Let’s face it. California is going bankrupt. I don’t have to put some quote or a link to some article toback my statement. Just turn on TV and listen to California news. (And if you REALLY want third party validation, take a look at this article.) California can’t even issue more bonds because the credit rating for the state tanked. Declining property values and declining employment equals declining tax revenue. And what about expenses? You guessed it. Going up.
So why don’t we get with the times and change? What about proposition 13?
If you are unfamiliar with proposition 13, it’s basically the stupidest real estate taxation law. Ever. Not only that, it’s an outdated law written in 1978.
In essence, Prop 13 limited property taxes in California to no more than one percent of a home’s assessed value. Assessments of property values could not rise by more than two percent per year, unless a property was sold, in which case it could be assessed at a new value. Prop 13 also added a measure which would require a two thirds majority to increase any taxes in California, making it very difficult for the legislature to pass laws to raise the tax rate, even when the state struggled to balance the budget.
Now, let me give you an example.
I had a coworker who live in San Mateo county who inherited a house from his grandparents, who bought the house in the 40′s or something like that. Less than $20k for the house. Guess how much he pays in taxes? Once again, my blog readers are brilliant: 1.25% of something over $20k (there was some re-assessment event). Guess how much the next door neighbor was paying? 1.25% on $600k. Is the house newer? Nope. Exact same layout, same size, same yard. Sure, the appliances are new and there were some updates, but for the most part, same house.
Now, I’m no genius here but I’m certain my ex-coworkers’ kids and his next door’s kids attend schools in same school district. And I’m pretty certain teachers there want to be paid in today’s dollars, not 1940′s dollars. Does my ex-coworker’s kid cost less? Does he eat less? Does he require no books? Do they have gnomes that teach kids in the basement and work for nothing?
What a dumb law. So why wouldn’t politicians change this? Because politicians don’t want their careers to get “electrocuted” to death (according to Wikipedia article):
A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes. The proposition has been called the “third rail” (meaning “untouchable subject”) of California politics and it is not politically popular for Sacramento lawmakers to attempt to change it.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The so-called people’s representatives care more about being your representatives than actually representing you.
If the people are “priced” out of homes due to taxes, well, isn’t that what free market economy is supposed to be all about? We’re all subjected to same conditions. Some survive, some don’t. But government cannot incentivize people to not change and to be basically outdated. When I was in track team in high school and got out of shape, I got cut from the team. I didn’t have no proposition mandating that fat, out of shape students cannot be cut from athletic teams. Who cares about the team? The team wants to win as a collective. If the lagger is bringing down the team, not only the coach, but the entire team wants him/her out!
Here’s what I don’t get: politicians don’t mind jacking the taxes on the golden gooses of the economy that actually create jobs – i.e. companies. Yet they care so dearly about this old, outdated crap tax law that only hurts everyone. I’m for cutting taxes but as long as it’s fairly distributed. Prop 13. is an unfair taxation.
Costs go up. That’s a fact of life. The people who support prop 13 are the same people who bitch and complain about how school teachers don’t get paid enough, or how there’s not enough crossing guards near schools, etc. If they want more social services, fork up the dough.
Governator, if you’re gonna retire, take this proposition 13 with you.
[EDIT] Here’s my response to some of these comments.
Related posts:
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Blaming Prop. 13 for California’s budget problems is like blaming seatbelt laws for auto accidents.
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.
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.
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!)
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Go F yourself.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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?!
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.
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
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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
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!!!!
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”.
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
You are a moron.