Conservatives are celebrating in California
(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)
Friday was the 30th anniversary of the passage of Prop. 13, the financial strangle-hold on our government that has fueled the budget crises we continually face in California.
Get this: California Republicans are actually upset that the Democrats refused to hear a resolution to "honor" the passage of Prop. 13. In Friday's Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert email, Republican Assemblyman Bob Huff said it was "crystal clear that Democrats in Sacramento do not wish to recognize the benefits and the legacy of [Prop 13]."
I know it is a little hard for Huff and his "Yacht Party" colleagues to understand, but Prop. 13 and its offspring are the primary reasons why we have a structural budget deficit and struggle to balance our budget even in non-recessionary periods.
Unfortunately, it will be a long-term endeavor to modify Prop. 13, which was passed in 1978 allegedly to protect homeowners from high taxes. A new Field Poll released yesterday shows that 57% of Californians approve of the measure, while just 23% oppose it. Clearly, changing public opinion on Prop 13 is not going to happen overnight. More from the Sacramento Bee's email:
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass told listeners on a recent conference call sponsored by the liberal Courage Campaign that the measure wouldn't be part of the immediate agenda for her new tax commission.
"The reason for that is that it is such a polarizing issue," Bass said.
On our Courage Campaign Conversation with them over a week ago, Speaker Karen Bass and Senator Darrell Steinberg went into much greater detail on Prop. 13 and their long and short-term goals for fixing the budget and our tax structure. The full audio recording is ">available for streaming here.
Speaker Bass and Senator Steinberg know that band-aids will not solve California's budget crisis long-term. But, to eventually achieve long-term structural change, these progressive leaders need support from grassroots and netroots activists to galvanize power from outside of Sacramento.
Fixing Prop. 13 so that it protects homeowners while assuring that business pays its fair share is one of the long-term goals of the Courage Campaign, as part of a larger movement to fix the fundamental reasons why California's government is dysfunctional. It will take a strong, independent movement to change the way people think about our state government.
We can build that people-powered movement from the bottom-up, and eventually repair the damage done by Prop 13 and the right-wing over the coming years. But, to sustain our momentum, we asked Courage Campaign members to make a recurring contribution of $13 a month. If you are interested, you can do so here.
Well, first reply and not even trying...
As a CA resident who understands the legacy of what prop-13 has done to local tax revenues, I'm just incredibly bummed that the electorate at large still fails to get it. I'm told that TX has a far more functional system in which property taxes are tied to property values do indeed rise with market forces, but that such taxes are overlooked for the elderly. When the property is finally willed to somebody else, the state collects on the back taxes. This keeps the "little old lady from losing her house" syndrome from ever occurring and keeps the state tax base solvent.
I didn't live in California 30 years ago but I said when it passed that taxing property based on how long the people have owned it is got to be one of the worst reasons there is. I haven't changed my mind.
Huh, what a strange thing to celebrate; it just makes it so much more stark as to how out of touch conservatives and republicans are in this state.
Well good for you Cal Reps. Your kids are going to our disfunctional public schools as well. I hope you're enjoying the lack of funding and the antiquated school system.
Julia, I want to begin my disagreement with your piece that I'm a life long Democrat and not a Conservative nut job. If it wasn't for Prop. 13 I wouldn't be able to afford my property taxes. I bought my house in 1982 for $179,000. It's now worth closer to 2 mil. My taxes without Prop 13 would be close to $2000.00 per month. I'm retired and would have to sell my home because I can't afford such increases. Then I would have to pay capital gains on the profit. Without Prop. 13 you would have millions of seniors having to sell their homes. ......Thank Goodness for Prop 13...
Bruce
Strangle-hold on government! That's cool! With an annual state budget approaching $150 billion, the thing out to be choked to death in the bathtub.
Anyway, wouldn't the 13 bucks a month be better sent directly to the treasury?
Which ever way this leans, people in the USA have to realize that Clalifornia represents almost 1/4th of the countries GDP. In other words, as goes California, so goes the nation.
California is the Fifth Largest economy in the world even beating France. and that was in 2000.
stupidity is something the repugs cultivate and exploit.
Anyone doubting the harshly negative impact of Prop 13 should take a walk through a few of California's public schools. But then again, it is the republican agenda to decimate public education so I guess this makes them very happy.
If it weren't for prop 13, my elderly parent's would not be able to live in the home they raised their children in. Particularly with this 10 year epidemic of falsely inflated property values. If you want to tie taxes in to a constantly increasing home value, then let's tie increases in Social Security in to that as well too.
Or is it the right thing to do, to screw the elderly scraping by on a small, fixed income while the price of everything goes through the roof?
The answer to balancing California's budget doesn't mean ripping off the homeowner one more time, but instead spending taxes more wisely and less wastefully.
$27.00 an hour for some guy to stand around with a sign that says "Slow" or "Stop", while a crew works on the road is just one example of wasteful spending. There are thousands more examples. And what ever happened with all that revenue falling from the skies in California when the populace voted in the Lottery? That was supposed to be the answer to all of our educational woes.
Then how about that windfall of income that never materialized when the voters approved Casinos?
Quit looking for ways to steal more from the average Joe and instead look for ways to keep from wasting those tax dollars. With the explosion of the populace in California over the past couple of decades there should be plenty of tax revenue to go around. Where has all the money gone?
Tax the casinos.
Repugs FINALLY find something to get excited about and C&L goes rains on their parade.
C'mon C&L, show some compassion for the weak, hungry and powerless will ya !
I always looked at Prop 13 as Reagan-era GOPer feel good politics, the things that appealed to people's lowest instincts and made GOPers feel good. They ran a massive campaign that misrepresented the issue but very effectively got people to stop thinking and take the short-sighted view by pushing their buttons in just such a way to assure that they would react emotionally instead of thoughtfully. It worked. It was one of the GOP's first major successes since the Nixon era in their single-minded drive to permanently give the rich and privileged a free ride in society, regardless the harm that free ride does to society. It was a move that was easy for them, because they were so easily able to manipulate a majority of others, essentially eliciting selfish responses. California has been suffering from it ever since, not only fiscally, but also from a lingering belief that the wholeprocess started that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Actions without price or consequence.
I lived in California shortly after Prop. 13 passed. The public school system fell apart. It was a terrible time for the state, although in the short term, land owners were shielded from some taxes.
The comment about elderly parents is a serious one, and often heard in the opposition of school taxes in Pennsylvania. We really keep as many people as possible as poor as possible and then wonder why things don't work. Perhaps elderly people on retirement should be protected by a (gasp) federal program to that they can keep their homes as taxes increase.
How about a little help for those of us who don't live there and don't know your state's issues by number?
Prop 13 is why I am against propositions that are voted on by the public because the public is easily misguided by deceitful advertisements. The fact that the voters of California believed the crap they said about Prop 13 and voted it in is so sad. Businesses like Chevron, shopping malls, or anyone that did not sell their property as it stayed in the corporation decade after decade are the ones that reaped huge benefits from this proposition. I think this was the beginning of the greed that is destroying our society now.
I, too am a Democrat and not a right-wing nut job.
You've got to remember back to 1978, when property values were skyrocketing in California. Instead of adjusting the tax rate to reflect this trend, people were continuing to be taxed at the same rate, but on hugely higher assessed valuations. A good friend of mine was a University Professor living in Brentwood. His salary was about $40,000 and his property taxes (on an assessed value several times his purchase price) would have been $13,000 a year. His choice was to vote for Prop. 13 or lose his home.
I put the blame squarely on local and county governments that were insensitive to the ballooning tax burdens. If they had behaved more responsibly, Prop. 13 would have been a fringe issue.
If they won't tax themselves, maybe they could tax neighboring states.
Handling the issue of skyrocketing property taxes by local government would have been the solution instead of letting the public be duped by a bunch of con artists. I wonder though if the elected officials of the local governments weren't in collusion with Prop 13.
SES @ 16:
Also put some of the blame on then Governor Jerry Brown. There were numerous ways to fix the problem through legislation that would have derailed Prop 13 but Brown refused to participate in the hard, back room politicking that would have done so.
EarthAbides @ 18:
That's my point.
Bruce H:
Well, that's great, but that just added to an overpriced housing market in which people were forced to take up rent control, because of the lack of real alternatives. And a lot of them are moving out of here, precisely because realtors managed to sell complete dumps at inflated prices which had nothing to do with market value.
I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't see why the rest of us non-home owners have to pay for your forest fires and maintenance,if you're not going to pay for our schools, public transportation, and law enforcement.
This raises an important issue.
The true value of labor and the position on same by democrats.
Money is nothing more or less than symbolic labor. For a government to be irresponsible with money is the same as that government being irresponsible with the labor of the citizen.
The position of protecting the citizens labor from being wasted (money/taxes) is a position the democrats seriously need to take away from the republicans. Not having done so has created a trivial 'win' for republicans for decades. The issue is how to serve the citizen (republicans dont want that at all) and how to responsibly and respectfully protect the symbolic labor of the citizen.
Its a democratic issue, BUT - you MUST accept that the republicans are correct in as much as they demand controls on waste.
Government should serve - which requires taxes. (Republicans would disagree - screw them). But the people not government should show surpluses. I have no idea what a tax surplus is other than theft of labor by government from the citizen. Democrats should be concerned about that. Surpluses should be returned.
Tequila @ 21:
Well, that's great, but that just added to an overpriced housing market in which people were forced to take up rent control, because of the lack of real alternatives. And a lot of them are moving out of here, precisely because realtors managed to sell complete dumps at inflated prices which had nothing to do with market value.
Realtors can't sell anything unless there are buyers willing to pay the price.
how is that skyscraper loophole in prop 13 working out?
Prop 13 passed the year I entered high school. In my school district in central California - a very conservative place to this day - the Advanced Placement program was cancelled, Gym was made optional for Seniors, the library closed, and the police department had to lay off staff. None of these things ever came back.
Prop 13 was one of the biggest mistakes ever made.
Mike @ 5:
You, like me, are a little fella. Without government - the wolves would have us both. If you think your life would be better without government, you would be wrong. You would be a peasant - owned by someone.
Marcus Aurelius @ 17:
Republicans do that. As a resident of a red state (Az) I can tell you that we pay less (federally) than we receive. Red states pay less and receive more (federally) while blue states pay more and receive less. The 'redstaters' are stealing and have been probably for as long as you have been alive.
If states got what the 'deserved' the red states would be like third world countries. Perhaps that is what they should be. Remember the Tennesee valley authority - electrification. Absent blue state help, Tennesee would be a third would state.
SES:
That's precisely why we have one of the worst housing markets in the country.
One of my few disagreements with a C&L post.
Prop 13 has allowed my parents the ability to remain in our family home as the value has gone up.
Suggesting older californian homeowners aren't paying their fair share in taxes is a left wing PR campaign that could bite us in the ass.
Just because one owns a million dollar home these days doesn't mean they're a millionaire.
Pickles @ 8:
Absolutely. The repubs dream is to make higher education, and even high school, unaffordable to anyone but the children of the elite. Here in NJ, we have some of the highest property taxes in the nation. Our schools are OK, but of course there's a huge disparity between the suburbs and the cities, the cure for which, suprisingly, is always vouchers. We got into budgetary problems largely as a result of Christie Todd "dim-Whitman"'s (she of 9/11 EPA fame) Reaganomic-like tax cut bullshit which underfunded state employees' pensions. One of the "conservative" writers in the state's largest newspaper, The Star-Ledger just loves Prop. 13. He is another republican moron.
Prop 13 and other measures of its ilk (Missouri has the infamous "Hancock Amendment") are all stated to "save the little people" when its true mission is to "starve the beast", the "beast" being government. Supporters of these voter initiatives want nothing more than to close all public schools, any public financing of mass transportation, etc.
In California, they have lived up to their true promise and now they want to bring their fiscal insanity to Arizona. I say NO!
Does anyone stop to consider that one of the reasons that home values became inflated in California AFTER Prop 13 is because of Prop 13?
Does anyone truly question the validity of Warren Buffet stating that there is no logical reason why he should pay less taxes on his multi-million dollar home in California than he does on his home in Nebraska. If the "Oracle of Omaha" states that Prop 13 needs to go, shouldn't we all be listening very closely?
Conservatives are celebrating in California
Partaaay like it's 1929!
I came to California initially as a result of being in the service in the early 80s. Having come from the midwest with 'those' winters I had a particular point of view about road services.. I have to say, at the time I arrived, California in the northern part of the state had some of the smoothest most well kept and manicured freeways and freeway systems I had ever had the opportunity to drive... California, still, at that time had a school system that was very highly regarded by anyone paying attention to those things. Prop 13's money drain had not yet effected this school system. The roads had not yet been ignored. That fallout was yet to be felt.
Now? As regards the roadways? Might as well be Ohio after a harsh winter... most of the time, in most of the state save a few areas. Cities are even worse. I'll be blunt, I don't know what the answer is, maybe a prop 13 set up that exempts businesses from the so-called benefits of it. I don't know, I keep hearing how business will just flee if they can't get over on prop 13 like everyone else... But this whole argument is founded on the idea of corporation as person.. Something I don't subscribe to anyway... That is its own can of worms older than the prop 13 issues.
This much is clear enough to me... Everytime anyone has to have car repairs to suspension systems and shocks, or engine work, or body work due to traveling rough roads repeatedly, everytime anyone has to have their tires swapped out 2 years sooner than expected due to road wear. And aside from cars, everytime anyones child just ain't cutting it in school dispite how good the teacher and other staff are. Or anytime a school chooses to cut back programs on sports or any other activity not deemed core curriculum??? (and these cuts DO have a significant negative impact on our children), You can thank prop 13 and its advocates and supporters....Everytime you hear stories of teachers buying core material for class out of pocket because the school can't afford it? You can thank prop 13 and its advocates and supporters.
People can and do parse this a million different ways but the basics are simple. Pre prop 13 this state was the envy of the rest of the nation. Top school system and first class roadways with lots of manpower devoted to maintaining it, and it was taxes that made all this possible including taxes assessed on privately owned property. Post prop 13? Shitty school system, shitty roadways and no money to maintain anything... And this post is merely focussing on two by-products of prop 13. There are plenty others to ponder and debate as well...
Cause and effect? You decide for yourself but don't waste time bitching about the tires you have to buy more often and don't bitch at Sacramento because the schools have gone to hell and you can't get a decent education for your children even with a wad of money and a private school... Unless you save some of that bile for Ganns and Jarvis and the rest of those prop 13 midwives, you have missed the point of why we are all in this boat and why its our childrens generation who are really bearing the brunt of all this fallout and will continue to bear that brunt until this problem is fixed............JD
jj:
It's not a PR campaign; it's a fact. Our skies are polluted from your SUVs; our kids are uneducated, because the money gets used to tend the gardens in your gated communities; and we're losing businesses to other states, because most cities don't have any financial incentives to attract entrepreneurs.
I bought my place in San Francisco in 1994. I am currently paying about $12,000 per year less in property taxes than my next door neighbors who just bought a nearly identical place.
It's wrong and it has caused a lot of problems with the schools as far as I can see. Many of our magnificent state parks are slated to be closed.
My husband and I make it a point to use our savings on property taxes to fund non=profits that are doing what our government should be doing. We donate it to parks causes and educational programming for public and at-risk and disadvantaged students.
Our other donations (kids schools. arts, etc) come from our general income. I actually believe that our money is being spent more wisely than it would have been under the state bureaucracy. Unfortunately I don't think many other people are doing that. Looking around San Francisco I'm willing to bet the money is used to subsidize people's lifestyles. I'd bet a good deal of the money goes to leases on BMWs and Range Rovers.
I bought my home in 1982, knowing that prop 13 was in place. It was one of the factors that I considered when making the decision to buy. The value has gone up and down over the years, but is now probably about 6 times what I paid for it. Perhaps I should be taxed on this profit when I sell the house, but why should I not be protected while I hold it, just like I am protected with my 401K plan which grows tax free, and is taxed only when I start to withdraw it? Isn't my home just a form of savings for my old age? That's how I look at it.
Tequila @ 21:
Well, that's great, but that just added to an overpriced housing market in which people were forced to take up rent control, because of the lack of real alternatives. And a lot of them are moving out of here, precisely because realtors managed to sell complete dumps at inflated prices which had nothing to do with market value.
I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't see why the rest of us non-home owners have to pay for your forest fires and maintenance,if you're not going to pay for our schools, public transportation, and law enforcement.
__________
We have the same problems in Florida. I always see people crying about their fixed property taxes, but they are always happy to sell and that equity with them. There was a study done recently that showed that these homestead laws protect millionaires much more than they protect senior citizens. Anyone surprised?
As far as what was happening in 1978 or 1982..hmm..I was either in diapers or learning the ABCs at the time. These laws screw anyone 30 and under.
For Tequilla, I paid $5600.00 in property taxes last year and you paid the big 0. And you say I'm not paying my fair portion for schools and highways... Get a grip DUDE! Your the one not contributing to the State Treasury....If your not a property owner you have little to contribute to the debate. Sorry!
In the not-too-distant-future, someone will call the Fire Department and be told "Sorry, we've used up our fuel allotment for this month. Can the fire wait until the first of next month? We'll put you on the list for then." Police: "Just keep your head down for an hour or two. Fred's got the last patrol car with gas in the tank, and he'll be back with it any time now." I guess conservatives might get some comfort from knowing that any increase in tax revenue is being passed along to their beloved oil companies.
One more thought on this prop 13 spitting contest... It's been said, and some even defend the mindset, about grampa just not giving a damn about someones kids in school... The old 'why should I'.... etc... And the truth is, yea, I know gramps doesn't care and is quite pleased to be paying 1978 taxes on his little retirement spread. And I know on some level that, at least, looks unfair when compared to Mr. 30 something who may have just bought the small spread next door with his stock market money or whatever. But to be honest, I just don't have that big a problem with grampa and grandma living easy in their twilight with this particular tax headache off their shoulders... Not a big deal to me really... However.... The idea that Chevron or any big old oil company with a refinery in (u-name- it smallsville California) or any big old conglomerate sitting on their billions in profit made here in California also paying 1978 taxes on their multi-million dollar property and multi-billion dollar business??? while the state infrastucture goes to hell in a handbasket??? Yea, I got a problem with that along with the fact that this whole argument, I always find, carefully steered away from even discussing that aspect of this problem... Meanwhile, while we're all manipulated towards pointing outraged fingers at each other and our parents generation for their evident callousness, these big bidness Onntourprenoorrs laugh all the way to the banks and send their kids to out of state private schools while the rest of us deal with the fallout of their good deal on property taxes. And my question becomes, what's so fucking fair about that!!???? JD
I think that, oddly enough, when it comes to getting through a repeal of the 2/3rds requirement to pass budgets in CA, I would be for an exemption of it when it applies to prop 13. While there are a lot of things wrong with Prop 13, this is the worst one, and it won't go away without such a compromise. If every other budget item not directly associated with Prop 13 could be voted on by a simple majority we'd go a long way towards getting low revenue relief.
I don't see any other way of putting a simple majority budget rule in place.
JJ- That's nice for your parents, but there are other huge problems with Prop 13. I live in California, and because of Prop 13 I have the opposite problem: I can't move to a nicer home that I could afford otherwise. Plus the roads are falling apart, and I have to pay several thousand dollars a year to get music, art and athletics for my kids that other States supply via school programs. Oh, yeah, and I have to deal with the whole strip mall sprawl thing because sales taxes are the ONLY way cities can raise money for roads, police, parks etc. so they cannot afford to ever say "no" to a developer. (And by the way, when said strip mall is sold, the new owners get to keep the old tax rate because they claim that they didn't buy the mall, they bought the division of the company that owns it, so ownership didn't really transfer. Of course there is no similar mechanism for us homeowners. Needless to sy, the proportion of taxes paid for by corporations has plumetted since Prop 13.)
There are other ways of keeping fixed income folk in their homes that won't screw the rest of us. For instance, you could adjust the tax rate down as the valuations go up, so that no individual tax bill could go up by more than a set amount (often 2% or 5% per year). This is comon in parts of New England, which has a similar affluent demographic to Cal, but infinitly better schools and services.
Bruce:
I pay zero, because I can't afford a home, because I can't find a good job, because your property gets more priority than my neighborhood's infrastructure and business growth.
To Bruce H:
Don't be dense. Landlords pay property taxes on their rental properties with the revenue they bring in from rents. Renters pay just like single-family home owners do. I own two rental units. How do you think I am paying the property taxes on them? That's right...rents. Renters have just as much to contribute to the debate as you or I do.
JD has it SOOOOO Right! Good Read!
This shouldn't be about abolishing prop 13 altogether but two modifications are in order: 1.) eliminate the super-majority provision that requires any new taxation be approved by 2/3rds of the voters. A simple majority would better reflect the will of the voters.
And 2.) The property tax freeze should apply to primary residences. Only. All commercial and rental property should be re-assessed every five years and the taxes adjusted accordingly. If you make money on the property, you should pay the current taxes on it.
These two provisions will put taxation power back in the hands of voters and eliminate the corporate tax give-away that was the real reason for the proposition in the first place.
Tequila @ 34:
It's not a PR campaign; it's a fact. Our skies are polluted from your SUVs; our kids are uneducated, because the money gets used to tend the gardens in your gated communities; and we're losing businesses to other states, because most cities don't have any financial incentives to attract entrepreneurs.
MY SUV?
MY gated community?
This is the type of generalization "PR" I'm referring to.
I am a renter. My mom is on the local school board and no one in my family drives an SUV or lives in a gated community.
There may be answers out there that are fair to homeowners and all californians but demonizing retirees with sweeping generalizations is not the answer.
republican creed: As little taxes as I can get away with, as big of profits as I can bleed out of a business, the more for me the merrier....and fuck the rest of the country.
Pretty simple actually. Let the sick and hungry die. Let the uneducated stay there. Let the homeless live without. They honestly believe this shit, and they will be concerned with THEIR welfare, and THEIR welfare only.
The rest of the nation will have to "pick themselves up by their boot straps...ON THEIR OWN....or perrish".
PIGS!! Every one of the selfish bastards. Anti-socialists. It's all about "me". PIGS!!
jj:
But if you're a renter, then you'd probably understand why there's so much animosity against homeowners, since they just tried to screw the rest of us with Prop 98 and all...
Tequila @ 49:
But if you're a renter, then you'd probably understand why there's so much animosity against homeowners, since they just tried to screw the rest of us with Prop 98 and all...
Tequila, I see both sides.
I'm not here to be an expert witness for Prop 13, by any means. My experience is only anecdotal.
My parents are retirees on fixed incomes who bought their house for 36k in 1972. The house (and the property) is now worth about 800k.
Fact is, they couldn't afford to stay in our family home without Prop 13.
Again, there are probably fair answers out there for all Californians, I just ask (and for what it's worth my parents and I are all very liberal) that the discussion refrain from demonizing or painting homeowners in these broad strokes of "celebrating conservatives."
My concern, in the long run, is that the further we PUSH people to the right (You're a homeowner, you MUST be a stinking conservative!) the further you push them away from the left.
That's all.
I appreciate the considerable relaxation in your tone for the latest post. Thank you.
Bruce H. @ 38:
You are both as wrong as any blinkered right-winger in your arguments. Renters pay property tax in their rent. Homeowners pay it directly. The earlier claim that the law "screws anyone under 30" well boo fing hoo - like the vast majority under 30 have any perspective to make such a claim to begin with.
There are real issues and concerns on both sides, and if this is how the left conducts its "debates and talking points" it is no wonder there is no support for changing the law as it is.
Sorry, I scrimped and saved and worked my ass off for 20 years to be able to buy a house where I live and work at prices undoubtedly inflated by Prop 13. You want to reverse that now - when I'm saddled with housing costs I can barely afford already? How are you going to do that?
You want to pile on big tax increases on houses where the homeowners are going belly-up at record rates already? Boy, that sounds like an intelligent approach. Oops, I don't see where anyone has mentioned this. I guess the problem doesn't exist.
I'd be the first to say that the time of Prop 13 has come and gone and of couuurrrse situations have changed, but let me say...
There's NO "alleged" about it. Property taxes were killling those least able to afford them and were rising as fast as the National Debt is now. It was the RIGHT thing to do AT THE TIME. When property taxes are higher than the mortgage payment, something HAS to be done to put on the brakes.
As lomg as you're at it though, tell those California (I'm a native, moved to Oregon) lawmakers that I can remember the promise of "The sales tax will NEVER rise above 4 per cent." Ask 'em how that's working out....
greg @ 9:
Thank the AFSCME, AFT and NEA.
Tequila @ 21:
Are you under the impression that Renters aren't paying the property taxes of their dwellings? You don't think that's included in the price and passed on whenever the land owner gets a bump?
Fix the system - stop blaming the inhabitants. You're all in the same boat.
I have vauge memories of this bill (I was 6 at the time). All I remember is a big crystal 13 on a black background looking ominous an intimidating, dont recall if it was a for or against commercial.
This is the first C&L post that I completely disagree with.
In my opinion, you should be taxed at the rate you bought the property plus inflation and plus improvements.
Most everyone of my liberal friends in California is fully supportive of Prop 13.
Look, if my salary goes up at inflation rates, but my property taxes go up faster, eventually I won't be able to afford to live in my own damned house. Never mind when I retire and my salary goes down! Do the math, people. A place to live is not a luxury. It's not a yacht. It's not a private plane. Stop propagating the myth that everyone who has a house in California is a rich SOB.
Quit blaming prop 13 for the financial shortfall of schools.
California residents addressed that shortfall by voting in the Lottery, which they were told would provide the necessary funds to bridge any gap.
What they weren't told is that existing funding would be withdrawn, and all funding would rely on the Lottery. Classic bait and switch.
They are deliberately underfunding education so as to be able to point out how "broken" the eduational system is, that way, they can sell the populace on privatization, charter schools and vouchers - all tools for wrecking the system further while subsidizing the wealthy private schools and religious schools.
Prop 13 has its problems, but the main problem is that it allows a family to pass a residence from one family member to another without it losing its Prop 13 status. This means that you have several generations that have lived in a particular residence enjoying the important property tax benefit, while neighbors all around are paying much higher rates. And, to some extent, subsidizing the beneficiaries of Prop. 13.
I understand the need for it in respect to elderly residents. But have real problems with the clause that says Prop 13 applies until the residence is actually sold.
Let me point out that what I am talking about with this post is modifying Prop. 13, not a full repeal. There are many people who would indeed not be able to afford their homes were it not for Prop. 13. As I said in the post: "Fixing Prop. 13 so that it protects homeowners while assuring that business pays its fair share is one of the long-term goals of the Courage Campaign". We are not suggesting taking away the protections for homeowners.
jj @ 47:
MY SUV?
MY gated community?
This is the type of generalization "PR" I'm referring to.
I am a renter. My mom is on the local school board and no one in my family drives an SUV or lives in a gated community.
There may be answers out there that are fair to homeowners and all californians but demonizing retirees with sweeping generalizations is not the answer.
I could add to that
My '94 Honda (badly in need of a paint job)
Gated Community? I don't think so
To add to which, we're subsidizing one daughter so she can afford to go to work and not let her house go into foreclosure.
Prop 13 really lets us live the good life!
Joe Felice @ 14:
Proposition 13 limited the property tax increase that could be levied to about 1% per year, essentially freezing the property tax rate to the year the property was bought. When the property is sold, the buyers pay taxes at the new basis (e.g. the sales price); and when a home is remodeled, the basis is adjusted based on the improvements (but not the underlying land, which is what has been appreciating so aggressively in California). As everyone has pointed out, there are winners and losers; even a "winner" like a homeowner could be made of "lose" when he finds himself unable to make a lateral move into a house of the same sales price because of the additional property taxes. I know, boo fucking hoo for those victims...
That being said, Howard Jarvis can take a 2x4 up the ass sideways for this POS legislation and the legacy of his stupid Taxpayers Association putting shitty referenda on every state ballot since. Prop 98 was supported by them; it rightfully went down in flames.
Just because Rethuglicans like it doesn't always mean it's bad. I'm sure some Rethugs like Cherry Garcia ice cream and I'm not going to stop buying it just for that.
(1) It is illogical to say that Prop 13 causes home prices to rise. The whole deal is that *new* homeowners, and those who step up to higher-priced homes (to the extent of the difference) do not get the benefit of Prop 13 for that purchase. And, of course, they are the ones who complain. Ten years later, not so much. Prices were rising fast before Prop 13 (that's why it passed) and they continued to rise afterwards.
(2) Prop 13 is only part of the picture. Prop 13 shifted much of the burden of school financing from the local property tax to the state. In 2007 Californians paid property, local and state taxes at 11.5% or their incomes - the national average is 11%. Therefore, you can't blame Prop 13 for a lack of funds; property taxes are lower, in percentage terms, but revenues are higher, than in other states. We're just lousy about how we spend money.
(2) There are issues about Prop 13 that are much worse than the revenue questions. Shifting funding to the state has taken away local control, and lots of people think that is one reason that schools are in the crapper. It's also a good question whether corporations should "enjoy" the same benefits as homeowners, but again, this is not causing a shortage of funds (see (2) above).
I too am a California native who could not afford to buy the home I live in, bought in 1971, and would be hard-pressed to pay property taxes without Prop 13. So, as a native, a lifelong Dem who thinks Feinstein is a Republican in Dem clothing, who has voted straight Dem 99% of the time (yes, even for Feinstein), I say you will pry away the homeowner benefits of Prop 13 only from my cold dead fingers.
About the rest, we can talk.
You make a statement without a single peace of evidence to support it. I live in California and I pay property tax so please don't sit there and tell me to start a grass roots effort to raise my propertry taxes.
Prop 13 is a good thing not a bad thing, it forces the state government to live within its means or find the funds for its projects somewhere besides the back of homeowners of the state.
You can talk till you're blue in the face and tell me how wrong or foolish I am, but your never going to get me to campaign to raise my property tax and destroy the only good thing the repugs have done in this state.
Julie, thanks for a great piece and the clarification. It's true Prop 13 was originally written by Big Oil so they wouldn't have to pay taxes. Prop 13 simply needs a few modifications and bingo Corp America pays their fair share. Thanks, again...
I'm sorry Prop. 13 is the only way you can live in this state, but that's not my problem. Hospitals being shut down, no one investing in the state, and overcrowded schools with rising tuitions at colleges are my problem. If you don't like houses appreciating in value, to the point that you have to pay higher taxes on them, then either don't buy a house, or get a better job. Why should the rest of us have to live like we're in a third-world country while subsidizing your economic stability?
In think that a property tax is a crappy way to raise needed municipal funds. The problem in California is that it's nearly impossible to institute any kind of tax. There's not necessarily a relationship between home ownership and the ability to pay taxes.
The simple fact is that many retired people and people living on Social Security would not be able to continue to live in their homes if municipalities relied as heavily on property taxes as they used to. Why should a low income, elderly person like my mother be forced out of her home because of property taxes? The insane rise in the prices of homes during the last five years or so prior to the bursting of the housing bubble would have been devastating to many people, including my mother, who would have been forced from the home she's lived in for over 30 years.
In my view, local governments should tax income in some manner, not the value of a person's property. The only way that taxation can be progressive is if it's based on income.
Prop. 13 gets it very wrong, since it allows a reassessment and increased tax assessment based on certain transactions, like the purchase of a home. That harms new home buyers who end up paying an unfair share of property taxes to make up for the lower rates paid by long term home owners. Again, municipalities should be able to raise funds by other means.
I'm not a fan of Prop. 13 because of the problems that it has caused. On the other hand, why hasn't government found a solution? I also think that basing school funding on property values is a way of creating de facto segregation. Again, let's look for progressive solutions, not the old crappy ones.
Cantor de Mambo, good read!
Prop 13 is one of the best things that ever happened to California. A whole generation of people who would have been pushed out of their lifelong homes because of the obscene rises in property values were spared that heartbreak. That the government WON'T be fiscally responsible enough is no reason to say ONE bad thing about that truly decent measure that was passed with overwhelming popular support.
Mike @ 5:
I could use the $13.00/month for my treasury.
moniker @ 10:
Tax the churches. An unllimited source of money.
A couple of points:
1. California voters may have approved Prop 13, but they have also approved a lot of mandated spending from the general budget without providing additional tax sources.
2. You can easily fix any repeal of Prop 13 by creating language that once a homeowner reaches Federal retirement age and/or becomes eligible for Social Security benefits, there property taxes become fix until either the owner dies or the home is sold. That takes care of the "old age" argument.
bill DOH @ 70:
I would agree. Religious property accounts for a major tax burden on everyone while giving nothing in true value to the tax base. Religious property should be taxed as all other property.
Phoenix Justice @ 72:
You're right, but they'd rather cut funding for schools than tax a church.(public schools)
Here's a way to start changing people's minds: Introduce new taxes or raise existing ones expressly to cover shortfalls due in part to Prop. 13. If those are passed, fine. If they are not, when the state runs out of money, selectively choose programs that will halt because of lack of funds. Without the appropriate funds for maintenance, it would be irresponsible to keep the Carquinez and Bay bridges open. Unfortunately, they will have to be closed until their safety can be assured. Without adequate funds, the safety of the Los Angeles Aqueduct can not be guaranteed, so it will have to be closed or limited.
Piece of cake. Any other seemingly intractable problems that need solving?
Thanks everyone for their thoughtful comments. This has been a heated, but crucial discussion. It is important that we talk about these big issues now, while we are facing an enormous budget deficit. Now is the time where we can examine what got us into this mess and how we can get out of it.
Check out this piece by Robert over at Calitics for another perspective.
I was born the year after Prop 13 passed. I've lived my entire life in California, as have most of my family and friends.
Virtually nobody in my generation can afford to buy a house. Ever. We've got huge loans to pay back because Prop 13 decimated higher ed. We have a decaying infrastructure and high oil prices that we have to pay because Prop 13 prevents the state from having enough money to build alternatives. Many people my age have full-time professional jobs that don't have health insurance or have insufficient insurance.
And we're supposed to believe all that is the price we must pay so grandma and grandpa can be homeowners in retirement?
No, I don't think so. I call BS. If folks want this to be a fight between generations then sure, use elderly folks as your political weapon - Howard Jarvis did so quite successfully in 1978.
But if we want to fix our state's problems we need to realize we can and must find better solutions. It's not right that everyone else must suffer so retirees can get a tax break. That's ridiculous.
I would say that the biggest problem with Prop 13 today, and a major problem of repealing it, is that property values are inflated artificially because of it. If we repeal it, there are going to be people everywhere who will lose their houses to back taxes. Removing a cap on any future taxes would also result in a reduction in prices because it would add even more uncertainty to owning a home.
More reduction in home values is the last thing we need right now.
Balderdash. I live in California. The reason there is a stuctural defict is because the state overspends. I am sick and tired of prop 13 being blamed for over spending by state legislators.
We tax payers are not a cash cow. The state needs to learn to live within its means. But it never does. When there is a surplus, the state finds a way to spend it, then cries poverty when the economy slows down, as it inevitably does every so often, then blames prop. 13 for the problem.
Sorry, but that is a lie. The state had a surplus in the late 90's, even with prop. 13. the money was squandered, which is not the fault of property owners. It is the fault of the government.
Keep your hands off Prop 13, California government.
Virtually nobody in my generation can afford to buy a house. Ever. We’ve got huge loans to pay back because Prop 13 decimated higher ed.
---------------
Prop 13 did not decimate higher ed. The state of California squanders money.
But if we want to fix our state’s problems we need to realize we can and must find better solutions. It’s not right that everyone else must suffer so retirees can get a tax break. That’s ridiculous.
---------------
Everyone isn't suffering so that retirees can get a tax break. That is nonsense. I have lived and worked in this state for 30 years. You seem to think i should suffer for your benefit.
By the way, virtually nobody in your generation can buy a house because it was a housing bubble.
Bubbles burst and deflate. You will be able to afford a house after the prices decline to normal levels or below. Mortgage bailouts would if they worked, keep you priced out of a house, by maintaining prices at ridiculous levels. Rather ironic isn't it, that goverment support for home owners would keep you from owning a home.
Fixing Prop. 13 so that it protects homeowners while assuring that business pays its fair share is one of the long-term goals of the Courage Campaign, as part of a larger movement to fix the fundamental reasons why California’s government is dysfunctional.
--------
Quit lying. California is not dysfunctional because businesses are not paying their fair share.
California is dysfuntional because of its own legislature being fiscally irresponsible.
I think the main problem is that all taxation needs to be fair, in other words based on a person's or business's ability to pay. A fair income tax system with equitable exemptions should be our ONLY tax and it should be collected by the state with a portion going to the Federal Government only after local state needs are met.
John and C&L friends, please do not pick this up as a cause.
my property taxes go to my county (Kern) and they have lot's of moneys they spend on useless projects, they never lack for money to shut down interstate 14 to do goon squad fishing raids and pave dirt roads in the middle of nowhere. Without prop 13, I could not pay my monthly.
Correct me if I am wrong commenters, but was not there at one time a state income tax that the state used to fund state projects and budgets? If the state does not have enough money, maybe it should take in more.
As I recall the sales pitch for Prop 13 was for the relief of the homeowner. After it was sold to the public the proposition was amended to include commercial property. This was the flaw.
SES @ 16:
I agree, this really began from a lack of county oversight in making tax rate adjustments, but with rising house prices, they saw new revenue and did not want to question where all extra $ were coming from.
Emily @ 2:
-------------
Just thik of it like rent control, except that the government is the landlord. In fact there was a ballot initiative to end rent control in the June primary. Ironic that those here opposed to property tax control, are the ones who favor rent control. I voted against that initiative, by the way.
Comments are closed on this entry