Quite! They think we're all hippies or liberal Hollywood A-listers.
Don't ruin the fun...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just common fruits, flakes and nuts eh?
Quite! They think we're all hippies or liberal Hollywood A-listers.
Don't ruin the fun...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
WOW....
Congrats, I didn't know California had paid off their 46 BILLION debt and addressed the pending 75+ BILLION unfunded liabilities like the Cal Pension fiasco......
No, you're selling an LLC, not a property. No change in value.
Same as selling an LLC, or a share in an LLC that owns an airplane. No change in ownership of the asset, so no tax hit.
Just common fruits, flakes and nuts eh?
What incentive would there be to do that? If you sell the property, it's the buyer, not the seller, who will have to pay based on the increased valuation. Also, would the valuation go up to market value when you transfer it to the LLC?
What about when you create the LLC? There is a transfer of ownership into the LLC, no?
From TFA:
"Nearly every state in the union has considered drone legislation in recent years—only Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin have not"
But let's not let that get in the way of the California bashing.
Temps are supposed to be in the 80's this weekend. Can't decide if we should go to the beach this weekend or up to Big Bear to play in the snow.
Yes, but that happened once for the commercial properties, a long time ago.
There is another loophole where the property is not reassessed unless there is more than a 50% change in ownership. As you can imagine, there are a lot of shell game ways to play that out to hide ownership changes. There are likely many cases where the property has changed hands fractionally over time, and may have none of the original owners, but the counties don't have the resources to track all of that down. The other factor that comes into play are publicly traded companies - all of the shareholders may have changed in a period of a few years, but it doesn't trigger a property assessment (similar to the LLC issue, but on a bigger scale).
Basically, I don't like hearing companies whine about property taxes in California, at least not the bigger businesses who should be smart enough to know how to play this game. It is well documented that there has been a large shift in property tax revenue in most areas of CA from businesses to residential since Prop 13 went into effect.
So it only works if you create the LLC and transfer the property into it before the value goes up?
Sounds like California is not quite as anti-business as some would have us believe.
Some of the most anti-business things I've seen are more related to municipal-level government than the State.
I have no particular love for the State's environmental agencies, and I have to deal with them on a regular basis.
Jeff
Nice job of moving the goal posts to fit your agenda.
"California ended the fiscal year with $1.9 billion left over in its state general fund, Controller John Chiang (D) said last week, the first time the general fund ended with a positive cash balance since 2007, the year before the recession began. The state Department of Finance has projected a $4.2 billion surplus for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, which began July 1."http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-years-of-cuts-state-budgets-show-surpluses/
And as I said before, there has been NO FEDERAL BAILOUT, so comparing California to what happened with the big banks is complete nonsense.
Glad to hear they are now only 44 BILLION in debt.........
Wait till the illegal aliens get folded into the budget.......
Still shifting those goal posts, I see!
If you're worried about that, the first thing you should do is address it at the county and state levels. Your house and property are routinely photographed by very expensive, high res cameras for tax and law enforcement purposes. I'm sure they have found some interesting things
As this relates to pilots, right now the only agency that controls any airspace is the FAA. This is great because we can fly anywhere in the USA and all the laws are the same.
Contrast that with gun laws. My right to own and transport guns is actually constitutionally protected. However if I want to put my rifle, a handgun and some ammo in my car and drive up to ohio to hunt with my cousins, I have to consult the gun laws for each state I travel through to make sure I am not carrying too much ammo, an illegal gun, illegal ammo, a magazine with too much capacity, and the guns and ammo are secured in the right fashion.
To make it more difficult, many gun laws in each state have grey areas and its super difficult to find the laws, few states publish them in an easy to find and read fashion. You have to scour the internet and hope what you are reading is correct. If you get this wrong, something that is perfectly legal and routine in one state could easily get you a felony conviction and years in prison in another.
DO you want flying to be like that!!
I'm not worried about it, I applaud laws if they protect my privacy (as if there is such a thing these days).
I guess I'm confused on where you stand, federal laws as it applies to flying are good but state's laws as they apply to guns are bad?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bell California is a prime example of MASSIVE fraud and waste...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/verdicts-reached-in-bell-california-corruption-case/
Texans might want to learn what their own state is up to:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-p...ty-much-opposite-every-other-states-drone-law
I mist say, it's quite interesting that most (all?) law enforcement uses are exempt from the drone regulations/prohibitions. This in the state that claims to be the bastion of personal freedoms.
It clearly shows that All men are NOT created equally.....
Sad state of affairs for a once great country........IMHO..
Gotta love whiners who think that if california seceded from the union NOTHING made in california WOULD EVER be able to make it's way to california, and NOBODY would ever think of a way to replace said stuff, not having it made in california.
I find it odd that those that oppose regulations on drone flights are the same ones that are quick to say they'll bust out the 12 gauge.
And if the drone is low enough to hit with a 12 gauge...it's trespassing, plain and simple.
And you base this "law" on... ??? A God given gut instinct or something?
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?
What's the range of a 12 gauge? 50 yards maybe?
Oh, I don't know, how about 400'... like the California proposal?
Oh, I don't know, how about 400'... like the California proposal?
True, I looked at it again and the California proposal is...That's not in the California proposal.
SECTION 1. Section 1708.83 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
1708.83. (a) A person knowingly enters onto the land of another person pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1708.8 if he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the property.
(b) A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without permission, he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 42102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the real property.
I'd say "navigable airspace" could reasonably be defined as the height below which you don't need the FAA's "permission" to build a structure.
True, I looked at it again and the California proposal is...
But it doesn't define "navigable airspace".
Guess they will need to redefine trespassing to include things which are not human. What is trespassing anyway? Flying 100 feet above your property? 10 feet? 1 foot?
Suppose the property is on short final and 199'AGL will be a hazard to landing and take offs.......