Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prop13 has nothing to do with opening a business. It applies to buying and owning land or building, etc.
Anyone can open a business without buying. Just rent as I did in the beginning. Now I own 2 CA Corporations and land in CA. I was not rich and struggled by working two jobs to get it going.
Anyone with a bit of intelligence and effort can open a busines. Now running one does take a bit more intelligence. In CA the biggest hinderance to running a business, is not Prop 13, it is ridiculous regulations. Even Business taxes are not bad. Regulations are a nightmare however.
Geez. It is ultrarunner that is saying CA would be punishing businesses if we stopped subsidizing some businesses real property taxes.
Geez. It is ultrarunner that is saying CA would be punishing businesses if we stopped subsidizing some businesses real property taxes.
No one is subsidizing business taxes. They pay the same rate as everyone else.
Plus they pay a tax on everything in the building, except product for sale regardless of whether they own or rent. Individuals do NOT pay a tax on their furnishings, so businesses pay a higher County tax.
I said real property taxes. Any property that is used as an income property that is taxed at less than it's full market value under Prop 13 IS being subsidized by CA taxpayers.
How can it be subsidized when the same rules apply to all??? County assessors are not writing checks.
I guess one could make the argument homeowners get a subsidy the amount of the homeowner exemption and renters get one in the form of a renter's credit...
Now if you want to talk subsidy we can talk all day of public transportation subsidies and the high wages/benefits these entities pay...
We can also talk about numerous HUD programs that pay rent for low income individuals...
As in when cash is physically transferred from one government entity to another or to individuals...
I said real property taxes. Any property that is used as an income property that is taxed at less than it's full market value under Prop 13 IS being subsidized by CA taxpayers.
Here is the problem... you want to apply rules to define Property Tax Assessments that do not exist...
Property Tax is based on acquisition value plus improvements plus a max 2% annual inflation factor...
Taxes based on acquisition cost/value are the most common form of taxation and not subject to guess or estimation... they are real numbers based.
Property Tax has nothing to do with anyones guess of Full Market value.
Property Tax uses Fair Market Value based on an Arm's Length Transaction... never Full Market.
At best, one can only guess probable Fair Market value absent a bona fide sale... and once a property is sold... it has been removed from the market...
Don't try to overthink this...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 05-23-2015 at 08:11 PM..
Here is the problem... you want to apply rules to define Property Tax Assessments that do not exist...
Property Tax is based on acquisition value plus improvements plus a max 2% annual inflation factor...
Taxes based on acquisition cost/value are the most common form of taxation and not subject to guess or estimation... they are real numbers based.
Property Tax has nothing to do with Full Market value.
Property Tax is uses Fair Market Value based on an Arm's Length Transaction... never Full Market.
At best, one can only guess probable Fair Market value absent a bona fide sale... and once a property is sold... it has been removed from the market...
Don't try to overthink this...
You might want to try to think this...ha ha
CA R&T
110. (a) Except as is otherwise provided in Section 110.1, "full
cash value" or "fair market value" means the amount of cash or its
equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open
market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take
advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the
seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the
property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of
the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes.
Of course this has NOTHING to do with the subsidy but you are obviously trying to avoid that discussion. Happy obsfuscation!
Here is the problem... you want to apply rules to define Property Tax Assessments that do not exist...
Property Tax is based on acquisition value plus improvements plus a max 2% annual inflation factor...
Taxes based on acquisition cost/value are the most common form of taxation and not subject to guess or estimation... they are real numbers based.
Property Tax has nothing to do with Full Market value.
Property Tax is uses Fair Market Value based on an Arm's Length Transaction... never Full Market.
At best, one can only guess probable Fair Market value absent a bona fide sale... and once a property is sold... it has been removed from the market...
Don't try to overthink this...
You might want to try to think this...ha ha
CA R&T
110. (a) Except as is otherwise provided in Section 110.1, "full
cash value" or "fair market value" means the amount of cash or its
equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open
market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take
advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the
seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the
property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of
the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes.
Of course this has NOTHING to do with the subsidy but you are obviously trying to avoid that discussion. Happy obsfuscation!
Text of Proposition 13 as originally presented to the voters (June 1978) and no where does it say Full Market Value.. why... because what is Market Value??? What market and based on what terms...
It does specifically reference Fair Market and Full Cash Value... This is why the form the Assessor requires upon transfer asks specifics regarding terms... below rate financing inflates price... about rate can lower price
For one of the most straightforward and simplest California Propositions... it sure generates a lot of misinformation...
PROPOSITION 13
THE AMENDMENT.
That Article XIII A is added to the Constitution to read:
Section 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to the time this section becomes effective.
Section 2.
(a) The full cash value means the County Assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under “full cash value,” or thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to the 1975-76 tax levels may be reassessed to reflect that valuation.
(b) The fair market value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed two percent (2%) for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction.
Section 3.
From and after the effective date of this article, any changes in State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.
Section 4.
Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district.
Section 5.
This article shall take effect for the tax year beginning on July 1 following the passage of this Amendment, except Section 3 which shall become effective upon the passage of this article.
Section 6.
If any section, part, clause, or phrase hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected but will remain in full force and effect.
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 05-23-2015 at 08:23 PM..
Text of Proposition 13 as originally presented to the voters (June 1978) and no where does it say Full Market Value.. why... because what is Market Value??? What market and based on what terms...
It does specifically reference Fair Market and Full Cash Value... This is why the form the Assessor requires upon transfer asks specifics regarding terms... below rate financing inflates price... about rate can lower price
For one of the most straightforward and simplest California Propositions... it sure generates a lot of misinformation...
PROPOSITION 13
THE AMENDMENT.
That Article XIII A is added to the Constitution to read:
Section 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any indebtedness approved by the voters prior to the time this section becomes effective.
Section 2.
(a) The full cash value means the County Assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under “full cash value,” or thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to the 1975-76 tax levels may be reassessed to reflect that valuation.
(b) The fair market value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed two percent (2%) for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction.
Section 3.
From and after the effective date of this article, any changes in State taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.
Section 4.
Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district.
Section 5.
This article shall take effect for the tax year beginning on July 1 following the passage of this Amendment, except Section 3 which shall become effective upon the passage of this article.
Section 6.
If any section, part, clause, or phrase hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be affected but will remain in full force and effect.
You sure are spending a lot of time trying NOT to discuss the subsidy!
Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so business property tax goes up & up more every year.
Response:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California has the highest paid public employees in the nation. Still, it is never enough as far as the union leaders are concerned. For this reason, taxpayers find that these public-employee unions are usually in the forefront in promoting new taxes and damaging modifications to Proposition 13.
In 2004 it was these government unions that put Proposition 56 on the ballot. Proposition 56 would have reduced Proposition 13’s requirement that new state taxes receive a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for approval.
Epilog:
Follow the money... Voters overwhelming support Prop 13 and governor Brown has stated numerous times it is settled law... so why are we still talking about it??? Because the lobbyist that wrote the article referenced is hired by government unions to find new revenue sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
