<br>
<br>
<p>Chiming in from a high tax, high house value (formerly) area–Southern California.</p>
<p>I know of two acquaintances who sold out and moved about 2 years ago to cheaper digs. One moved to KY; the other to TN. Both love their new lives. </p>
<p>I don’t know about AZ and CO, but the more northern part of the South is attracting a lot of people.</p>
<p>ellemenope,</p>
<p>My fianc</p>
<p>“The AMT was originally meant to get the top 150 families to pay taxes. Now we are talking about 25 million people paying AMT.”</p>
<p>Well the very simple way out is to tax the rich. Alot! Duh.</p>
<p>“Huh? By definition a “depressed area” doesnt’ have a lot of jobs available, otherwise it wouldn’t be depressed…moreover, jobs for 50-60 somethings ain’t that easy to come by, unless one is in an easily transferable profession, such as teacher or physician.”</p>
<p>For many of us living in high cost areas, we do not need to move to a depressed area. Any place with an average cost of living would be a big break. I am more than tired of long work days in the land of Dilbert and long commutes. I realize that there are many options. One of our frequent posters is homeless ---- and is among the quarter million others who are full time RVers. Many are young, work, travel and lead a different lifestyle. That sure beats what I am doing, but that would not be my first choice. There are other options. For me our progressive tax and high cost system has reached the point of being a disincentive. </p>
<p>We all fall into patterns and don’t see or seriously consider alternatives. I moved beyond that a few months ago. My W and I are moving towards big changes. We are getting our affairs together and will re-assess our plans this Spring. It may take 1 year, it may take up to 3 years, but we are moving on and leaving this lifestyle to those of you who can still tolerate it.</p>
<p>There is more behind the AMT delay that is eluded by mini. </p>
<p>The change in AMT for the middle income was to be reduced under the House bill this tax year. The Senate was narrowly able to NOT pass a similar bill and was not able to compromise to the House’s proposal. The House compromised by essentially making a one year change in AMT reduction, at a cost to the taxpayers of $50 billion, but many times more than this in future dollars. </p>
<p>The question: What was so bad in the House proposal that prevented the middle class from getting a permanent reprive from the AMT? It is something that you do not want to know.</p>
<p>I suggest that you talk to your Congress people and voice your opinion.</p>
<p>The Dem. proposal was that the revenue lost by changing the minimum tax would be replaced by higher taxes on the wealthy. The Republicans disagreed- they feel since the minimum tax was never meant to catch as many individuals as it does the revenue was never supposed to be there- so no need to replace it.</p>
<p>UCLAri–lucky parents of your fiancee!!</p>
<p>“There is more behind the AMT delay that is eluded by mini.”</p>
<p>There is indeed more behind the delay. It is called the hostile, aggressive semi-permanent occupation of Iraq, and the two trillion it will eventually cost. </p>
<p>But if the rich want it, let 'em pay for it. If the AMT was meant to collect from the rich, let it do its work, and place a surcharge on top of it.</p>
<p>ellemenope,</p>
<p>Indeed. I hope to one day emulate it, but when you roll the dice…</p>
<p>UCLAri: Prop 13 is not as horrid as you think, I was very nvolved in our CA school; when we moved to a state with nasty unpredictable property taxes I could see a lot more money in the school, but the education was actually inferior. My kids CA school had much better teachers, higher parent expectations, though fewer bells and whistles. I would pick that education any time- that is comparing similar student abilities in similar grade levels.</p>
<p>somemom,</p>
<p>Remember that it will largely depend on the district. Prop 13 hurt the poor far more than it hurt the middle class and up.</p>
<p>I agree with you that is dependent on the district, a more accurate assessment of my experience would be that throwing money at the school does not nesc. make a better school or better education. As a former CA school board member overseeing budgets for years, I was blown away at the money I saw spent in our new district, yet disappointed in the outcome and education. So, it is never ONLY money and a great teacher can do great things without all the extras.</p>
<p>Better? ;)</p>
<p>UCLAri:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidence, please?</p>
<p>bluebayou,</p>
<p>[RAND</a> Review | Spring 2005 | Ultimate Test](<a href=“http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2005/ulttest.html]RAND”>http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2005/ulttest.html)</p>
<p>Now, the logical response to my argument will of course be to cite Serrano v. Priest-- I agree that that throws a wrench in my argument.</p>
<p>However, let’s assume for a moment that spending is equally low at all public schools, in poor districts and rich districts (which is, I bet, a poor assumption.) Now that spending is equal, who will have the easiest time making up for spending deficiencies? Do we see more charter schools in wealthier or poorer neighborhoods? The problem is that low spending, thanks to Prop 13, is going to be harder to remedy if you’re poor than if you can afford to just live in a district with a charter school.</p>
<p>School spending level is very complicated in Calif, and almost impossible to understand. It is certainly not true that rich districts spend more and poor districts spend less. certainly not within the 50 mile radius where I live.</p>
<p>Here is a report that attempts to discuss the issue. <a href=“http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/05-Loeb-SACS/5-Loeb-SACS(3-07).pdf[/url]”>http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/05-Loeb-SACS/5-Loeb-SACS(3-07).pdf</a>
Some conclusion are </p>
<p>Overall, urban districts and districts with high percentages of black, Hispanic or poor students spend more than other districts.</p>
<p>Urban districts, high school districts and districts with high proportions of black students or students in poverty have higher overall revenues than do other districts. These higher revenues are driven almost exclusively by greater restricted revenues.</p>
<p>As for charter schools, they are very seldom are in high SES school districts. Usually you have to pay a high premium to live in such a district, so why would you want to split from the school district? Charter schools are in high minority districts with low performing schools, to provide an alternate for students there. See [Amazon.com:</a> Our School: The Inspiring Story of Two Teachers, One Big Idea, and the School That Beat the Odds: Books: Joanne Jacobs](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403970238/103-8550690-7684608?v=glance&n=283155&camp=1789&link_code=xm2]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403970238/103-8550690-7684608?v=glance&n=283155&camp=1789&link_code=xm2)</p>
<p>I stand mostly corrected, then.</p>
<p>Mea culpa.</p>