Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Braineack - you do your screen name a disservice. In what way is an incidence of police brutality in any way connected to the Chicago economic (or political) model?

Or, said another way, do you believe police abuse of authority does not occur in Texas?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

No, I can't spell Brainiac. I'm doing just fine.


I was going to post in my police has militarized thread, but oh well. Chicago pretty much invented crooked cops.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Is this a better example for you?

Remember, IL cant afford to bury its dead.



lol, Bruce, video is great.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Yes; that seems more relevant to this topic. However, it would be better if you could find an example of a Texas state fair that made a net profit or was cash flow positive or somehow superior to the Chicago model.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this is all i got for you:

In Utah, the state fair received $675,200 from the pockets of state taxpayers to keep afloat this year.

The 2011 Indiana State Fair, which was marred by the tragic August 13 collapse of a concert stage and resulted in the deaths of five fairgoers, cost state taxpayers $600,000. That’s on top of the $1.6 million Hoosier State lawmakers frittered on the fair in 2010.

North Dakota’s fair is schedule to receive $365,000 in tax dollars each of the next two years.

But this year, Wyoming is the grand champion of state fair subsidies. Since 2005, taxpayers in the nation’s least populated state paid out an astounding $10.6 million – a cost of $50.99 to each family in Wyoming – just to keep the state’s failing fair from going belly up.

Fortunately, some states are wising up. In 2009, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, in one of the few good moves she made as governor, took the state’s fair off the dole. The decision to shutter the Michigan State Fair now saves Michiganders an estimated half-million dollars per year.

For Wyoming taxpayers, however, state “wel-fair” will only get worse before it gets better. The state legislature has promised up to $250,000 in taxpayer-funded grants to finance a celebration honoring the Wyoming State Fair’s 100th anniversary next year. That quarter-million dollar giveaway is on top of another $1.4 million already earmarked for the fair in the state’s 2012 budget.

Maryland state fair subsidy - $603,500 plus $95,000 to the fair board for an ag education subisdy.




Now....

The State Fair of Texas is run by







wait for it...














State Fair of Texas, Inc. - A business.

State Fair of Texas, Inc. is a private, non-profit corporation. It receives NO funds from state, federal or local government and is entirely self-supporting.

sixace

So Alaska and the rest of the lower 48 only account for 5% of the US oil and gas industry?

There are 7 states with zero state income tax, and another 2 that only tax dividends and interest. How do they do it without the benefit of oil and gas production? (hint: tax other **** really high)

Texas State fair also has fried beer. mmmm, fried beer.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

to be fair, wyoming is one of those states... they are the worst.

I already posted how TX does a state fair - it's privatized.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's how it's done in Florida. No income tax because no income.

But lots of tourists.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Can you expound on this? Take Florida, for example. There is no state income tax and no state death tax. Most counties I am familiar with have sales taxes around the 6-7% range.

Are you suggesting that property taxes are higher than states with high income taxes? I am trying to think of what other taxes might be included. Vehicle registrations?

I have a feeling you have a super dry delivery in real life which comes across in text - either way, leaving some people wondering if you are serious.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I pay state, property, and sales tax, doubled sales tax in city.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

For my own interest, a quick search found the following: using a five year time span (2005-2009 which is recent but probably aberrant) to compare property taxes using medians as a percentage of home value and income:

Orange County, FL (i.e. Orlando) ~ 0.9%; 3.1%
San Diego County, CA (i.e. San Diego) ~ 0.5%; 3.3%
Mercer County, NJ (i.e. Trenton) ~ 1.9%; 6.5%
Dallas County, TX (i.e. Dallas) ~ 2.1%; 4.1%
Knox County, TN (i.e. Knoxville) ~ 0.7%; 1.7%
Fairfax County, VA (i.e. Fairfax) ~ 0.8%; 3.5%

It would then be interesting to add sales tax, state income tax for median income level, etc, to get a comparison. I am sure some group has already done that.

Note: I understand most MSAs are comprised of multiple counties (Orlando is best represented by Orange, Seminole and parts of Osceola, for example). Please feel free to note better substitutes.

Source = Tax Foundation

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

This is slightly misleading.

The base tax rate in San Diego County is 1% of assessed value, plus Mello-Roos and other fees.

HOWEVER, there is a caveat. Because of the astronomical appreciation in property values over the past several decades, people were finding themselves priced out of their own homes due to re-appraisals. Thus, we have Proposition 13.

What Prop 13 does is to limit the amount by which anybody's property tax bill can increase to 2% per year, regardless of any change in the value of the property.

So let's say that you bought your house in 2001 for $200,000. At that time, your property tax was $2,000 per year (we'll just use the base 1% rate.)

The very next year, your home was re-appraised, and found to have a value of $600,000 (this does actually happen here.) Without Prop 13, your 2002 property tax would have jumped to $6,000 overnight. Because of Prop 13, however, they can only raise your property tax to $2,040. Then in 2003 it goes up to $2,080, in 2004 it increases to $2,122, and so on.

Unfortunately, this only applies to the house that you already own. If you were to sell your house and then move across the street into a completely identical house, your property tax would immediately jump to $6,000 per year, and the person who bought your old house would also pay $6,000 per year.

It's unfair to those of us who moved to California in the past decade as compared to those who have lived here since the 80s.


So, from a practical standpoint, that data is skewed because it includes all of the people who have been living here for a while and are thus sheltered by Prop 13, who are paying far less in actual property tax than the "proper" amount relative to the actual value of their house.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

That's a great point; I did not look through the methodology in enough detail to be able to determine if that would be accounted for or not.

Assuming that data under-reports the actual property tax burden, it could mean that San Diego has a higher county sales tax (~7.75 - 8.75% vs 6 - 7%), higher state income tax (call it ~4% - 6% marginal for median income of ~$50k vs 0%), comparable or higher property taxes as a percentage of income and percentage of home value and a death tax?

Oh, and housing is probably on the order of 30% - 50% more expensive. And we have no vehicle inspections or CARB.

You do have us beat with the weather, though. Damn rain and humidity...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm sure that similar issues in the methodology exist in other areas as well.

In Florida, you guys have the Homestead Exemption, which in my opinion is much fairer than Prop 13, as it applies to everyone, regardless of how long you have lived there. Last I checked, the first $50,000 of your primary home's value was exempt from taxation, and given that in some parts of FL you can actually buy a decent home for not much more than $50,000, it's possible to live there nearly tax-free.


You know, I honestly have no idea what our local sales tax rate is.

(checks some receipts.)

7.75% in CA, plus 1% in Carlsbad. I assume the rest of SDC is similar.

We don't have any city or county income taxes, but CA income tax is pretty steep. Most folks fall into the 5-8% range.



I'm not sure what you mean here. More expensive than what?

If you mean to compare CA to FL, housing here is more like 200% - 1000% more expensive. My 700 ft/sq apartment is $1,600 a month, and a house that would cost $90,000 in one of the gulf-coast towns might fetch $500-$700k here. And that's post-recession pricing. In '05, you couldn't buy a decent 3/2 detached house around here for much less then a million.

That's why Prop 13 was such a big deal. Can you even imagine paying $1,000 per month in property tax? That's more than most people's mortgages, and we're not talking about a mansion in Beverly Hills, that's just any ole' single-family home in a tightly packed cookie-cutter subdivision which happens to be east of El Camino Real. Tack on $200-$400 per month in HOA fees, and you start to see why the whole concept of interest-only mortgages was developed right here.



Yeah, I know. I grew up Charlotte County, went to school in Gainesville, and lived in Sarasota County from late '08 to early '10.



And we have jobs here, too.

I've lived in a lot of different places. Georgia, Miami, western FL, northern FL, Cincinnati, NYC, SD, and I've traveled to pretty much every major city in the US. Even with CARB, I honestly cannot think of any place I would rather be.

jacob300zx

The OP is from Illinois lol. Literally the worst run state in the union.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

So many percentages in this thread, I must add more.

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet:

T. Roosevelt.................. 38%
Taft............................... 40%
Wilson.......................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover ......................... 42%
F. Roosevelt...................50%
Truman......................... 50%
Johnson........................ 47%
Nixon............................ 53%
Ford............................. 42%
Carter........................... 32%
Reagan..........................86%
GH Bush....................... 51%
Clinton ......................... 39%
GW Bush...................... 55%
Obama......................... 08%

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I don't think either of us should be too quick to brag about jobs...

California ranked #50 out of 51 at 12.0% July unemployment rate
Florida ranked 45 at 10.7%

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

(Pre-emptive: Jason, we know about the flaws in that number)

Although, like real estate, it's all local and demographically specific. I think we have one of the largest research parks in the US, we have one of the largest universities in the US, a large aerospace contingent and a growing "medical city."

Although, like CA, we are still dealing with the effects of the job bubble that came with the housing bubble.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

If this is accurate, that's pretty astounding. I don't place a lot of weight on it, but it's interesting nevertheless.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

I, for one, place a lot of weight on it