the previous year was $1,340,000."

Duh, have you ever been there? It's not your general run-of-the-mill
suburb. There are plenty of less expensive neighborhoods around
(obviously less desirable).

Did Danny ever establish water supply?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Danny D." writes:
trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:

Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2
1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?

Saratoga California is a good sample city, as it is where at least one of
our members reside and it's representative of the white-collar
communities around it (Monte Sereno, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos,
Santa Clara, etc.) here in Santa Clara County.

Saratoga is hardly a "good sample city". Nor is it even closely
representative of santa clara, campbell or cupertino.

On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:23:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Danny D." writes:

trader_4 wrote, on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:13:25 -0700:



Out of curiosity, what are the typical taxes on say a nice 3 bedroom 2

1/2 bath home, 3000 sq ft, on about an acre lot?



An acre? Most land out here in Silicon Valley is sold by the square foot,

not by the acre.



Here's a lookup for Saratoga, where I think Steve hails from:

http://www.coldwellbanker.com/real_e...ch/ca/Saratoga



Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the

house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of

$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right

for where I live also.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor..._13_%281978%29



Taxes, by law, are capped at 1% of the price you paid (see prop 13).

It actually says that it's capped at 1% of the *assessed value*, which
can be totally different, especially for a house bought 20+ years ago.

So, now I'm confused. Danny who lives there said:

"Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the
house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of
$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right
for where I live also. "

That's 1.5 to 2X the 1% rate, so which is it?
I would think you guys would know what you're paying in real estate
taxes and could do the math. Here in NJ, it works out to about 2% of
actual current market value. And we have a top state income tax rate of 9%.

trader_4 writes:
On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:23:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Taxes, by law, are capped at 1% of the price you paid (see prop 13).

It actually says that it's capped at 1% of the *assessed value*, which
can be totally different, especially for a house bought 20+ years ago.

Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.


So, now I'm confused. Danny who lives there said:

I've lived in san jose for 22 years as a property owner.


"Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the
house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of
$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right
for where I live also. "

He's wrong. He also doesn't understand what progressive taxation means.

If you bought a million dollar house today, your property tax
assessment will be 10,000/yr, plus/minus $500. Plus about $500/yr
of fixed assessments (flood control, sewer, et alia). Can't go
up by more than $200/year by law for that house until an ownership
change[*].

I walk my check to the county tax assessors office twice a year,
I know exactly how much I pay and what my house is worth.

I bought in san jose in 1992, and my house is worth 3x what I paid
for it back then, yet my property taxes are about 0.6% of the current
assessed value (they were 1.0% of the assessed value when I purchased).

And that's _after_ yearly bumps (or sometimes decreases) in the
amount of taxes paid based on the prop 13 formula.

If they pegged the property tax on current value, I'd be paying perhaps 2 grand more
a year than I am. That's why prop 13 was passed in the first place,
given the large increases in value year-over-year in a space constrained
location like the bay area.
[*] business community fux with this by doing funky transfers that
don't trigger the reassessment - I hope they fix that loophole.

On Monday, August 11, 2014 1:40:17 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:

On Monday, August 11, 2014 11:23:35 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:



Taxes, by law, are capped at 1% of the price you paid (see prop 13).



It actually says that it's capped at 1% of the *assessed value*, which

can be totally different, especially for a house bought 20+ years ago.



Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.



That's pretty screwed up then and unfair. Somebody that bought a house
20 years ago that's now worth 1 mil, is still paying taxes based on a purchase
price that has nothing to do with reality. The other guy comes along
and buys a new 1mil house and he pays 1/3, 1/2 the taxes? How is that fair?
No wonder CA is on the path to bankruptcy.

I can only imagine the distortions it causes in the real estate market,
eg people that would like to move, won't move because they don't want
their taxes to double for a similar house with the same present value.





So, now I'm confused. Danny who lives there said:



I've lived in san jose for 22 years as a property owner.





"Taxes are roughly between 1.5% and 2% of the price you paid for the

house, so, the MEDIAN property taxes in Saratoga would be 2% of

$1,340,000, which is about $27,000/year, which sounds about right

for where I live also. "



He's wrong. He also doesn't understand what progressive taxation means.



He might be wrong on the tax rate, but I think he understands exactly
what progressive taxation means.




If you bought a million dollar house today, your property tax

assessment will be 10,000/yr, plus/minus $500. Plus about $500/yr

of fixed assessments (flood control, sewer, et alia). Can't go

up by more than $200/year by law for that house until an ownership

change[*].

And the guy next door, who bought his house 10 or 20 years ago is
benefitting from an artifical low rate that's half what the new guy
is paying. Some system.





I walk my check to the county tax assessors office twice a year,

I know exactly how much I pay and what my house is worth.



I bought in san jose in 1992, and my house is worth 3x what I paid

for it back then, yet my property taxes are about 0.6% of the current

assessed value (they were 1.0% of the assessed value when I purchased).



And you think that right and fair?



And that's _after_ yearly bumps (or sometimes decreases) in the

amount of taxes paid based on the prop 13 formula.



If they pegged the property tax on current value, I'd be paying perhaps 2 grand more

a year than I am.

I would think it would be a hell of a lot bigger difference than that.
Since 1992 hasn't CA housing gone through the roof? How could it be
based on a 1992 price, with only 2% or less increase each year, and
you're only paying $2K less? That doesn't compute.



That's why prop 13 was passed in the first place,

given the large increases in value year-over-year in a space constrained

location like the bay area.



It sounds like they had the right idea. But in turn, now the state is
broke and you have someone living in a house that costs X paying a hell
of a lot more than someone else who lives in a house worth exactly the
same amount, just because one guy bought it 20 years ago.




[*] business community fux with this by doing funky transfers that

don't trigger the reassessment - I hope they fix that loophole.

It sounds to me like the whole system is screwed. And if anything needs
to be fixed, it's that you should be paying what everyone else pays with
a house worth the same amount.

trader_4 writes:

Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.



That's pretty screwed up then and unfair. Somebody that bought a house
20 years ago that's now worth 1 mil, is still paying taxes based on a purchase
price that has nothing to do with reality. The other guy comes along
and buys a new 1mil house and he pays 1/3, 1/2 the taxes? How is that fair?

It was voted for by the people. Democracy in action. Ask any
republican - if the people vote for it, it must be done that way
(regardless of whether its a good idea, or even a violation of the
federal constitution)

(The justifcation was to allow retired folks to keep their homes).

No wonder CA is on the path to bankruptcy.

Another myth.

(BTW - why do you insist on double-spacing all your followups? It is
extremely annoying - don't blame google, it's your choice to use it).


He might be wrong on the tax rate, but I think he understands exactly
what progressive taxation means.

Not if he claims that someone making $150k pays $15k to the state.
Nor if he claims a 60% tax burden, which he did.


I bought in san jose in 1992, and my house is worth 3x what I paid

for it back then, yet my property taxes are about 0.6% of the current

assessed value (they were 1.0% of the assessed value when I purchased).



And you think that right and fair?

I'd be happy if it only applied to folks who were over 50, as the
law was intended to protect retirees from losing their homes due
to property tax increases. I also don't think it should apply
to commercial property.


I would think it would be a hell of a lot bigger difference than that.
Since 1992 hasn't CA housing gone through the roof? How could it be
based on a 1992 price, with only 2% or less increase each year, and
you're only paying $2K less? That doesn't compute.

Assume one bought for 200k in 1992 (which was a trough in the market).

Property tax is 2000/yr. Given yearly increases of 2%, the property
taxes today is circa $3700/yr.

If the market value was now $600k, the property taxes would be $6000/yr
at a current assessment. That's a $2k difference approximately.


It sounds like they had the right idea. But in turn, now the state is
broke

That's a typical myth from envious out-of-staters. The state ain't
broke, in fact it is rather flush right now.

and you have someone living in a house that costs X paying a hell
of a lot more than someone else who lives in a house worth exactly the
same amount, just because one guy bought it 20 years ago.

And they're retired, living on a fixed income.

On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:39:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:



Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.







That's pretty screwed up then and unfair. Somebody that bought a house

20 years ago that's now worth 1 mil, is still paying taxes based on a purchase

price that has nothing to do with reality. The other guy comes along

and buys a new 1mil house and he pays 1/3, 1/2 the taxes? How is that fair?



It was voted for by the people. Democracy in action. Ask any

republican - if the people vote for it, it must be done that way

(regardless of whether its a good idea, or even a violation of the

federal constitution)



Figures you'd figure out a way to blame Republicans.



(The justifcation was to allow retired folks to keep their homes).



It's a pretty far removed justification, because I don't see the
word retired or even age in there. Eighty year old grandpa could sell
his house in one part of CA to move closer to his kids, he buys a
different house, and he's screwed. Meanwhile some Hollywood exec
or actor living in the same house for 25 years, is paying low taxes on
a house because the taxes are not based on what it's worth today.
But his next door neighbor, having just bought his house is paying
2X or 3X. Great system.





No wonder CA is on the path to bankruptcy.



Another myth.


Sure. Believe what you want to believe. Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, San
Bernardino, all already bankrupt. Even the ultra lib HuffPost
says CA is going broke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-sa..._b_846143.html


"Why California Is Broke, and What We Can Do About It "



(BTW - why do you insist on double-spacing all your followups? It is

extremely annoying - don't blame google, it's your choice to use it).



Maybe I like annoying you.






He might be wrong on the tax rate, but I think he understands exactly

what progressive taxation means.



Not if he claims that someone making $150k pays $15k to the state.

Nor if he claims a 60% tax burden, which he did.



Why is that so unreasonable or hard to believe, when you add income tax,
real estate tax, sales tax, and all the various other fees, nuisance taxes etc?
It's typical of what you'd pay here in NJ, another state that is just a
little behind you on the highway to hell.







I bought in san jose in 1992, and my house is worth 3x what I paid



for it back then, yet my property taxes are about 0.6% of the current



assessed value (they were 1.0% of the assessed value when I purchased).







And you think that right and fair?



I'd be happy if it only applied to folks who were over 50, as the

law was intended to protect retirees from losing their homes due

to property tax increases. I also don't think it should apply

to commercial property.





I would think it would be a hell of a lot bigger difference than that.

Since 1992 hasn't CA housing gone through the roof? How could it be

based on a 1992 price, with only 2% or less increase each year, and

you're only paying $2K less? That doesn't compute.



Assume one bought for 200k in 1992 (which was a trough in the market).



Property tax is 2000/yr. Given yearly increases of 2%, the property

taxes today is circa $3700/yr.



You might want to check that math. 1.02^^22 = 1.55, 1.55*2000 = $3100

And what is that house actually worth today? Probably 800K,
so the other poor slob is paying $8000, which would be a $4900,
almost a 3X disparity. That seems more like it.



If the market value was now $600k, the property taxes would be $6000/yr

at a current assessment. That's a $2k difference approximately.



Per the math, it would be $3100 vs $6000, still a 2X disparity. So
much for equality. I'm surprised someone hasn't brought an equal
protection lawsuit over it. It sure seems unconstitutional to me.






It sounds like they had the right idea. But in turn, now the state is

broke



That's a typical myth from envious out-of-staters. The state ain't

broke, in fact it is rather flush right now.



Envious? Good grief! Of what exactly? Flooded with illegal aliens?
High taxes? Property and living expenses that are outrageous? Earthquakes?
Fire? No water? Sure, you finally have a surplus. But Jerry Brown has already done what libs
do, raise spending. And you could run the current surplus for the next
100 years and you still couldn't pay off CA debt. And that's just the
official debt, not all the unfunded crap that's off the books.





and you have someone living in a house that costs X paying a hell

of a lot more than someone else who lives in a house worth exactly the

same amount, just because one guy bought it 20 years ago.



And they're retired, living on a fixed income.

Oh, really? Everyone that's been in a house for 10 years, 20 years,
is suddenly retired now? Living on a fixed income? Pure fantasy.
You have folks with 10 mil estates, many of them probably held by trusts
so that they go from generation to generation, without passing title,
paying taxes based on 1990 or even 1975. Good grief. NJ is screwed
but even we aren;t that screwed. If I was paying $11000 in taxes and
my neighbor was paying $4,000 simply because he lived there longer,
I'd be royally ****ed. You aren't, because you're on the receiving end,
benefitting from the bizarre system.

On 8/11/2014 12:39 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:

Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.



That's pretty screwed up then and unfair. Somebody that bought a house
20 years ago that's now worth 1 mil, is still paying taxes based on a purchase
price that has nothing to do with reality. The other guy comes along
and buys a new 1mil house and he pays 1/3, 1/2 the taxes? How is that fair?

It was voted for by the people. Democracy in action. Ask any
republican - if the people vote for it, it must be done that way
(regardless of whether its a good idea, or even a violation of the
federal constitution)

(The justifcation was to allow retired folks to keep their homes).

That was how it was pushed through anyway. The big beneficiaries are
actually commercial property owners.

2% per year increase in taxes is sufficient for owner occupied
properties. It should not apply to rental properties or non-owner
occupied commercial properties.

If you buy a house for $500K and 15 years later it's worth $1.5 million,
why should your tax rate triple?

Of course there are unintended consequences of such a law. People buying
a new house might keep their old house and rent it out because they have
a tax incentive to do this. The taxes paid to the state and county don't
cover the services that the renters use but the landlord realizes a lot
of income.

On Monday, August 11, 2014 8:22:15 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 8/11/2014 12:39 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

trader_4 writes:



Assessed value at the time of purchase, which is the amount of purchase.







That's pretty screwed up then and unfair. Somebody that bought a house

20 years ago that's now worth 1 mil, is still paying taxes based on a purchase

price that has nothing to do with reality. The other guy comes along

and buys a new 1mil house and he pays 1/3, 1/2 the taxes? How is that fair?



It was voted for by the people. Democracy in action. Ask any

republican - if the people vote for it, it must be done that way

(regardless of whether its a good idea, or even a violation of the

federal constitution)



(The justifcation was to allow retired folks to keep their homes).



That was how it was pushed through anyway. The big beneficiaries are

actually commercial property owners.



2% per year increase in taxes is sufficient for owner occupied

properties. It should not apply to rental properties or non-owner

occupied commercial properties.



If you buy a house for $500K and 15 years later it's worth $1.5 million,

why should your tax rate triple?



Because the tax burden should be shared equally? That you should
not put an unfair load on people who buy houses today, while giving
a reduced load to others, regardless of income, how wealthy they are,
etc.




Of course there are unintended consequences of such a law. People buying

a new house might keep their old house and rent it out because they have

a tax incentive to do this. The taxes paid to the state and county don't

cover the services that the renters use but the landlord realizes a lot

of income.

Bingo. I can see lots of other unintended consequences. For example,
if one had a 500 acre estate that you intended to keep in the family,
you could have put it into a trust to hold, freezing it's taxes at
an unfair low rate forever, no? The middle income tax payer down the street
who bought 2 years ago, he's screwed.

Or as I pointed out, how about some elderly person who wants to sell
their current house and move close to their kids in CA? They could
be 85 and in poor health, but if they essentially want to swap one
house for another, they are screwed too. Anytime you govt imposes
totally artificial constraints on the free markets, it usually has
adverse effects. It's also clear CA hasn't been raising enough in tax
revenue, so it's been piling up debt to horrific levels and at least
3 municipalities have gone bankrupt. That's a sign that something is
seriously wrong.