We are safe for a year....

Dave Angelini

"Politics is OK in the "in the weeds" forum... Just keep it "clean and respectful".

I was born and raised in California... And had my family here.

I just wish all I had to worry about was what life threw at me--Vs politicians that think I cannot figure out how to live my own life--And want to spend my money on their programs.

My argument has always been, if you don't like the state, move somewhere else. But it is sad when your state changes right underneath you.

-Bill

Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset"

Born here also and gramps got off an Italian navy vessel the day before the 06 earthquake. Worked in the Kennedy and Argonaut gold mines not far from Mariposa. Raised in SF and Marin. I do not think I will ever go back to SF.Too many bums,junkies and hobos.

 Some good news Bill today.

By Jon Coupal

California’s 2019 legislative session recently came to a merciful end. Despite the fact that the Legislature passed dozens of bills assaulting basic economic rights, it could have been far worse for taxpayers. Indeed, in remarkably good news, the most dangerous threat to Proposition 13 was defeated.

Proposition 13 has been called the third rail of California politics. Touch it, and the electric shock risks ending your political career. However, few have been as virulent in their hatred of Proposition 13 as Asm. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters.  She introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, a bill to make it easier to raise taxes at the local level by lowering the vote needed to approve bonds and special taxes from two-thirds to just 55 percent.

Estragon

For the benefit of those of us not as familiar with CA politics, proposition13 was IIRC a limit on the imposition and/or growth of local property taxes?

softdown

Think I heard the feds may have passed a 10% limit on property tax increases but don't know the details. Perhaps it was just Florida? That is where I heard it though I hear and read a lot of bs. 

BB.

Back many decades ago, there were multiple tries by the electorate to try to stop constant tax increases. Every time some spending was turned down by the voters or tax increase... The state government just went around and increased the taxes and spending elsewhere.

It was getting to the point that between increases in property values and taxes, that people like my parents were not going to be able to retire in their homes. The property taxes at that time were something like 2.69% (if I recall correctly from ~1978). And the valuation for homes/property/businesses were going up at the rate of property inflation. So my parents paid something like $10-$15,000 for their 2 bedroom home in the mid-1950s. And was becoming more than their mortgage payments were (probably paid off a few years before).

So this was a "wealth tax" that nobody could avoid (you can control your spending, job, etc. -- But you could not control your property taxes short of tearing down your home and living in a tent on the property).

So--It was another attempt to control state and local government spending. Basically set property taxes to 1% (or 1.25%) of assessed valuation, and the assessed value can only rise by 2% per year (some funky stuff done here in court cases--But that is the basics).

And, if you willed your home to your kid(s), they kept the same valuation (plus 2% per year). The valuation only got "reset" by selling the property.

There were issues of "fairness"... Pay $600 a year property taxes on a $600,000 home (0.1%) if never sold, or willed to children. The person next door who bought their home at $600,000 paid %7,500 per year in property taxes.

Commercial properties did not always sell that often... And issues of "corporate ownership" (XYZ Company "owns property", but shareholders own company. Buying and Selling stock/interest in XYZ Co., did not cause a re-valuation of property).

Anyway... California was something like the 4th highest taxed state in 1978. And today, is still something like the 4th highest taxed state. And we are paying ~10% sales tax (not on food to be cooked at home), And among the highest marginal tax rate on wages.

https://taxfoundation.org/prop-13-california-35-years-later

This prediction has proven correct. While California’s property taxes are lower than New Jersey, New York, and even Texas, it remains a high tax state. It has the third worst business climate in the country, the highest top marginal income tax rate in the country at 13.3 percent, a corporate income tax of 8.84 percent, and the highest statewide sales tax in the country at 7.5 percent. But in 1978, California had the fourth highest overall tax burden, and today the state still has the fourth highest burden. Although one cannot say for certain that Prop 13 caused the other taxes to increase, Prop 13 at the very least failed to prevent high taxes and an expansive public sector.

The property tax cap portion of Prop 13 is what is known as a tax and expenditure limit, sometimes abbreviated TEL. Since 1978, many other states have enacted tax and expenditure limits, with Colorado’s “Taxpayer's Bill of Rights” being the most famous (or infamous, depending on whom you ask). Although these limits come in many different shapes and sizes, they all basically try to rein in government spending or tax collection.

So, Today, that 2 bedroom (added bedroom and bath in the mid 1960s home that was something like $15,000 in 1955, and today is estimated value of 1,160,000 and at 2% property tax would be ~$23,200 (at 2.69% would be $31,200) per year property taxes (in theory, without Prop 13).

In reality, the property values would not be nearly that high... A $2,000 per month payment ($24,000 per year) at 5% simple interest would be a "property tax value" of $480,000. 

I once looked at property values in New Jersey years ago... And the properties looked positively cheap (compared to California)--Until I saw what the yearly property tax payments were.

I have collapsed may issues and memories in the above summary. And probably some of them are "colored" by my beliefs.

If Prop 13 was never passed--My parents (and my neighbors) would never have been able to retire "in place" and pass the home on to their children.

Also there were some other tax limitation measures (like 2/3rds approval for tax increases and such)... Most of those were passed by voter initiatives, not legislative/governor passed laws.

Should parents with adult children be "forced" to move from a paid off "Prop 13 grandfathered" 3 bedroom home in a metro area, to 1 bedroom home somewhere else "cheaper to live"--That is one of those questions that probably cannot be answered "objectively and fairly".

Prop 13 has probably limited "mobility" for many families... And some "band aids" were attempted (it is possible to transfer your "low property taxes" from an expensive county to a less expensive county (if other country accepts, if you are over 55 years old, etc.). Some veteran exemptions, etc... (I think). Tax cutting and limitations--It is/was a state of mind of the time. Every few years, the basic limitations are being chipped away or the legislature tries to get a ballot measure approved to dramatically weaken the tax restrictions.

Eventually, they will... For example, California just passed statewide rent control:

https://reason.com/2019/09/12/california-passes-statewide-rent-control-despite-a-massive-housing-shortage/

Lots of details, but more of a if property owners "get Prop 13", then renters get "rent control". The devil is in the details (I am not sure what this bill does and who it affects... A 5%+inflation yearly cap (3% or 5% inflation cap), more restrictions on ending tenancy. And not sure age of property, which property owners are affected, etc....

-Bill

mcgivor

BB. said:

Back many decades ago, there were multiple tries by the electorate to try to stop constant tax increases. Every time some spending was turned down by the voters or tax increase... The state government just went around and increased the taxes and spending elsewhere.

It was getting to the point that between increases in property values and taxes, that people like my parents were not going to be able to retire in their homes. The property taxes at that time were something like 2.69% (if I recall correctly from ~1978). And the valuation for homes/property/businesses were going up at the rate of property inflation. So my parents paid something like $10-$15,000 for their 2 bedroom home in the mid-1950s. And was becoming more than their mortgage payments were (probably paid off a few years before).

So this was a "wealth tax" that nobody could avoid (you can control your spending, job, etc. -- But you could not control your property taxes short of tearing down your home and living in a tent on the property).

So--It was another attempt to control state and local government spending. Basically set property taxes to 1% (or 1.25%) of assessed valuation, and the assessed value can only rise by 2% per year (some funky stuff done here in court cases--But that is the basics).

And, if you willed your home to your kid(s), they kept the same valuation (plus 2% per year). The valuation only got "reset" by selling the property.

There were issues of "fairness"... Pay $600 a year property taxes on a $600,000 home (0.1%) if never sold, or willed to children. The person next door who bought their home at $600,000 paid %7,500 per year in property taxes.

Commercial properties did not always sell that often... And issues of "corporate ownership" (XYZ Company "owns property", but shareholders own company. Buying and Selling stock/interest in XYZ Co., did not cause a re-valuation of property).

Anyway... California was something like the 4th highest taxed state in 1978. And today, is still something like the 4th highest taxed state. And we are paying ~10% sales tax (not on food to be cooked at home), And among the highest marginal tax rate on wages.

https://taxfoundation.org/prop-13-california-35-years-later

This prediction has proven correct. While California’s property taxes are lower than New Jersey, New York, and even Texas, it remains a high tax state. It has the third worst business climate in the country, the highest top marginal income tax rate in the country at 13.3 percent, a corporate income tax of 8.84 percent, and the highest statewide sales tax in the country at 7.5 percent. But in 1978, California had the fourth highest overall tax burden, and today the state still has the fourth highest burden. Although one cannot say for certain that Prop 13 caused the other taxes to increase, Prop 13 at the very least failed to prevent high taxes and an expansive public sector.

The property tax cap portion of Prop 13 is what is known as a tax and expenditure limit, sometimes abbreviated TEL. Since 1978, many other states have enacted tax and expenditure limits, with Colorado’s “Taxpayer's Bill of Rights” being the most famous (or infamous, depending on whom you ask). Although these limits come in many different shapes and sizes, they all basically try to rein in government spending or tax collection.

So, Today, that 2 bedroom (added bedroom and bath in the mid 1960s home that was something like $15,000 in 1955, and today is estimated value of 1,160,000 and at 2% property tax would be ~$23,200 (at 2.69% would be $31,200) per year property taxes (in theory, without Prop 13).

In reality, the property values would not be nearly that high... A $2,000 per month payment ($24,000 per year) at 5% simple interest would be a "property tax value" of $480,000. 

I once looked at property values in New Jersey years ago... And the properties looked positively cheap (compared to California)--Until I saw what the yearly property tax payments were.

I have collapsed may issues and memories in the above summary. And probably some of them are "colored" by my beliefs.

If Prop 13 was never passed--My parents (and my neighbors) would never have been able to retire "in place" and pass the home on to their children.

Also there were some other tax limitation measures (like 2/3rds approval for tax increases and such)... Most of those were passed by voter initiatives, not legislative/governor passed laws.

Should parents with adult children be "forced" to move from a paid off "Prop 13 grandfathered" 3 bedroom home in a metro area, to 1 bedroom home somewhere else "cheaper to live"--That is one of those questions that probably cannot be answered "objectively and fairly".

Prop 13 has probably limited "mobility" for many families... And some "band aids" were attempted (it is possible to transfer your "low property taxes" from an expensive county to a less expensive county (if other country accepts, if you are over 55 years old, etc.). Some veteran exemptions, etc... (I think). Tax cutting and limitations--It is/was a state of mind of the time. Every few years, the basic limitations are being chipped away or the legislature tries to get a ballot measure approved to dramatically weaken the tax restrictions.

Eventually, they will... For example, California just passed statewide rent control:

https://reason.com/2019/09/12/california-passes-statewide-rent-control-despite-a-massive-housing-shortage/

Lots of details, but more of a if property owners "get Prop 13", then renters get "rent control". The devil is in the details (I am not sure what this bill does and who it affects... A 5%+inflation yearly cap (3% or 5% inflation cap), more restrictions on ending tenancy. And not sure age of property, which property owners are affected, etc....

-Bill

This is something that has forced many from retirement in their homes particularly in areas where property values skyrocketed, in fact it is one reasons I now reside in Thailand. My ex Boeing employees bungalow built in Richmond BC (Canada ) during the second world war, was purchased for $160 000 in 2000, the property taxes then were  $750 per annum, when I sold in 2015 the assessed value was $ 920 000 and taxes were approaching  $5000.

The rapid increase in value was mostly due to wealthy Chinese looking to hold their money outside China, it may have been benificial to those who intended to relocate but unfortunate for those who's income is fixed, or even those whose income was pegged to cost of living increases and wanting to remain. The  house was demolished shortly after I sold replaced with a large home, it was only a 50' ×100' lot which sold for 1.6 million 6 months later, increasing property taxes and perpetuating the problem. 

softdown

While discussing the zealotry of politicians in raising taxes, let us not forget that labyrinthian code laws prevent would be builders from building and keeping home values at much more affordable levels. I think S.F. has 700 pages of building code for would be home builders to be squashed under. So what do they do? Well they certainly don't build in an area with 700 pages of building code. Seattle has the same problem. 

Russia has no building code and their homes never collapse. Why? They use concrete. Simplified? Certainly. But a lot of pros feel that older homes (pre-code) will last much longer than newer homes (lots and lots of code). Where would we be without mega governance?

Code is an absolute insult to anybody who takes pride in their structures. They force mediocrity and often require inferior materials - like nails instead of screws. Screws have 8 times the holding power of nails. Why? The people who write the code are not builders. They are government automotrons.  One has to be a special kind of construction idiot to be a code enthusiast. Code is another jobs program for general contractors that makes routine construction impossible for anybody but the general contractor. It is a virtual license to steal from the homeowner. The beauty of older Victorian homes has been replaced with modern salt boxes that meet code. Thanks code enforcement. Edit: I might add that mega government interference in automobile manufacturing has done nothing for appearances. They are pretty much making the automotive equivalent to the construction salt box. Colors available in Base 1, Base II and Base III (plus white, black and red). 

I sent $600 (more than required) to a Florida General Contractor to get a needed "interior remodel" permit that was required because we removed the kitchen cabinets after Hurricane Irma. He just pocketed the money. Many of my other business contacts have been simply pocketing the funds I provide this year. What would we do without mega governance? 

What if I complain vigorously? What would happen to my social credit score?  

Government always knows best!

BB.

Rapidly rising property valuations and property taxes--And now the "wealth" taxes that some politicians are pushing (2% of everything, including your savings). Add that inflation is really another form of taxation (the government prints more money, devalues the worth of savings, loans, and bonds).

This is not going to end well.

-Bill

Estragon

Rapidly rising property values shouldn't necessarily mean rapidly rising taxes.  The local government budgets $X, and taxes should be applied more or less prorata based on assessed value.  Although direct comparisons are complicated, my city house is taxed roughly the same $ amount as a similar house in Toronto despite an assessed value maybe 1/10th that of the Toronto equivalent.

The problem is obviously the value and growth rate of X, not that of property values.

One side-effect of limiting taxes to limit X is this can add to valuation increases (a buyer can afford more if the tax part of principal-interest-tax is lower).  The interest component tends to be the main driver, but taxes can contribute at the margin.

The reset when sold thing is a bigger problem.  You want labour mobility to minimize frictional costs in the economy, and to avoid having to build and maintain the infrastructure needed to move people living long distances from where they work.  Rent control has similar effects, with the additional feature of limiting new supply and rehabbing.

It strikes me that a wealth tax is a full-employment measure for lawyers and tax accountants. I'm not aware of a modern example of it working as intended.

Dave Angelini

It can't end well, with a very large shortage of housing in the urban area's, the state will implement rent control, the investors will sell, the properties will decline.

Typically in the past there would be a shift to the other party. I think with all of the bums, junkies, and hobo's coming to California because of the weather and free stuff, it will be hard for the pendulum to swing back. I heard a term up in your area for the place where they "locate"
these fine folks. They call them Navigation centers. They are a hard sell to the public as few people want a 200 bed navigation center near their neighborhood.

The bad part of these "navigation" places is they are not like a Salvation Army center where you are tested for drugs and alcohol, you have to attempt to work and make progress. You can get up have breakfast, go to the park and get high with your buddies until dinner. 

Oh well, we still have the weather!

Estragon

Was reading about the central valley sinking because of high draws from local aquifers.  Get high and get low at the same time  

softdown

We magically build in areas that are prone to known disasters (hurricane/tsunami/cyclone/drought/floods/fire) and possibles - though certain over time. The Pacific Ring of Fire and San Andreas fault both coincide with gigantic population centers. The Perfect Storm could really happen. 

Not to worry folks. We have an utterly gigantic government that can fix problems - with a little more government. 

Dave Angelini

Estragon said:

Was reading about the central valley sinking because of high draws from local aquifers.  Get high and get low at the same time  

Please let me forget that the state voted for more water storage and the folks in Sacramento are not doing what the people voted for.
Folks like the Sierra Club are against more Dam storage even though they were for Nuc power in the 70's to avoid the Dams.
Freaking the land of fruits and nuts for sure. They know what they are doing in Sacramento, yea right....

softdown

Big to do about draining the delta for southern needs when I was there. Was told it would refill with seawater. Seemed a bit like theft to me. 
I suspect BB is right - too many storms brewing to have a happy ending. 

bill von novak

softdown said:

Code is an absolute insult to anybody who takes pride in their structures. They force mediocrity and often require inferior materials - like nails instead of screws.

Agreed.  And they often save lives when said builders are morons.  (Which happens more often than anyone would like to admit.)

I might add that mega government interference in automobile manufacturing has done nothing for appearances. 

I'd argue that brake lights, horns, airbags, seatbelts, catalytic converters and crashworthiness are all improvements that have done far more than just "improve appearances."

Building codes do not help master builders.  They can help keep people alive when those people demand the absolute lowest price for their homes.

softdown

bill von novak said:

softdown said:

Code is an absolute insult to anybody who takes pride in their structures. They force mediocrity and often require inferior materials - like nails instead of screws.

Agreed.  And they often save lives when said builders are morons.  (Which happens more often than anyone would like to admit.)

I might add that mega government interference in automobile manufacturing has done nothing for appearances. 

I'd argue that brake lights, horns, airbags, seatbelts, catalytic converters and crashworthiness are all improvements that have done far more than just "improve appearances."

Building codes do not help master builders.  They can help keep people alive when those people demand the absolute lowest price for their homes.

Quite the cherry picking of changes in automobiles. If so inclined I could list 50 items of dubious or negative net impact. Items that manufacturers were forced into to bump mpg a small fraction. Either that or mpg was their excuse. Items like space saver spares or no spare tires at all. Putting the air inlet so low that engines can suck up water and get destroyed when traveling through an ~ foot of water. Engines that can not realistically be rebuilt. Transmissions that are rarely rebuilt properly, due to incredible sophistication, and may cost $6000 to $8000 to let a transmission mechanic have a go at it. 

Then we have the computers that record absolutely everything. Makes hiding the bodies much more difficult. 

Mercedes is using over 1000 micro processors in their newer cars. Sound like something that will deliver trouble free driving for years? It won't. 

Saving lives via code? That's pushing things via the old "You just can't argue with safety and security" weapon. Shiver me timbers. I ought to stay in bed until we are all issued safety personnel to advise on various clear and present risks of the day. 

First I need to turn myself in for working on batteries without safety personnel properly notified and on standby. Didn't wear rubber clothes or safety goggles either. My goodness. I could have been shocked. 

bill von novak

softdown said:

Quite the cherry picking of changes in automobiles. If so inclined I could list 50 items of dubious or negative net impact. Items that manufacturers were forced into to bump mpg a small fraction.

No doubt.  Not every change - whether mandated or not - works as expected.  Still, today cars are safer, cleaner, more efficient and considerably more powerful than they were 50 years ago.  And on a real dollar basis, aren't much different in price.

Putting the air inlet so low that engines can suck up water and get destroyed when traveling through an ~ foot of water. 

No law requires low air inlets.  That's poor engineering, not government interference.

Engines that can not realistically be rebuilt.

No law requires engines that cannot be easily rebuilt - and indeed, rebuilds still occur all the time.

Transmissions that are rarely rebuilt properly, due to incredible sophistication, and may cost $6000 to $8000 to let a transmission mechanic have a go at it. 

No law requires hard to rebuild transmissions.  Indeed, a few cars (like the Prius) have replaced the transmission entirely with a power split device, a much simpler and more rugged design.  Again, no law required that - it was just a (good) engineering decision.

Mercedes is using over 1000 micro processors in their newer cars. Sound like something that will deliver trouble free driving for years?

A microprocessor is a lot more reliable than, say, a carburetor or electromechanical sequencer.  But again - engineering decision, not a law.  You could build an entire car without a single microprocessor using discrete transistors.  Heck, you could even use tubes and relays if you really wanted to.

BB.

It looks like some of the major issues that "scrap" a car--Airbags (lots of airbags, seatbelt pretensioners, replacing all that pop in an accident can exceed the value of a car). Something like $1,000 to $6,000+ to replace airbags (and fix the interior/dashboard/etc.).

Some states may require working airbags to pass the yearly inspection (how did California miss mandatory inspections--beside smog check every 2 years):

https://firstquarterfinance.com/is-it-illegal-to-drive-without-airbags/

The other to repainting a car... With the new (environmentally safe paints), to do a whole car repaint is not cheap either. Need the enviro friendly paints, a temperature controlled spray booth, etc...

If seatbelts are actually better than airbags (and safer to the passenger in most accidents), and wearing seatbelts are mandatory these days (at least in some states)... Not having airbags can reduce the costs of cars and their repairs.

-Bill

Dave Angelini

Wall Street Journal today says that 50% of the US "homeless" are now in California. California Poverty rate is at an all time low also was discussed. They went on to say that 95% of the "homeless" are bums and junkies and not people down on their luck and just need a hand. They want to be homeless.

The good news is an Idaho court hearing turned down the argument/law that the law the West coast Bum explosion is based on is not legal. That law originally from SF told the police that they can't clear out homeless encampments unless they have a bed for each homeless person. It will go to the Supreme Court they say. 

Estragon

In my experience (working long hours in urban core, and serving on the equivalent of a B.I A. board for ~10yrs), albeit in a much different climate, there were essentially two different types of homeless. 

One is what I call tourists.  They tend to be younger and more or less just figuring themselves out, chafing on rules at home, or maybe a bit of a bad scene there.  Lots in summer,  but the ranks thin when the weather turns cold.  They probably fit the "bums and junkies" mold.  My guess is SF gets a lot more of these types from colder places. 

The other is a core group, generally older and often with some sort of mental health problem.  When it gets really cold, they'll go to a shelter, but only as a last resort.  They're mostly harmless, but I found it helped to get to know them a bit, as they tend to be around for years.  Some would pretend to shop in my store to warm up, and I'd go along.  Some caused trouble (like bugging my customers, or using my carpet as a toilet), and I "encouraged" them to move along.

IMHO, the first type needs to be dealt with somewhat harshly.  It's okay to give the finger to authority, but there are limits, and they need to learn the limits sooner than later.  In the long run, it's better for them.  In the short run, it prevents a lot of friction between them and local residents.

The second type needs a different approach.  Either do  what's possible from a mental health perpective, or learn to accept them as they are, even if that means waiting for a bus next to a guy babbling to himself.

Dave Angelini

It is just that there are too many. I can't and won't go home to where I was born. The junkie who ripped the shirt off a lady in SF last week told her, go ahead and call the police, they won't do anything. And, he was right.

You cross the line out of SF to the next county and it is very different I am told.

Estragon

Here, the problem isn't so much junkies as meth.  A single one can tie up huge resources.  It isn't that the police won't do anything, but they can't because they're already dealing with a meth crisis situation and have to triage.

I used to deal with issues myself.  Unless there was a body, a person could get old waiting for a police response to theft, assault, etc.  Now that I'm old and out in the boonies, I don't know what I'll do.

Dave Angelini

Our boonies Sheriff just says bury them deep enough so I do not find out about it. The police in the big cities here have their hands tied by city hall and Sacramento. They are not very happy about it either.

yea there is Meth here and all of the other choices. Many of the bums just drink 24/7. We look out into the forest and are up high enough to see the headlights at night going out to make/grow drugs. We use to call them in when the sheriff had money for fire spotter planes. They farmed the planes out to the state fire agency Cal Fire and they only care about fire.

The state has mandated to all counties to spend money on the homeless. We are an extremely poor county and recently hired a full time position for the issue. My wife and I really love it here but we now have a ditch plan to get out in 5 years or so and go to southern Nevada. Neither one of us wants to finance this state with our RMD's which start at 70.5. You guys have equivalent RMD's in Canada?

BB.

For those of us abbreviation impaired:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/requiredminimumdistribution.asp

I have been thinking about setting up legal residence in Carson Valley, Nevada.

Bill

Estragon

Thanks for the link, as RMD wasn't ringing any bells for me. 

We have something similar, in which deferred tax retirement accounts (RRSPs) have to be converted to retirement income funds, I think also by age 71.  IIRC, minimum withdrawal (taxable as withdrawn) starts at 5% of gross fund value / yr, and increases to 10% in later years.

I haven't done a lot in tax deferred, figuring if there's a pot of potential tax out there, some government will eventually want a bigger chunk of it.  They could still come after the tax paid savings (wealth tax etc), but it will be a harder target (I hope).  I'm also kind of a pay as you go type, allergic to pretty much any kind of debt.

Gotta wonder how many other folks in the likes of Illinois also have ditch plans.  From what I've read, the IRS isn't making it easy to set up legal residences in lower tax states.

Dave Angelini

Pretty in Carson. We just want to get away from snow and so Henderson is where we will "set-up residence, we think...

RRSP probably has an equivalent this we call ROTH IRA. There are no taxes on withdrawal.

Here is a fun calculator for RMD's
https://www.schwab.com/ira/understand-iras/ira-calculators/rmd

Marc Kurth

Dave Angelini said:

Our boonies Sheriff just says bury them deep enough so I do not find out about it. The police in the big cities here have their hands tied by city hall and Sacramento. They are not very happy about it either.

A common sign around here, reads: NO TRESPASSING. I own firearms and a backhoe.

A common expression is "SSS" for troublesome animals like deadly snakes or aggressive animals. Shoot, shovel, shutup.

WaterWheel

In the USA you never really own your property because of property taxes although I hear that a few states don't have property taxes for older citizens (over 65 ??? ).

Just paid my roughly $2000 property tax bill today so perhaps I'm a little grumpy about property taxes.      I'm in a somewhat  rural county with few large businesses (low tax base) so 63% of my property taxes go to the local schools which is funny because I've never reproduced and my few neighbors all send their kids to private schools.

We only see a cop once a year on this road to establish "patrolling" for legal purposes and they only need to ride down a road once a year to establish this.

Estragon

Dave Angelini said:

Pretty in Carson. We just want to get away from snow and so Henderson is where we will "set-up residence, we think...

RRSP probably has an equivalent this we call ROTH IRA. There are no taxes on withdrawal.

Here is a fun calculator for RMD's
https://www.schwab.com/ira/understand-iras/ira-calculators/rmd

There is a tax paid equivalent, where after tax $ are put in, but interest/gains are tax free, as are withdrawals. 

My cabin property taxes are ~$1,500.  For that, I get to not have the property taken away, at least for now.  I've never seen a cop within a few miles of the place, and not sure I really need to.   There is no road, fire dept, or much of anything else.   Hopefully, the $1,500 does something good.  I wouldn't know as I don't get to vote on it, so have limited interest. 
  

icarus

Fundamentally, taxes are one of the prices we pay to live in a civilized society.  One can argue the efficacy of how our tax money is spent, but that is best done at the ballot box.  

softdown

The threat is a government that grows too large and powerful and does things like:
1) Cops take more than private criminals via civil asset forfeiture - all done without courtroom process. The cops act as judge and jury.
2) 40,000 SWAT raids/year
3) 990 citizens killed by cops plus how many dogs? Why can UPS/meter readers/USPS deal with so many more dogs without having to put down dogs?
4) Runs up a debt that can not be repaid - children will live as indentured servants as a result. 

Sure we have bad people that force some of this to surface but a huge problem is all powerful governance without accountability. My county decided to resell four of my matured tax liens. I'd hire a lawyer but may fear a SWAT raid in retaliation - they can be deadly. Likely will be to protective dogs.

The old ballot box argument doesn't work so well in the real world. We can vote for those who talk a good game but they don't have to, and usually do not. follow up on their campaign promises. 

Dave Angelini

You can always attempt to do what George Washington did. 
Far easier to do what CSN wrote in their song Love the one your with.
Run the calculator, it will make you feel good!