FreshSuperCool.com

80 Comments »

• Dude, you are right, Prop 13 was created in 1978 a time when inflation was very high. It was a rebellion as property tax were rising faster than incomes. Oh, your example of a 1940 tax assessment doesn’t hold water, index started in 1978. Costs, don’t go up, the value of currency goes down, think “Quantative Easing” by the fed. With Prop 13 in place, takes some of the incentive to inflate the currency.

  Comment by Rich — May 21, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

• If you want to pay more taxes, go ahead. But the rest of us are already paying to many. You must be a government worker living off the backs of citizen’s taxes. Do not raise taxes, teh answer is to Stop spending so much on government pensions.

  Comment by Less Taxes — May 21, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

• You are a fool. I will never argue that my neighbor should pay more in order to match my ridiculous taxes, instead I will argue that I am paying far too much.

  Government spending is out of control and needs to be radically reduced. Taxpayers (which is a small percentage of all income earners) revolt now!

  Comment by NotAFool — May 21, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

• Finally, the sheep look up. BTW, some counties have web sites that allow you to view anybody’s property taxes.
  Another truck-sized loophole is that corporations do not sell their properties; they sell the holding corporation, thereby avoiding the trigger that would increase property taxes.
  Brilliant, if you want to destroy society. Thanks Repugnicans!

  Comment by neil — May 21, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

• This article reads almost like satire. Almost. If indeed this is a serious article, then sir, you are ignorant of the revolt that brought about Prop. 13.

  People were being priced out of their homes; Before Prop 13, there was absolutely no incentive for government to cut frivolous spending when all they had to do was crank up Property taxes to cover any shortfalls.

  But, despite the restraint provided by Prop 13, the California Government still spends our money as if they were a bunch of crack addicts — constantly thinking of new taxes or fees to help provide money to feed the ever growing spending addiction — more and more is needed to attain the same high as before. It is irrational. This spending is not sustainable under any stretch of the imagination. It must stop.

  Calls for the repeal of Prop 13 and its safeguards are misguided. Please don’t get caught up in the dogma of either of the political parties. Think for yourself!

  Best of Luck,

  Bruce.

  Comment by Bruce — May 21, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

• You sound like such a naive fool. I’d like you to see you own a house in California for 40 or 50 years then come back here and write this article again. I’m sure you would have a much different tune, because most likely the State would have taxed you completely out of your house by that time. (As was happening in the 70’s) Property taxes are pure evil and it only makes sense to limit their growth rate to 2%. Perhaps you bought a house way too high and are paying much more than those who didn’t, and this article is written out of jealousy.

  Comment by Jorge — May 21, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

• Blaming Prop. 13 for California’s budget problems is like blaming seatbelt laws for auto accidents.

  Comment by Bernie Madoff — May 21, 2009 @ 11:52 pm

• It is an old concept that allows older fixed-income citizens to stay in their homes if they have financial means other than Social Security. I too am not pleased with the situation however the whole premise is that California leadership’s greed, self rewarding policies, mutual porking and careless management from top to bottom caused this grief along with GW’s coke snorting brain damaged administration. It would be a monster task for President Obama for sure.

  Comment by John Forsythe — May 21, 2009 @ 11:52 pm

• Yeah, Prop 13 is an idiotic law, for sure, creating a class of people who essentially evade the taxes everyone else is subjected to. In addition, the fact that the tax break passes from generation to generation contradicts the very intent of the law, which was to keep seniors from getting priced out. A far more sensible solution would have been income-based tax credits for seniors, but then nothing sensible tends to arise from the California proposition system.

  The arguments for Prop 13 are, quite simply, inane It is, on its face, an incredibly regressive piece of legislation, favoring existing home owners over renters and forcing up the sales tax and a multitude of other equally regressive local taxes (take city taxes and “refuse disposal fees” in L.A. that equal roughly 100% of the residential utility bill).

  It will be interesting to see if this measure finally receives due attention in the wake of the state’s current financial collapse. Since real estate prices are likely to plummet further than most state officials anticipate, there seems to be no way around addressing Prop 13, as it remains the single biggest impediment to revenue collection.

  Comment by srla — May 22, 2009 @ 1:20 am

• Well, I wish we had a Prop 13 in Virginia where politicians raise taxes (in some form) every year! When will fewer social services and less government spending be the answer?

  After 50 years of paying exhorbitant taxes, retirement income finally forced us out of our home. We moved to a rural location where taxes were more affordable — we’re still losing our home to taxation, just at a slightly slower pace.

  I hope you live long enough to get exactly what you deserve — lower retirement income and higher taxes — I also hope you remember your own words: “…isn’t that what a free market economy is supposed to be all about?”

  And while we’re at it, why don’t we just kill all the old people… After all, they’re still eating and consuming vital services while producing nothing aren’t they? Tell you what, I think the nothing we produced are folks who talk just like you… (Maybe animals who eat their own young are smarter than I thought….)

  BTW, I lived in California for a good number of years. It’s liberal weenies like you who helped destroy the state, and now want to take the rest of the nation down with you. Care to bet how long before the Governator goes public in asking for a National Bailout? I’m thinking days or weeks….

  I know you’ll like that — everyone else helping to pay for you and your politician’s stupid mistakes! It’s only fair you say! We’re more deserving than everyone else — we’re Californians! (Please, spare me any more B.S. from the left coast!)

  Comment by Craig Ridge — May 22, 2009 @ 5:19 am

• Maybe the dumb butt neighbor should of have hid head examined for paying 600k for a shack to begin with, or found a state with lesser taxes like in the deep South someplace. So he pays more than his neighbor, he new what he was getting into.

  The state does not have right to extort money from the populace by ever increasing property taxes.

  Let the state cut back more on social programs, make teachers work harder and longer for their pensions, send the illegals packing back where they came from and let the foolish banks fail along with the suckers who put their money in them with all of the crazy lending practices they have exhibited.

  There is no real way out of this mess except bankruptcy, and a moral code of living. Morality is a foundation for economics and cannot survive in the long run with out it.

  Patrick Faiola

  Comment by patrick faiola — May 22, 2009 @ 5:48 am

• you’re an idiot. You want to have more tax revenue for the state when your tax situation is the exact reason that you are in the tank in California. How about they all lower their taxes and your government stops wasting money like it’s water. Also, increases in tax revenue have nothing to do with a FREE market. Government regulation and taxation is a socialist policy. You go ahead and keep arguing for everyone to pay more taxes to help the government programs in CA stay bloated and watch the state go under. people from the West just don’t understand how to live within their means and now you have to learn your lesson. Obviously.

  Comment by john — May 22, 2009 @ 6:05 am

• Prop 13 is one of the few ways to keep spending in check here in Cali. Why don’t you talk about the ridiculous pensions paid to the public employees?

  Comment by Hey Dumbass — May 22, 2009 @ 6:05 am

• What stops the tax rate from becoming 3%, 5%, even 10% as in Washington? Yes, you heard me 10%. (SEE http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/02/dc-rehabbers-decry-10-tax-rate/print/) If I buy a house for market value at $100,000, that’s $10,000 per year in property taxes alone. And that could go up. If the states could, they would tax you into absolute poverty. Prop 13 prevents the abuses by greedy politicians.
  Infrastructure: Illegal immigration and sanctuary cities! There is where your complaint should start. Every illegal immigrant will drink water, flush a toilet, bathe. They will generate sewage. They will generate trash. They will get sick, and they will commit crimes. Can we afford this TAX on our American citizens?
  Please, address the real issues. Prop 13 is the only reason so many Californians still own their homes.
  Thank you

  Comment by RickIsWright — May 22, 2009 @ 6:22 am

• Provisions that allow for people to inherit the home value should be stripped from state law. Actually, I thought transfers within families triggered the assessor to take a closer look at the transaction to make sure the new owner will be paining appropriate taxes.

  The rest of your arguments are not so compelling. you friend with the 600k house price bought the home with full knowledge and choice to pay those taxes. That calculation is built into the market price. If your friend wants to stay in his house he will get the same benefit as his neighbor. (2%/year increases in taxes… under Prop 13 taxes can go up, only it is capped to something reasonable).

  Total property tax revenues to local governments in California have increased at a rate exceeding inflation and virtually all other economic indicators, and, in fact, state and local governments have much more money today than before Proposition 13 passed, even considering inflation and population growth.

  Californians already pay among the most per capita in taxes. The problem is not revenue. The problem is that we have out of control greed. Every special interest deserves their bigger and bigger share of the pie and the people of California tricked themselves into thinking there was an endless supply wealth. There isn’t. California has a huge debt load, a huge staff pensions and benefits load, and our social services costs are growing as our immigrant population has ballooned (not their fault, but its a reality).

  Raising taxes only delays the inevitable . We must live within our means.

  Prior to Proposition 13, property taxes were out of control. The tax rate throughout California averaged almost 3% of market value, and there were no limits on increases either for the tax rate or property value assessments. Some properties were reassessed 50% to 100% higher in just one year, so their owners’ tax bills skyrocketed, often beyond the homeowners’ ability to pay their property taxes!

  In one year in Los Angeles County alone, 400,000 people had not paid their property tax because they didn’t have the money, running the risk of being forced out of their homes.

  Elderly people were among the hardest hit. Many had paid off their mortgages yet faced losing their homes because they couldn’t afford property taxes.

  Comment by another view — May 22, 2009 @ 6:57 am

• WTF??! You’ve just given an argument to reassess whenever there is a transfer of the property (as in inherited) and with that I agree. Your example it pretty rare, but what the heck, let’s fix THAT.
  However, Prop 13 was designed to allow people to plan and predict their tax expenses, thereby keeping their homes at a time when prices were outpacing retirement income- which I assure you will happen again as soon as inflation recurs.

  Prop 13 is *not* unfair. It saves neighborhoods.

  Comment by Artimus Fact — May 22, 2009 @ 7:02 am

• Go F yourself.

  Comment by Adealia Artist — May 22, 2009 @ 7:14 am

• Who is the idiot that payed 600.000 for it? Prop 13 saves us from people like the Govenator who would raise taxes every week to pay for Illegals and Retarded Polliticians. By the way, school teachers get paid TOO much.

  Comment by P.W. Dyson — May 22, 2009 @ 7:54 am

• Prop 13 was passed because Sacramento knows no limit on spending. It was passed to put a ceiling on property taxes. If it were not in place, we would still be bankrupt as a state because of the spend, spend, spend mentatlity.

  We would not need prop 13 if we has any other limits on state spending. The problem is not the people who pay reasonable property tax bills, but how do we get the bills of the rest down also. The housing bubble let the legislature spend well beyond any sustainable tax revenues.

  Comment by mark anania — May 22, 2009 @ 8:02 am

• The answer is ripping up the public union contracts , privatizing most civil services, and making public union employees participate in this depression.

  Your co-worker’s neighbor is getting screwed and taking more money from citizens is not the answer.

  Are you a politician or a public union employee?

  Comment by JT — May 22, 2009 @ 8:17 am

• any law that limits the ability of the state to collect taxes is a good thing. yes, prop 13 is flawed, but not in the way you say. all properties should only see their tax assessed value rise by 2% per year and not get recast higher if there is a sale. this forces government to live within limits. if they need additional tax revenues, then that can be done via referendum and not automatically on the back of property owners like it was done pre-prop 13.

  Comment by surferdude — May 22, 2009 @ 8:59 am

• Yes I do agreed that Prop. 13 should be change.
  I was one who voted (at that time) supporting this Prop.
  How ever I can see,that is need for an update to it.

  Exemple: Those who get a property from their Parents,or relatives, The property-Tax should be Update it accordingly with the actual market-Value

  But the Culture in California is that Everybody wants to get, And nobody wants to give.

  All California Residents love their state from the “Inside their Pockets”
  And is the same Kind of Love for the country as well.
  In few words…Their are Shameless

  Comment by Jc — May 22, 2009 @ 9:00 am

• Prop 13 was passed as a defense against bubbles. It protects home owners from bubbles in home values as well as bubbles in crazy politicians whose only solution to a financial crisis is to bleed the patient further.

  Without prop 13 our legislature would have simply passed a spending buyer that pleased the simple majority rather than the super majority. Depending on who controls the house, that would be bad for different reasons.

  Without prop 13, responsible people who boughtba home they could afford a decade ago would have been priced out of their house by the recent speculative bubble as their taxes tripled.

  Without prop 13 our spend-spend legislature would have opened the spigots wider and would now be facing an even LARGER deficit as home values receeded.

  We have prop 13 to thank that this budget deficit is only 30B and not 100B!

  We have prop 13 to thank that some of our parents still own their homes and have the equity to weather this crisis! I know more than a few are moving back in with mom and dad.

  We have prop 13 to thank that some day, when we decide to buy again. We can count on our taxes remaining reasonable no matter what the future may bring.

  Comment by CA Renter — May 22, 2009 @ 9:01 am

• The real question is why have prices gone up from 20k to 600k for a similar house. Answer: INFLATION TAX. If the government wasn’t printing money out of thin air, there wouldn’t be massive inflation and your objection to prop 13 would have no sense. Your solution is even more taxes? I don’t think so!

  Comment by Grimydazzle — May 22, 2009 @ 9:24 am

• While I agree that Prop 13 has stymied tax collection, I have a number of issues with your article:

  1. No, I don’t think grandma and grandpa should be forced out of their home because their fixed retirement income doesn’t keep up with the insane rise in value of surrounding homes. So I agree with limiting the property tax increase on at least a limited segment of the population.

  2. Your friend who inherited a house purchased for $20k in 1940 would see their assessed value rise to almost $80,000 if it rose only 2% per year in all that time. That’s not $600,000 by any stretch, but it’s more than a little north of $20,000.

  3. Your friend’s neighbor who paid $600,000 has now been re-assessed lower at the current market value of $300,000 or thereabouts, substantially lowering his tax bill. He’s still going to default on his mortgage and walk away, if he hasn’t already, but at least his taxes went down…

  4. Prop 13 rolled back assessed values to their 1976 levels. Meaning taxes for that house purchased in the 1940’s potentially rose at a much faster rate than 2% per year until 1976. I don’t know what its value would have been at that time and I doubt it would have been much over $100,000, but if we start with $100k in 1978 and work our way to today at 2% per year, we get a current assessed value of over $188,000. That’s a LOT more than in the $20k’s as you imply.

  Comment by Adam — May 22, 2009 @ 9:30 am

• Very one sided article write. Its easy to tout the sins of prop 13 right now… but when property values were skyrocketing there is no way that someone on a fixed income could adjust to match the crazy appreciation being seen. Can you imagine the # of retirees and american families that would have been driven out ot there homes. Maybey its time we look to sensiable spending habits within our Government and increase revenues through other means than looking to the allready deflated housing market.
  Besides the Feds will Bail us out soon right?!

  Comment by Sarah Becker — May 22, 2009 @ 9:35 am

• It might be arguable that the 2% increase is inadequate. But in a relatively low inflation era of 2-3% per year over the last ten years, why has our California budget increased an average of 8-9% per year? Our government spending is out of control, and our representatives need to reel that back in. Government influencers like lobbyists and unions have taken over our spending process and made a mess. We need now to clean things up. It will be very difficult to mop up all the excess spending, because it will affect greatly real human lives. Jobs and pay must be cut. It’s uncomfortable, but it must be done.

  Comment by Paul — May 22, 2009 @ 9:41 am

• Very good point. But it will never happen, because our government is not for the people anymore, duh.

  Time for a change. Join thelittleguylobby.org

  Comment by don — May 22, 2009 @ 9:42 am

• So you think running the retired out of their homes with high taxes is part of the “free market”? How about ending all the stupid social programs that are bankrupting the budget, and letting everyone deal with the “free market” that way. You are a tool, and an dunce. If this was freshman essay, it would get an F.

  Comment by Jubilee — May 22, 2009 @ 10:05 am

• thanks, interesting article. i am not sure eliminating 13 would have made much of a difference. here’s one scenario:

  if 13 hadn’t existed over the last 10 years, residential real estate in california would have seen major prop tax increases. for example, seniors that bought their house in 1965 for 20K would have seen taxes rise from $600 to $4500. many of these seniors that owned their home free and clear would not have been able to pay the tax, given their fixed income. those homes would have gone on the market at peak prices to presumably younger couples.

  given the above, i think a) even more people would have made unfortunate purchase decisions and would now be upside down or foreclosed, and b) the state would have had a massive additional income over the last 10 years which THEY WOULD HAVE SPENT FREELY and now our deficit would be even larger. i could even make the case that a lot of the money from the sale of seniors real estate sales would have ended up in the stock market (in the form of mutual fund purchases) since they would not be ‘moving up’ to another house. this would inflate the stock market even more, leading to possibly a larger crash than we had.

  maybe some compromise solution, like increasing the prop tax adjustment amount to at least cost of living / inflation, changing it from 2% to perhaps 3 or 4%.

  Comment by jeffrey — May 22, 2009 @ 10:06 am

• No. House flippers and speculators drive house prices to extremes, and now return-to-lows. The person who actually buys a house for shelter and stays put should be entitled to his tax basis and law of regulated increase. This person has lived and budgeted properly, and should not be taxed to subsidize his neighbor. Each new purchaser knows (or should know) exactly what their tax burden for the out years will be, no matter when they buy, or how much they spend. They came late, so they pay more - that is capitalism. To make the former pay more to balance the books is socialism. Prop 13 is fair to those who plan - not to those who scheme.

  Comment by WintonQ — May 22, 2009 @ 10:26 am

• This article is the appeal to emotion with no financial background to it. This is how Federal Taxation started - “let’s tax the richest”. Now the majority of the Federal Tax income goes to the bankers as the servicing of the national debt.
  The government will always want more money. The government needs to look at becoming more reasonable and efficient, and not squeezing the last penny out of a homeowner. Example - some local government recently spent over 1 million dollars to change the sings on a freeway from kilometers to miles. Noone even heard about that freeway before.

  Comment by Lena — May 22, 2009 @ 10:36 am

• Prop 13 is being mislead here and hopefully you have thought through this issue. Older / elderly citizens on fixed incomes ’simply’ can not afford / or should not have to paid the taxes on property purchased years ago at todays rate. If you have a problem with the law to bad it is there for a reason to protect against unfair government property taxes. Maybe your efforts should be addressing the ‘waste’ in CA’s government. Personally I just witnessed 5 fire trucks visit a home that was on fire where 1 should have been just fine.

  Comment by Jeff — May 22, 2009 @ 10:49 am

• prop 13 is BS mostly. commercial property and non owner occupied units are still covered by it. prop 13 pobably does not need to be repealed, it just needs to be reworked so it is does not benefit the super wealthy as much as it does. what was branded as a way to protect grandpa and grandma is actually one of the biggest tax shelters in history.

  Comment by Murphy — May 22, 2009 @ 10:58 am

• Here here.
  Why is it that young families get burdened with high taxes and terrible schools because their old neighbors (or even young neighbors who were lucky enough to inherit a house) pay next to nothing in today’s dollars. The rule drives up prices in established neighborhoods and keeps young families from obtaining their dream despite working hard and saving money. As a professional mother in my late 30’s, I am so sick of playing by the rules, saving the pennies we have left after paying our mortgage and property taxes just to live in an old house built in the 1950’s while the majority of our neighbors pay less than a thousand dollars in property taxes. My kids suffer because the schools are about 50 times worse than they were when we were kids in the 80s. Someone please propose to repeal prop 13. If the governor has any cohones, he’ll do it. I’m not holding my breath.

  Comment by Christina — May 22, 2009 @ 11:27 am

• That’s one way to look at it. One thing to consider is how taxation was operating at the time Prop 13 was passed. Taxing bodies pretty much just made up a budget and then set the tax rate to support that. The people had no effective way of saying “please don’t spend so damn much money, we’re all going broke!” Eventually people pushed back with Prop 13.

  Comment by Eggman — May 22, 2009 @ 11:43 am

• Sure, that’s what we need…More taxes on the Hardworking reponsible Americans to pay for an overspending, bloated, blob of an Administration. Cut government spending, free BS, and we will all be better for it. How do you think Prop13 was passed in the first place?

  Don’t confuse 13 with Prop58 for the Parent/Child transfer.
  http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/guides/prop58.aspx

  -Rob

  Comment by Rob — May 22, 2009 @ 11:54 am

• It’s not 1940’s dollars, it’s the 1976 (or something close to that) assessment plus 2% per year. Also bond measures drive up the property tax. Further, there has been a lot of building and home sales since 1978. Los Angeles collected around $465 billion in 1996-97 and collects $1.4 billion now.

  Before Prop 13 government would fill any revenue shortfall with an increase to the property tax, and these shortfalls started to occur every year.

  California has a spending problem.

  Comment by Amigo — May 22, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

• I’m NOT a homeowner but I expect to be one SOMEDAY. And Prop 13 is actually one of the few laws that MAKE SENSE, so YES…you’re NOT a genius. If it WEREN’T for Prop 13 the Sate of CA WOULD BE SUCKING THE LIFEBLOOD OUT OF EVERY CALIFORNIAN HOMEOWNER JUST TO MAKE ENDS MEET. That’s what’s happening everywhere that has no similar laws.

  Comment by Are You For Real? — May 22, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

• How about getting rid of property taxes completely? Just because someone (say an elderly person) owns a house that’s now expensive, doesn’t mean they are rich.

  Get rid of sales taxes too, while you are at it, since they hit the poor more than the rich.

  Do it all with income taxes. Yes, the tax will be higher, but there will be no fudging. We’ll all be paying for the services we get.

  And cut the state budget back to 2002 levels, if you want to cure the deficit. California wasn’t some wasteland with no services back then.

  Comment by MichaelG — May 22, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

• Good article! Something’s obviously gotta give. Between gov’t pensions that amount to CD rates on $2 million+ (or more, considering that CALPERS lost $billions on high-risk bets and now want taxpayers to make the fund whole again), or taxing old folk out of their homes, I’d pick the former first. Then the latter.

  Comment by Bill Baggins — May 22, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

• You must be a part of the CA government because your solution is identical to those legistlators who “run” our state. Increase taxes? of any kind? How about eliminating the deadwood deeply imbedded in all of our non-discretionay spending? Prop 13 is 30 years old. The Constitution is 230 years old. Sould we get rid of that, too?

  Comment by wjc — May 22, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

• We would be in a much bigger hole now without Prop 13. If the entire state property tax income stream increased explosively at the same rate as the house boom, right now you’d have a much bigger budget to balance, because you can be sure they would have created new programs and spending measures to use up all the newly available dough.

  Also, without Prop 13, people who lived here for a long time would be penalized by the greed of speculators, by seeing their property tax increased by 50% a year solely due to the “investor” frenzy that’s been happening in the past decade.

  Comment by Bob — May 22, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

• Someday you will be old and I hope you die a slow miserable death and in poverty as you have been forced from your home from inability to pay taxes. You douche!

  Comment by Harry Miersma — May 22, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

• [...] proposition 13 — taewoo @ 1:49 pm May 22, 2009 So I wrote this long  post about how we should get rid of Propostion 13 and i got some pretty hateful comments about my [...]

  Pingback by My two cents on Proposition 13 (cont’d) | FreshSuperCool.com — May 22, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

• Every state should have Prop 13. Taxes that you pay need to be consistent year to year. I would hate to not have Prop 13 and gone through the boom years with my house. Taxes were already high enough on a $300K property in 2001. I would have been forced out of the property before I was ready to sell in 2005 for $560K if the taxes scaled with the market.

  When I buy again (that same house should be $185K by 2012), I want my taxes to be consistent yet again. Otherwise, why ever buy a house if you’re subjected to possible huge increases by the county landlord?

  Comment by Out at the Peak — May 22, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

• I am a 4th-generation Californian. My parents and grandparents voted for Prop 13 because its property tax restrictions would keep Californians in their homes.

  Each and every one of the old Californians knew exactly what they were doing when they voted Prop 13 in. Without this law, more, not less, homeowners of all income levels would face losing their homes to ever increasing property taxes.

  How about getting rid of the illegals and their anchor babies? Together, they cost Californians about $9B per year.

  Its common knowledge in the courts that male Mexican Nationals have several women going….one in L.A., another in TJ, another in Juarez, and another in Guadalajara. These guys know that the California taxpayer will pay for their kid(s) in Cali. So much for their “family-oriented” reputation!

  The time to put an end to the child welfare gravy train has long gone. Maybe a bankrupt State will force judges and officials to finally tell these women (nearly all are Mexican Nationals as well) and their kids to return to Mexico.

  ~Misstrial

  Comment by Misstrial — May 22, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

• Thank God for Prop 13, Howard Jarvis and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. The housing bubble was out of control…look how much extra money the state collected from 2000 to 2007. It’s like they got a huge raise. Then they increased spending by even MORE. The problem is not Prop 13. The problem is the F-N legislature that runs State of California.

  Oh, BTW, you’re a DOUCHE BAG!!!!

  Comment by Californian — May 22, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

• Tax Fairness. Prop 13 starves local governments of funds for social services like firemen, police, schools, infrastructure. All of which contribute to the value of homes in a neighborhood. These funds are made up by the state. Which means higher income and sales taxes. Which means that all Californians subsidize the homes of a few in the new aristocracy.

  If there’s a real fear of the elderly being priced out of their homes, then pass a law adjusting the tax rates of people over a certain age. Somehow I doubt the resistance to repealing Prop 13 in this comment section stems from overwhelming concern for retirees.

  The fact of the matter is that paying higher taxes on a property that has appreciated in value is called “fair”. The resistance to repeal comes from homeowners wanting it both ways - an ever-increasing home value with taxes that don’t reflect that value. The good news is if you don’t want to pay higher taxes on your property, then break a few windows, don’t mow your lawn and let the paint peel and chip. You’ll pay less taxes without having some other guy subsidize your “investment”.

  Comment by John Darnell — May 22, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

• Any money the government gets is money they are taking away from someone or something that could use it far wiser/ you and your ilk have turned many areas in CA into third world areas. your stupidity has finally caught up with you. I was born there, went to school in the 60’s and 70’s to beautiful schools with good teachers. Those schools I attended are now PRISON CAMPS! they were open and accessible when I was a youth, they are now closed in by 10 foot fences. We used to go down to the school and play, not anymore, the PRISON bars have shut them down. Just think, hundreds of thousands like me have taken our families elsewhere, away from the third world state of CA. No more oppressive taxes, there are far much better states where a local commute is 10 minutes each way, where your children can go to school and not be threatened with extinction, where families are encouraged and coveted. The result of CA legislative stupidity is a further erosion and third worldization of the state. The only thing prop 13 did was slow it down and help inflate house prices. at least it kept some of the good people there. You are all to blame for voting in such self serving politicians, all of whom should be put in prison, oh sorry, schools so that they can learn basic math and econ. You are all finished and the rest of the states are laughing at you.

  stephanie

  Comment by stephanie — May 22, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

• You are a moron.

  Comment by Jim Bowen — May 22, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

• Based on the distinctive grammar in this article, I’m guessing the writer hasn’t been in the USA long enough to understand the need for proposition 13. Get a clue buddy! We don’t take kindly to having our money taken and squandered by politicians who think they are our overlords. Expect more sweeping tax revolts in the future.

  Comment by Gram Mar — May 22, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

• property taxes should be eliminated entirely. why tax a home that you live in? It doesn’t make sense. If you need the tax dollars, then create a capital gains tax or sales tax. Taxing someone for living in a home is kind of crazy. Kind of like taxing someone to eat.

  Comment by Zamfir — May 22, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

• You are an idiot. Prop 13 keeps the politicians in check. If not for it we would pay 90% in taxes here. Where I live there is an alarm fee a compressor tax etc etc etc. How about easing up and letting people breathe a little. We pay people to be on welfare while we let illegals do the jobs that they should be doing and not pay taxes because they have no SSN. 2.8 million illegals in CA that is why it is in deep s&*T. Plus the number of public employees is staggering. In San Diego we have fireman making 100K a year and when they try to cut they run around crying hero hero hero. How about all of the police with a radar gun on every corner. There is no way they bring in enough to cover there costs. That is not real police work and they should be cut. I know that when I hear that they are adding police I do not want them on every corner with a radar gun. The fact is that every form of public employment is out of control and needs to be brought back in check.

  Comment by localsavage — May 22, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

• Interesting article. There are two issues and most of the people writing the comments are not understanding the difference because they are too caught up in the fact that they are paying less than their neighbors:

  1) Prop 13 is unfair: This is certainly true and your example is pretty good. It has a lot more consequences, though. For example, since the tax gain is capped at 2% but houses have been rising a lot more than that people never move, it’s simply too expensive, which drove up prices even more. Old grannies by themselves in a huge house but the family of five can’t buy, wonderful.

  2) Prop 13 ruined the CA budget: Possibly true, but there could be many other reasons as well. The people who claim that Prop 13 was the only way to have the government spend less are simply happy they have to spend less than their neighbors because they bought 10 years earlier than him. There are many ways to have the state government spend less, starting with electing an administration that is frugal enough and spends money where it belongs, education, basic infrastructure etc. But most people don’t even vote I guess.

  But well, so now housing is going down. 2% a year could level most unequal neighbors after 10 or 20 years again. In Japan housing has been going down since 1992, let’s see what will happen here.

  Comment by Ludi Magister — May 23, 2009 @ 12:07 am

• There are two proper ways of looking at property taxes: either (A) property taxes is RENT on something you are supposed to own or (B) property taxes is criminal extortion. Property taxes is obviously unconstitutional because if you really own something you don’t to pay money to keep it.

  I fail to understand why there needs to be 5,000 ways to collect taxes when just one is sufficient. Oh thats right, people would revolt if they knew how much they were really paying and taxes were collected just by one income tax or one business tax because they have never bothered to add up the 5,000 ways they pay taxes to see that they pay so much in taxes they are more a slave than they are free.

  taewoo, you are basically a criminal since your here advocating the unconstitutional extortion of money by having people’s property held hostage if they don’t pay RENT on something they OWN. I just don’t get what is so difficult to understand about property rights. If you have to pay annual rent on something then you very obviously don’t own it. How anybody in the world supports this is just mindblowing because it is so obviously an uncivilized systemic extortion. And sure you sometimes get something in return but that does not really make it any better than a criminal mugging you and throwing you back a couple of bucks.

  Comment by James — May 23, 2009 @ 2:12 am

• Baby boomers, et al. love their special rights on taxes (if they were smart enough to buy a home back in the day). They had a free country and turned it into what it is today. Nothing will change, for they hold too much power at the voting booth (because of how many of them there are). So the country will continue to deteriorate. Get used to it.

  Comment by Kevin — May 23, 2009 @ 2:52 am

• For those posters who want property and tax protections (Prop 13)removed, none of you have suggested budget cuts for social services and education services to persons who shouldn’t even be here. Are we all supposed to pay ever-increasing taxes? Or do you have a limit for yourselves?

  Here’s thought to *you*: how about buying a house that’s within your means!

  If you cannot afford the taxes, insurance, fees,& maintenance along with the sales price of a home, how about buying a home that does fit your budget instead of requiring that other Californians pay more property tax so that you can buy a 1500+ sq ft one.

  This Prop 13 issue has nothing to do with anything other than living within your means!

  As all the foreclosure “walk-aways” have told us: “It’s a business decision” - well just use that line of thinking to make a business decision to buy a house you can truly afford.

  ~Misstrial

  Comment by Misstrial — May 23, 2009 @ 9:43 am

• You just made the case that if you want services from the government you should then pay for them, but the fact of the matter is is that with Prop 13 and what just happened with 1a-1e on May 19. 2009 proves that you are the minority and that the majority of Californians actually want less services and a smaller government. If you want a doll please move out of state. You are swimming against the tide.

  Comment by rob — May 23, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

• I think Colorado has a better system, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, TABOR limits the government’s increase in spending to inflation adjusted for population growth. i think that limiting spending is what it’s all about. Prop. 13 was to limit out of control spending growth. I like the TABOR approach better, but to repeal 13 without putting in something else to limit the out of control growth in government spending would be a disaster. To leave it in place for personal residences, but remove it from business property would just be one more nail in the coffin of business in California, which is already one of the most business unfriendly states in the country. The problem is too much spending, not that we don’t collect enough taxes.

  Comment by stan — May 23, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

• Prop 13 is a disaster! What a terrible law that puts breaks on free market trading in housing, people prefer not to sell and move to a house that’s better suited for them becuase buy doing so they can save on real estate taxes. Idiotic law with horrible consequences to the real estate market.

  Comment by danio — May 23, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

• Lets kick old people out of their homes! Right…
  Connecting the free market with tax increases is breathtakingly stupid.
  If you want to pay more taxes I suggest you do just that.

  Comment by mickeyc — May 23, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

• Prop 13 is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. You might as well double taxes on blacks, and triple it on asians - it’s just as constitutional as giving one person a tax break and another a tax penalty based exclusively on when and where they were born and purchased a home.

  Comment by Ricahrd Wicks — May 24, 2009 @ 2:31 am

• There is nothing free market about taxation. Taxation is by definition coercion. The track team analogy is way off. Being a track team member is optional, whereas being required to pay taxes is not optional at all. The correct analogy to having your taxes raised because some other moron in town voted themselves bigger spending hence bigger taxes is: if the average obesity of the entire student body is increasing, you are required by law to stuff yourself and gain weight!

  The idea that your neighbor being taxed more would reduce your own tax burden is also absurd. The more a government gets in taxes, the more programs get created, and the more you will be taxed to support those programs! Hence, the more your neighbor gets taxed, the more you will be! I wish all my neighbors could figure out ways to reduce their own tax burdens.

  Comment by Tim — May 24, 2009 @ 3:02 am

• Proposition 13 is not a violation of the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment to the US Constitution.

  In 1978, the California Supreme Court sustained Proposition 13’s constitutionality (California Constitution) in this case: Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization.

  It’s constitutionality was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nordlinger v. Hahn in 1992 by an 8 to 1 decision.

  Advice: Just buy a home you can really afford (sales prices, taxes, insurance, fees) instead of requiring other Californians to suffer property tax increases just so that you can buy more house.

  Next.

  Comment by Misstrial — May 24, 2009 @ 10:43 am

• Fresh, Super, and oh yes, Cool?

  How about stupid, idiot, and oh yes, looter?

  Comment by Sabastian Curry — May 24, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

• “Another truck-sized loophole is that corporations do not sell their properties; they sell the holding corporation, thereby avoiding the trigger that would increase property taxes.”
  This is one of the few references I could find, scanning quickly, to a key reason for 13’s existence, that is, that large commercial landlords and corporations bankrolled the measure, because they benefitted greatly.
  The carrot held out to the public was the structure of property taxation we’ve been under for thirty years now.
  I favor changing the way commercial and investment property is taxed under 13. That has nothing to do with “being taxed out of your home”. There is no sense in giving corporations a break such as a homeowner gets: Corporations already pay less and less income tax as the years go by.
  Why do they get the free ride?

  Comment by monkframe — May 24, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

• It should be repealed and EVERYONE should be paying the ADJUSTED HIGHER price. It should be a Class-A felony to employ ANY illegal alien, and it should be REQUIRED to report such people to DOD ANYPLACE they may go! Jobs/DMV/Gov Offices/Hospitals/ ANYPLACE where ID should be checked. The owners/managers/hr personel of companies that allow illegals to work should be jailed! Illegal Aliens in prison should be DEPORTED IMMEDIATLY! If Mexico OR any other country FAILS to jail VIOLENT OFFENDERS we should CUT OFF trade with them! WE DO NOT NEED MEXICO, THEY US! Bend over and take it California! The people who have GAMED the system and about to get off!

  Comment by Bill — May 24, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

• What they should do is have everyone’s property tax bring down to 1978 level + 2% increase. So that it’s fair to every single person not to the people who have lived in their home forever. And if Calif government cannot afford that, then it’s time to cut services. Or hike the price of services. People who have kids can pay additional school tax. People who want to take public transportation can pay additional fare tax, etc. So we all pay for stuff we need and don’t pay for the pork projects that our government officials seems to like to spend on. Plain and simple. Pay for all the stuff yourself and not a penny more.

  Comment by aja — May 24, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

• So many morons, so little time. Let me guess, you’re a public employee boo hooing as your monster pension is threatened because the taxpayers won’t pony up more in one of the top 5 taxed states in the country? Or are you just a fool who thinks his taxes will go down if everybody gets the same deal? The reason your taxes are so high, bunky is that California government tax and spending is out of control, and has been for 30 years. They spend up to the limit they can get away with and were caught in the inevidable downturn. If prop 13 had been repealed, the people who have lower taxes now would be paying the same as the people who just bought, which wouldn’t do you a bit of good, monetarily. But just based on the title of your post it’s obvious that you’re an envious twit who doesn’t care so long as your neighbors are screwed as much as you.

  In the event that prop 13 is repealed, it will give me a long hoped for reason to leave the state for someplace sane, leaving the idiot majority here with the government they so richly deserve.

  Comment by K — May 24, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

• While you are at it, we should also repeal interest tax deductions. They are also just as unfair. Yeah I know, you’ll hate me for saying it. But why do homeowners get all these breaks, while renters keep getting screwed? In the past 7 years buying a home has been an unwise decision financially because all of these stupid incentives and “free money” financing that caused the super bubble. Now we are all screwed, renters and owners. Home prices are still really high on decent areas so renters still can’t buy, and current owners are underwater for not caring how much they paid or borrowed.

  Comment by QualityPicks — May 24, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

• I notice complainers whining that it is “unfair” for some to pay less tax under Prop 13 for a similar home than what they are paying.

  This same phenomenon happens every day in California under the CA sales tax - Prop 13 is like a sales tax on a house, except that it is payable yearly. Some people are frugal and buy homes on sale, while others have poor judgment and buy at the top of the market, thus the sales price is higher. Prop 13 assesses a 1% tax on the sales price of a home - thus frugal buyers pay less tax than the “big spenders” who bought at the top.

  This is no different than buyer “X” going to the store when the Apple IPhone came out and paying top dollar (and sales tax) at the peak of the market - while Frugal buyer “Y” waited for the price to drop and for sales / markdowns by the stores and buy the IPhone for much less, resulting in a lower sales tax for the identical item. Don’t like paying a high property tax? Under Prop 13, Frugal buyers wait for the CA real estate market to drop, then buy low, locking in a low property tax. Prop 13 rewards thrifty home buyers, not spendthrifts and impulse buyers. Sorry to have to explain reality to the complainers - but soon the time to buy a cheap home will be here, with a low property tax to boot, thanks to Prop 13.

  Comment by WL — May 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

• Monkframe, Would you like a government ID number tatooed to your chest? Why such a love fest for government ID’s? It’s silly to be talking about yet another entitlement program (government sponsored union closed shop based on place of birth) when we are already bankrupted by entitlement programs. War on anything illegal is not going to get anywhere, be that “anything” drugs, alcohol, fire arms or people; drugs, alcohol and fire arms do not even have legs that can transport themselves. Enforcing arbitrary laws against people’s natural desires (pursuit of happiness being one of them) always leads to waste and utter failure.

  Comment by Tim — May 25, 2009 @ 12:44 am

• Taxation needs to be fair. Every dollar of residential property value should be taxed equally for ongoing services. California needs a revolution.

  The fools on this board are the ones thinking they can go on paying squat in taxes and have services paid for by the newcomer next door.

  Comment by Carl R — May 25, 2009 @ 1:56 am

• Did anyone do the numbers?

  If I bought a $500,000 house in California today, the value of the home does not increase, I add a conservative inflation of 2%, by the end of the 30 years (mortgage), my house will be worth $906,000 and I’ll be paying $11,000 a year in property tax… it’s fair, but I’m hopeful that I’ll be rich when I retire.

  If I bought a $500,000 house in California today, the valued of the home goes up by 5% (average increase of the housing marking in the good years) and inflation is high at 3%, I’ll be super rich by the end of the 30 years with a $5 million house, but since social security will be gone by then, I would hope I’ll be able to pay for my $62,000 property tax per year.

  I know this is over-exaggerated… I just cannot imagine how I could retire in California 30 years from now.

  Comment by pseudosea7 — May 26, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

• Do any of the proponents of Prop 13 here have kids? California’s educational system has fallen into absolute tatters since 13’s advent - this is California’s future that is at stake! How else can we fund school’s Give me an alternative. The good teachers are all slowly leaving this state!

  Comment by Paul — June 23, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

• I am thankful for prop 13. There is too much wasteful spending on the part of the government while an illegal population has overwhelmed our schools with no apparent blame. I think the CA citizens have spoken against no new taxes while asking for our state to live within its means no matter how painful it may be.

  Comment by cb White — June 25, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

• Prop 13 must go. A tax system must first be fair, and it is clearly not, as demonstrated by your example (and others where the extremes are higher - e.g. sometimes one neighbor paying more than 10X that of another. I agree in tax reduction; however Prop. 13 must first be repealed. I also agree that all people should first prove they are here legally in order to access CA schools (and non-basic healthcare). In addition, the US must get rid of this crazy law we have that allows a child of illegal aliens to be a US citizen merely because they were born here. One final thought: Why to we tax labor (which should be encouraged) when instead or focus should be more on consumption and wealth? Check out how much Disney pays in property taxes for Disneyland - you will be amazed. Another unintended beneficiary of Prop 13.

  Comment by John — June 28, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

• [...] political — Tags: prop 13 — taewoo @ 11:46 am July 21, 2009 So I got a lot of shit for damning the California Proposition 13. Understandable. Most people would perceive this as a threat to their “home”.. or that [...]

  Pingback by Prop 13: The biggest victim is the education system | FreshSuperCool.com — July 21, 2009 @ 11:46 am

• All you defenders of Proposition 13, let’s check your honesty and rationality. What damage has Proposition 13 caused to the State of California and to the nation? Can you think clearly and logically and then provide an answer? Start out by telling everyone why Warren Buffet needs a tax break on his California home. Oh yes, then please continue on and tell us why all the rich folk living in La Jolla, Bel Air, Malibu, and Marin County deserve a similar tax break on their mansions. Then tell us why doctors, lawyers, and movie stars need a tax break on their California homes. Go on give it your best shot, and let the good folk outside of California pass judgment on your reasoning and your character.

  Comment by Darth Baghead — February 21, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment