广东揭阳哪家看白癜风好潮州白癜风治疗价格范围,白癜风在普宁哪家看好,揭阳中医治疗白癜风大夫,普宁白癜风治疗颈椎好枕头,潮州白癜风要怎么医治,潮州儿童白癜风的专家,普宁有那些中医治白癜风好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are negotiating a pair of proposed tax increases as the deadline approaches for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign a 4.8 billion operating budget.Lawmakers approved the budget bill last week, but lawmakers still must pass more than a dozen "trailer bills" that detail how the money must be spent.Monday, the state Senate approved a plan to raise taxes on some business income and give that money to people who earn less than ,000 a year in their annual tax refunds. The Assembly, meanwhile, approved a fee of up to 80 cents per month on phone bills — including cell phones — to pay for an upgrade to California's aging 911 system following the most devastating wildfire season in state history.The businesses taxes are a tough vote in the Assembly , where Democrats in power have concerns about voting to align the state's tax code with a portion of the 2017 federal tax law signed by Republican President Donald Trump. The 911 fee is a tough vote in the Senate, where lawmakers are wary of voting again on a cell phone fee after a similar proposal fell one vote shy of passing last year.Lawmakers in both chambers breezed through a series of trailer bills on Monday that did things like temporarily suspend taxes on diapers and tampons and extend the state's paid family leave program by two weeks. Lawmakers passed each one with little debate and with bipartisan agreement on several points.But the Legislature is poised for a pair of critical votes on Thursday on the 911 fee and business taxes, with leaders in both chambers trying to pressure the other one to vote."It is really kind of part of our strategy to make sure one house takes a vote that may feel difficult by the other house, and vice versa," said Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee. "I think those are appropriate dots to connect."The business tax changes are part of a plan to selectively adopt some of the federal tax changes Trump signed into law in 2017. Some items would lower taxes and others would increase them. Overall, the state would get an additional .6 billion in revenue during the fiscal year that begins July 1.Newsom wants to use most of that money to triple the state's earned income tax credit program, which boosts the size of annual tax refunds for low-income people. The plan would make about 1 million more people eligible for the credit. Plus, it would give ,000 to people who make less than ,000 a year and have at least one child under 6.But the plan would still not include immigrants who pay taxes but do not have Social Security numbers. Newsom would not include that in the budget because he said it was too expensive, but pledged to work toward it in future years.In an effort to win votes, lawmakers have stopped referring to the bill as "conforming" to the federal tax code, but instead call it "loophole closure." Assemblyman Adam Gray, a moderate Democrat from Merced, supports the bill. He said he has never seen "so much consternation" about a tax bill, noting lawmakers often conform to federal tax changes without controversy.The 911 fee is an effort to upgrade the state's system so it can handle text messages, photos and videos. But the fund that pays for the system is based on a fee for each phone call. The fund has been steadily declining as more people opt to send text messages.Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, argued that the state should use some of its surplus to pay for the changes rather than raise fees on consumers. But Assemblywoman Christy Smith, D-Santa Clarita, argued that the state's 911 system is essential and requires funding beyond a short-term surplus."Yes, we have a surplus. But we don't always have a surplus in California," she said. "We will always have emergencies."___Associated Press writer Andrew Oxford contributed. 3896

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California affiliate of the National Rifle Association has asked a U.S. judge to block a new law requiring background checks for anyone buying ammunition.The California Rifle & Pistol Association asked San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez to halt the checks and related restrictions on ammunition sales.Voters approved tightening California's already strict firearms laws in 2016. The restrictions took effect July 1.The gun owners' association challenged the ammunition background checks in a lawsuit filed last year and on Monday asked for an injunction, alleging it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.RELATED: New ammunition law requires background checksThe lawsuit has been joined by out-of-state ammunition sellers and California residents, including Kim Rhode, who has won six Olympic shooting medals and is trying to become the only person to win seven medals at seven consecutive Games."The scheme purports to funnel everyone seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to acquire ammunition into a single, controlled source, an in-state licensed vendor, for the purpose of confirming purchasers' legal eligibility to possess ammunition and to keep track of all purchases," lawyer Sean Brady wrote. "While making sure dangerous people do not obtain weapons is a laudable goal for government, California's scheme goes too far and must be enjoined."The motion raised concerns about identification requirements and high rates of denials among ammunition buyers undergoing the new background checks. Moreover, the system blocks out-of-state ammunition vendors from the California market, the motion argues.RELATED: Study: Tougher gun laws lead to fewer firearm-related deaths among childrenThe judge is expected to decide in early August whether to order a halt, though any such decision is almost certain to be appealed.Benitez in October rejected the state's attempt to throw out the lawsuit. He allowed opponents to proceed on arguments that the ammunition restrictions impede interstate commerce and are pre-empted by federal law.The measure "criminalizes all of those (ammunition) transactions with merchants conducting business in other states," he wrote in a preliminary ruling that the restriction "significantly burdens interstate commerce."He also preliminarily supported the argument that the new state law conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.RELATED: Southern California town of Needles wants to be a sanctuary -- for gun ownersThe California law "criminalizes bringing ammunition into the state that was purchased or obtained outside the state," he wrote.Benitez earlier this year struck down California's nearly two-decade-old ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. That triggered a week-long buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.The impending ammunition background checks sparked a surge in sales as firearm owners sought to beat new requirements, including that dealers report the brand, type and amount of ammunition to the state Department of Justice.Gun owners who already are in the state's background check database would pay a fee each time they buy ammunition, while others can buy longer-term licenses if they do not have certain criminal convictions or mental health commitments.Gov. Gavin Newsom has criticized Benitez's lifting of the state's ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, saying he is confident it will be reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Attorneys with San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence anticipated that Benitez is likely to block the ammunition restrictions, but the law would eventually be upheld on appeal."Unfortunately this may be the one judge in the country" willing to rule that "people should be able to buy unlimited quantities of ammunition without background checks," staff attorney Ari Freilich, who directs the organization's California legislative affairs, said prior to the filing.Gun owner groups have been pinning their hopes on a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court. But the center's litigation director, Hannah Shearer, said there are unlikely to be the kind of conflicting lower court opinions that would prompt the justices to weigh in.She said courts have upheld ammunition licensing laws in other states and she expects the 9th Circuit would do likewise. 4465

Rising prices and plummeting listings — not to mention a global pandemic, record unemployment and recession — didn’t keep first-time home buyers from the market in the second quarter of 2020.Ordinarily, in April, as the second quarter of the year begins, homebuying season is well underway, and inventory and prices are both rising toward a summer peak. But the second quarter of 2020 was unusual, to say the least.Across the nation and among the most populous metropolitan areas, prices increased modestly in the second quarter and inventory became even more constrained in an already sparse market. Homeowners who’d been planning to sell reconsidered — though listings ticked up slightly in April, they fell sharply in May and June — and people who’d been thinking of buying, at a minimum, took a beat. But real estate professionals scrambled to implement virtual tours and finalize home purchases in parking lots, and market participants, particularly economically secure buyers, cautiously came out of hiding.Lured in part by record low mortgage rates, first-time home buyers made up 35% of existing home sales in June, according to the National Association of Realtors, a higher share than in the past several years. For first-timers who have stability in the COVID-19 economy, and the wherewithal to stomach a highly competitive market, buying can still make sense.In this quarterly report, we analyze median incomes in the first-time home buyer age range (25-44) compared with listing prices among the 50 most populous metro areas to come up with an affordability ratio. Budgeting for a home that costs roughly three times your annual income (an affordability ratio of 3.0) has been a rule of thumb for years, but first-time buyers often have to stretch beyond this to account for higher prices in metro areas and their lower incomes compared with repeat buyers. By weighing the affordability ratio versus home availability in the largest metro areas, we can get an idea of the conditions first-time buyers are facing when they set out to become homeowners.By looking at both quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year changes, we can get a better picture of the effects of the COVID-19 economy on this year’s homebuying market. The former can provide insight into chronological market responses to the pandemic — our first-quarter affordability report captured data only through March, just the beginning of 2020’s atypical spring season. The latter can show how this year’s second quarter contrasts with similar periods in relatively normal times.Affordability down overallHouses got slightly more out of reach for first-time home buyers in April through June, rising nationally from 4.5 times first-time home buyer income in the first quarter to 4.7 times in the second, and among the 50 largest metros from 5.1 to 5.2 times first-time buyer income. This trend is expected at this time of year. Home prices rise as the housing market heats up in the late spring and summer, but incomes don’t rise in a similar seasonal fashion. If anything, we might’ve expected a more dramatic change, but economic uncertainty on the part of sellers could have kept steeper list price increases at bay.Nine of the 50 metros analyzed bucked this trend and saw affordability improve, but barely, sometimes only by a fraction of a percent.The five most affordable metros for first-time home buyers in the second quarter include Pittsburgh (homes listed at 3.1 times first-time buyer income), St. Louis (3.4), Cleveland (3.5), Hartford, Connecticut (3.5), and Buffalo, New York (3.6). The least affordable, all in California, include Los Angeles, topping the list for the second quarter in a row, with homes listed at 12 times first-time buyer income; San Diego (9.0); San Jose (8.2); San Francisco (7.6); and Sacramento (6.6).First-time buyer guidance: Homes get less affordable in late spring to early summer, and in this regard, the second quarter of 2020 is no different. First-time buyers who are economically secure may be able to make up for the rise in home prices by qualifying for record low mortgage rates. For example, the monthly payment on a 0,000 mortgage at 4.1% interest — roughly the average rate a year ago — is ,160 per month, with 7,483 in interest over the 30-year life of the loan. However, at today’s rate of 3.1%, you’d pay ,025 per month and 8,942 in interest over the life of the loan — nearly ,000 in savings, total, and a 5 monthly break on your payment. Use a mortgage calculator to see what the difference in rates means for your budget.Unseasonal scarcity in the second quarterEven in years when supply is limited, an influx of homes hits the market during the spring homebuying season. Nationally, inventory grew 10% from the first to the second quarter of 2018, and 6% during that period last year. But in 2020, nationwide inventory dipped, albeit slightly, by about 2% quarter-over-quarter.Half of the largest metros in the country saw a decrease in average active listings from Q1 to Q2, with the largest quarter-over-quarter declines in Cleveland (-17%), Louisville, Kentucky (-14%), and Memphis, Tennessee (-14%). However, other large metros saw remarkable increases: San Jose (+62%), Denver (+47%) and San Francisco (+39%), for example. These dramatic climbs helped push the average quarter-over-quarter change among the largest 50 metros to +4%.Stepping back to look at year-over-year changes and how the supply of homes changed from Q2 2019, we found inventory dropped 23% among the 50 largest metros, on average, with 21 metros witnessing a decrease in available homes of 25% or more. Active listings in Las Vegas decreased 8%, the smallest quarterly drop of any metros analyzed and the only one of less than 10%.We’ve been in a strong seller’s market for some time now, as the supply of homes hasn’t kept pace with demand. Having fewer homes hitting the market during the first months of the pandemic only stood to worsen the situation. A highly competitive market has grown even more so, and buyers without room to negotiate could be priced out entirely.First-time buyer guidance: If you’re at all uncertain about your economic security this year and buying would mean an increase in overall housing costs or leave you with no source of emergency funds, you may want to postpone your first home purchase. The low supply of homes means you’re less likely to find a home that checks all the boxes on your wish list. A loss of income, a bout of poor health or caring for a sick loved one could be overwhelming on top of a down payment, closing costs and the expenses associated with moving.Home prices rise, as expectedWe expect prices to rise as the housing market heats up, and if 2020 is sticking to the script in any way, this is it. From the first quarter to the second, national median list prices grew 7% in 2018 and 8% in 2019. This year, they grew 7% nationally, and slightly less, 5%, on average, among the largest metros, quarter-over-quarter.Year-over-year growth was similar, rising about 3%, on average, among the 50 largest metros, after adjusting for inflation.This overall relatively unremarkable growth in prices is one silver lining for first-time buyers. Having a dramatic shortage of homes for sale could drive prices up, but it doesn’t appear that sellers are listing their homes disproportionately higher than last quarter or than at this time last year. That said, list prices are only part of the story, and there’s little doubt that the lack of supply is driving hard bargaining in the negotiation process.First-time buyer guidance: The price you see on a listing doesn’t tell the whole story. If you’re shopping in a seller’s market, be ready to act fast with an offer and compete with other buyers. You may end up paying more than list price, so shopping for homes listed under your max budget will give you a little more wiggle room if you find yourself in a bidding war.Metro spotlight: Cincinnati, Cleveland and ColumbusOhio has three metro areas in our analysis. It was also among the first states to begin canceling large events, declare a state of emergency and issue statewide restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19. These factors may have played a role in changes in the local housing markets.Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus were some of the more affordable populous metros in the second quarter, with home prices averaging 4.7, 3.5 and 4.5 times the median first-time home buyer income, respectively. Even so, all three showed rising prices compared with the same period last year. Median home prices in Cincinnati rose 12%, the third-highest increase of all metros analyzed.But the big story in these Ohio metros is a lack of availability. Though inventory among all metros analyzed fell 23%, on average, compared with last year, it fell 34% in Cincinnati, 33% in Cleveland and 25% in Columbus.When comparing this quarter’s listed homes with last quarter’s, we find a similarly dramatic decrease. Cleveland saw the largest quarter-over-quarter dip in active listings among all metros analyzed: inventory fell 17% from the first quarter. Active listings fell 10% in Cincinnati and 7% in Columbus at the time of year when most markets would typically be flooded with home listings.The one thing saving buyers from being completely locked out of homeownership: affordability. So while finding a home will prove tricky due to a lack of inventory, homes on the market are more likely to be within budget for first-time buyers.Analysis methodology available in the original article, published at NerdWallet.More From NerdWalletMortgage Outlook: A Light Lift to September RatesSmart Money Podcast: Lower Mortgage Rates, and Moving During a PandemicMortgage Outlook: Recession Presses Down on August RatesElizabeth Renter is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: elizabeth@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @elizabethrenter. 9901

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — With the smell of California wildfires in the air, President Donald Trump on Monday ignored the scientific consensus that climate change is playing a central role in West Coast infernos. He reiterated his unfounded claim that poor forest management is to blame. California Gov. Gavin Newsom was respectful with President Donald Trump about climate change during his visit to the state for a briefing about the massive wildfires that have burned throughout the state this year.During his visit, Newsom took a much softer tone, telling Trump they could agree to disagree on climate change. Newsom said his state can do a better job of forest management, but he tells President Donald Trump that it is “self-evident that climate change is real and that is exacerbating this.”Trump said things are getting cooler and said he does not believe the science saying otherwise.“Well, I don’t think science knows actually," Trump said.The fires are threatening to become another front in Trump’s reelection bid, which is already facing hurdles because of the coronavirus pandemic, joblessness and social unrest. His Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, in his own speech Monday said the destruction and mounting death toll across California, Oregon and Washington required stronger presidential leadership, and he labeled Trump a “climate arsonist.”Biden said, "Hurricanes don’t swerve to avoid red states or blue states. Wildfires don’t skip towns that voted a certain way. The impacts of climate change don’t pick and choose. That’s because it’s not a partisan phenomenon. It’s science.” 1609

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit rent increases for some people over the next decade after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating a housing crisis in the nation's most populous state.Newsom signed the bill at an event in Oakland, an area where a recent report documented a 43% increase in homelessness over two years. Sudden rent increases are a contributing cause of the state's homeless problem, which has drawn national attention and the ire of Republican President Donald Trump."He wasn't wrong to highlight a vulnerability," Newsom said of Trump's criticisms to an audience of housing advocates in Oakland. "He's exploiting it. You're trying to solve it. That's the difference between you and the president of the United States."The law limits rent increases to 5% each year plus inflation until Jan. 1, 2030. It bans landlords from evicting people for no reason, meaning they could not kick people out so they can raise the rent for a new tenant. And while the law doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.RELATED: San Diego's top neighborhoods to get more rental space for the moneyCalifornia and Oregon are now the only places that cap rent increases statewide. Oregon capped rents at 7% plus inflation earlier this year.California's rent cap is noteworthy because of its scale. The state has 17 million renters, and more than half of them spend at least 30% of their income on rent, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.But California's new law has so many exceptions that it is estimated it will apply to 8 million of those 17 million renters, according to the office of Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who authored the bill Newsom signed.It would not apply to housing built within the last 15 years, a provision advocates hope will encourage developers to build more in a state that desperately needs it. It does not apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. It does not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.RELATED: Making It In San Diego: How housing got so expensiveAnd it does not cover the 2 million people in California who already have rent control, which is a more restrictive set of limitations for landlords. Most of the state's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco, have some form of rent control. But a state law passed in 1995 bans any new rent control policies since that year.Last year, voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative that would have expanded rent control statewide. For most places in California, landlords can raise rent at any time and or any reason if they give notice in advance.That's what happened to Sasha Graham in 2014. She said her rent went up 150%. She found the money to pay it on time and in full, but her landlord evicted her anyway without giving a reason. She was homeless for the next three years, staying with friends, then friends of friends and then strangers."Sometimes I lived with no lights, sometimes I lived with no water, depending on who I was living with (because) they were also struggling," she said. "Sometimes I just had to use my money to go to a hotel room so I could finish my homework."Graham, who is now board president for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, now lives in family housing at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is scheduled to graduate in May. She said the law, had it been in place, would have helped her.But Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, says the law adds an expensive eviction process that did not previously exist. He said that will encourage landlords to increase rents when they otherwise wouldn't."It adds unnecessary expenses to all rental home providers and makes it more difficult to sever a relationship with a problem tenant," he said. 4034