Jerry Brown takes a hard look at Prop. 13 (here comes the tax man) (Sacramento: low income, sale)

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

If we can truly shrink Sacramento it will be a good thing for California.

Funny, that's exactly the same advice given to hemorrhoid sufferers. It's difficult to get rid of it but if you can shrink it you can get rid of most of the discomfort.

[RCCCB]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Prop 13 is horribly unfair - why should one neighbor be paying $8000 per year for taxes and next door the bill is $800 for a house of the same value? That is just wrong. If you are benefiting from Prop 13, of course you are going to love it - I know I did, but you also have to realize how unfair it is.

I hope to God he can get rid of Prop 13 - can someone share a link of how this could possibly be done? Would this not require a vote? Sorry, if I don't understand how this could be up for consideration at this point . . .

Because the one paying 8000 a year bought their house on a wage of maybe 95k a year and the 800 dollar person did it when their hay day paid only 8k a whole year.

8k in property taxes is rediculous anyway, that is kind of like paying rent for living in your own home.

Also there is no interest in banks any more for savings, so all prior generations can do is draw principle out of the bank to pay property taxes.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by majoun

And ending Prop 13 could help prevent future RE bubbles and their aftermath. Thus giving California something it is in very short supply of - stability in the housing market.

Ending it entirely would throw millions of seniors out in the street. Give them one primary residence, re assess everything else.

[jkbatca]

1) Without incentive to reduce spending, all that eliminating Prop 13 will do is delay the inevitable maybe 3-5 years. The CA legislature has repeatedly demonstrated for the last 20 years that it will spend ALL AVAILABLE revenue on various social programs and union benefit boosts. This has been a demonstrated fact during the Internet bubble and housing bubble.

2) LOL, while the housing market sales are tanking, property values are plummeting, and foreclosures are increasing, some of you are seriously suggesting raising property taxes? Are you people insane? <sarcasm> Oh yeah, why don't we save that drowning property owning taxpayer by tossing her/him a 100 anchor :-) </sarcasm>

3) Wow, someone thinks increasing property taxes will lower cost of housing? Man, I want what some of you must be smoking. Clue, cost of ownership is house payment PLUS taxes.

4) The reason decentralization idea (state to local) won't work is because of (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) Serrano vs. Priest. Once upon a time, CA budgets WERE decentralized until some activists sued the state PRECISELY because some counties were more well off than others. The State Supreme Court agreed and the state had to come up with SB90 to redistribute the income. Here's the timeline of what happened to where we are today. In summary, the instant one county gets one more dollar than another, the activists will institute waves of lawsuits...

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Prop 13 is horribly unfair - why should one neighbor be paying $8000 per year for taxes and next door the bill is $800 for a house of the same value? That is just wrong. If you are benefiting from Prop 13, of course you are going to love it - I know I did, but you also have to realize how unfair it is.

I hope to God he can get rid of Prop 13 - can someone share a link of how this could possibly be done? Would this not require a vote? Sorry, if I don't understand how this could be up for consideration at this point . . .

That's easy... Prop 13 is based upon the value at the time of transfer...

I pay the highest property tax in my neighborhood because I happened to choose to buy when the Real Estate Market was at an all time high...

Thank Goodness for Prop 13 because it provides the framework for me to be able to keep my taxes predictable... by the way, my new neighbors in the newer and bigger house pay several thousand dollars less in taxes because they paid much less for their home several months ago than I did for mine nearly 5 years ago.

It's simple... California has Prop 13 because Sacramento refused to listen to the people... first Serrano takes tax money and control out of local districts and then taxes go up...

The simple solution was to index the Home Owner Exemption for inflation so that it remained meaningful and return school funding to local districts... get Sacramento out of the Picture...

After Prop 13 passed, many voters approved parcel taxes with the money going to their local schools...

Prop 13 is Democracy in Action and I'm thankful each day for those that had the foresight to vote for it as I was too young at the time.

Ask yourself what could be more fairer than having a taxing framework that insures predictability in revenue and one which can be changed with voter approval???

[majoun]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

3) Wow, someone thinks increasing property taxes will lower cost of housing? Man, I want what some of you must be smoking. Clue, cost of ownership is house payment PLUS taxes.

I sid it will prevent any more bubbles from developing and STABILIZE the cost of housing rather than increase it. Higher property taxes keep the cost of housing down. That's why Texas avoided the bubble, and its aftermath. Stablilization is not the same thing as a decrease. California needs more stability.

Besides, not everyone is cut out to own property. Especially these days.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Boompa

I know a lot of people who have two or three rental properties that they are paying 1970s taxes on. That's one injustice they could easily do away with

The California Constitution prohibits split tax rolls by mandating all property be treated equally.

[imcurious]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Ending it entirely would throw millions of seniors out in the street. Give them one primary residence, re assess everything else.

Not true. Where I live, there was a provision for seniors to DELAY taxes until death or sale. That has gone away due to "budget issues," but such a provision could defray at least seniors from taking a hit in real time, IF IT IS NECESSARY. Lots of seniors are rolling in dough, so it is not an issue for everyone.

Prop 13 needs to go away, asap. There is no excuse for it. Not now. It is discriminatory and antiquated. Most of the seniors it was supposed to help in the 70's are dead now anyway and the new seniors can just get used to it or the counties can have the deferment program.

When it was created, it applied to everyone who bought prior to 1976. And that included young people at the time.

[imcurious]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The California Constitution prohibits split tax rolls... mandating all property be treated equally.

Then why haven't there been successful lawsuits?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by majoun

And ending Prop 13 could help prevent future RE bubbles and their aftermath. Thus giving California something it is in very short supply of - stability in the housing market.

How would removing stability in taxation help provide stability in the housing market?

Prop 13 provides a modicum of revenue stability... so much so that revenue has increased each year for 30 years...

Prop 13 also provides peace of mind by adding predictability to the mix and this is priceless.