Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so busness property tax goes up & up more every year. (Santa Monica: real estate market, loans)

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

California could raise $9 billion a year for education and public services if commercial property taxes were reassessed regularly.

"Since the measure's (Prop 13) passage, commercial properties in California have paid a progressively decreasing share of property taxes, a source of revenue that accounted for most of our state's budget before Proposition 13. Today, many of the wealthiest corporations in the state still pay taxes based on the values of their properties in 1975. Chevron alone saves more than $100 million a year in property taxes while, per square foot, Walt Disney Co. pays eight times less than the average California homeowner."

To fix California's colleges, reform Prop. 13 by taxing corporations more - LA Times

why not just charge tuition to those who enroll in colleges to cover the cost? instead of getting it from homeowners?

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

why not just charge tuition to those who enroll in colleges to cover the cost? instead of getting it from homeowners?

If we answer the question from a truly free market perspective, it's going to be because homeowners also benefit indirectly from the presence of a better educated work force. The main issue would actually be valuating that benefit.

For starters, high tech jobs requiring higher education drastically increases the value of property in the area where a cluster of those tech companies settle. Take the entire Bay Area as an obvious example for starters, then look at various parts of San Diego near the biotech locations. Even on the lower end, a single factory used to sustain entire towns so it's a foregone conclusion that even just one or two profitable high-tech ventures will affect RE. The population involved in those science-based tech businesses are going to be less prone to causing violent and property crime as well.

The thread was started to complain about taking away from business' over-benefiting from Prop. 13 anyway, not homeowners. The high tech businesses I was talking about earlier gain a great benefit just from having such a large pool of educated workers right at their doorstep when they are located here. This is made possible by the presence of universities and access to that education. Highly skilled and experienced workers are not easy to find so pooling them together in clusters like you see here is a huge asset to them and worth a lot of money: Each day that a project management position goes unfilled (by a competent manager) is a great loss to a company's efforts to advance their development or production schedule. As an aside, the existence of said highly experienced workers is still going to be up to businesses in general to hire fresh grads to give them experience... that's on business and not the schools.

That's not to say you're at all wrong, I do think students should pay for their share of college per the free market. The question is simply how to valuate what a fair proportion should be and I think taxes that properly supports a higher-education infrastructure will generally pay for itself down the road.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

If we answer the question from a truly free market perspective, it's going to be because homeowners also benefit indirectly from the presence of a better educated work force. The main issue would actually be valuating that benefit.

For starters, high tech jobs requiring higher education drastically increases the value of property in the area where a cluster of those tech companies settle. Take the entire Bay Area as an obvious example for starters, then look at various parts of San Diego near the biotech locations. Even on the lower end, a single factory used to sustain entire towns so it's a foregone conclusion that even just one or two profitable high-tech ventures will affect RE. The population involved in those science-based tech businesses are going to be less prone to causing violent and property crime as well.

The thread was started to complain about taking away from business' over-benefiting from Prop. 13 anyway, not homeowners. The high tech businesses I was talking about earlier gain a great benefit just from having such a large pool of educated workers right at their doorstep when they are located here. This is made possible by the presence of universities and access to that education. Highly skilled and experienced workers are not easy to find so pooling them together in clusters like you see here is a huge asset to them and worth a lot of money: Each day that a project management position goes unfilled (by a competent manager) is a great loss to a company's efforts to advance their development or production schedule. As an aside, the existence of said highly experienced workers is still going to be up to businesses in general to hire fresh grads to give them experience... that's on business and not the schools.

That's not to say you're at all wrong, I do think students should pay for their share of college per the free market. The question is simply how to valuate what a fair proportion should be and I think taxes that properly supports a higher-education infrastructure will generally pay for itself down the road.

That's a pretty big stretch.



You are basically saying taking money from someone benefits them in all things because you can barely tie government spending on any program to somehow increase home prices and ultimately benefiting home owners. The opposit would be a tax on all non homeowners to promote housing development which would lower housing prices.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

why not just charge tuition to those who enroll in colleges to cover the cost?

Did you read the article? Have you sent a kid to a UC, a CSU or a community college in the past decade? Do you know how much the tuition is right now for any of them, and how much it's increased in the past few years?

....instead of getting it from homeowners?

You mean instead of expecting corporations to pay their fair share?

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Did you read the article? Have you sent a kid to a UC, a CSU or a community college in the past decade? Do you know how much the tuition is right now for any of them, and how much it's increased in the past few years?

taxpayers already fund the state colleges/universities. if it still needed, then the students should pay more instead of asking the homeowners to sacrifice more

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

students should pay more instead of asking the homeowners to sacrifice more

No one's asking homeowners to sacrifice anything. This is about property taxes on corporations.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

No one's asking homeowners to sacrifice anything. This is about property taxes on corporations.

Maybe CA could follow the lead of TN.

Tennessee promises free college to all high school grads - CBS News

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Maybe CA could follow the lead of TN.

Tennessee promises free college to all high school grads - CBS News

Good for them! I think we should Community College was free in California when I went, otherwise I would have had a tough time paying for it. Tuition and fees in California is $211 a semester units, so for 30 units in a calendar year tuition would be $6330 + books and lab fees, cheaper than a state college but still expensive if a student isn't eligible for grants.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Community College was free in California when I went, otherwise I would have had a tough time paying for it.

Amazing, isn't it?

I didn't realize that up until 1970, tuition was free at UC campuses for in-state residents.

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

why not just charge tuition to those who enroll in colleges to cover the cost?

In 1974, the state funded approximately 32 percent of the total UC budget.

2012-2013: Tuition is now “the largest single source of core operating funds.”

Students contribute nearly $3 billion in tuition and fees, versus the $2.38 billion the state contributes. The history of UC tuition since 1868 | The Daily Californian

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

...being TAXED out of their home, not "priced." Huge difference. Before Prop 13, property taxes were increasing astronomically each year, and those assessments were not based on purchase price.



There are plenty of places a renter can buy a small home--renters do it every day. The majority of first time homeowners are former renters.



Rent control was around long before 1978.

There was no rent control anywhere in the state before Prop 13.

The higher property taxes kept property values in check - like in Texas nowadays. If 13 was repealed, speculation would decrease and property ownership could become accessible to the non-wealthy again. This is not saying that non-wealthy people would be able to afford Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Carmel, Atherton, the Marina District, St. Francis Wood, Stinson Beach, La Jolla, Newport Beach, etc. if there was no Prop 13 - they wouldn't. But those of us in the 99 percent who didn't inherit property would be able to own in larger numbers. I personally think it's a matter of when, not if. After Old Moonbeam goes, most likely. (Brown's probably the only obstacle to getting rid of 13.)