Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so busness property tax goes up & up more every year. (Oakland: closing, cost of living)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

If we are talking about the same thing, at least there's the fact that increased costs of doing business will always be passed on to the customers, in effect making the people who use those services or buy those products ultimately pay for the increased commercial property taxes.

Consumers always have the choice of just not buying. The rest who do share the increased costs according to the amount of money they have to spend. That sounds very fair to me.

The number of small businesses I personally know that have left California in my little corner of the Bay Area is staggering... many simply set up shop in Nevada as the cost of doing business is less across the board... one went to St. George Utah.

Business has no vote so it easy to get voters to sign on if it only applies to business...

The beauty of Prop 13 is in it's simplicity... volumes of tax code reduces to a couple of short sentences...

Splitting the tax roll would be nightmare... just think of all the mixed use property in urban areas... first floor commercial and residential above...

Farmers were a big part of the Prop Tax revolt in that often the family farm or family business would need to be sold as taxes increased or if the property passed to the next generation...

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

If we are talking about the same thing, at least there's the fact that increased costs of doing business will always be passed on to the customers, in effect making the people who use those services or buy those products ultimately pay for the increased commercial property taxes.

You're referring to the incidence of a change in taxes - but it is rarely the case that 100% of the change in taxes is borne by one party (either the business selling or the customer buying).

Tax incidence is said to "fall" upon the group that ultimately bears the burden of, or ultimately has to pay, the tax. In your hypothetical, the increase in tax, while collected from the business owner, is actually borne by the end customer in the form of higher prices. The key concept is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where (or from whom) the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply.

It all depends on the price elasticity of demand and the price elasticity of supply, as in the following chart. It is the slope of the demand curve and the slope of the supply curve. Under most circumstances, the burden is shared. Under unique circumstances the burden of the change is borne exclusively by the buyer or by the seller.



But wait -- there's more. For the portion of the tax change borne by the seller, some of it is borne by the business owners, and some of it is borne by the business' employees. Again, the degree to which it is borne by one party or the other depends on the slopes of the supply of labor and demand for labor curves. In an incredibly tight labor market, it is all borne by the business owner. When there is a ton of unemployment with every business owner being inundated by would-be-job-applicants, it is all borne by the employee.

For background reading, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The number of small businesses I personally know that have left California in my little corner of the Bay Area is staggering... many simply set up shop in Nevada as the cost of doing business is less across the board... one went to St. George Utah.

Business has no vote so it easy to get voters to sign on if it only applies to business...

The beauty of Prop 13 is in it's simplicity... volumes of tax code reduces to a couple of short sentences...

Splitting the tax roll would be nightmare... just think of all the mixed use property in urban areas... first floor commercial and residential above...

Farmers were a big part of the Prop Tax revolt in that often the family farm or family business would need to be sold as taxes increased or if the property passed to the next generation...

I'm totally with you on this and yes I understand the problem of farmers losing family farms held for generations.

In a way I've just been examining any means to find a compromise, but in reality there isn't. All repealing Prop 13 will accomplish--in any way including a partial repeal--will be to reinstate the misery that existed before Prop 13 was passed. It was passed for a good reason, and it would be a huge mistake to change it.

I think this topic is really just discussing another of those wacky ideas that will never happen in this reality.

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

You're referring to the incidence of a change in taxes - but it is rarely the case that 100% of the change in taxes is borne by one party (either the business selling or the customer buying).

I'm done discussing it. Repealing Prop 13 isn't going to happen. Discussing that is wasted typing. Please see my comments above.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

The number of small businesses I personally know that have left California in my little corner of the Bay Area is staggering... many simply set up shop in Nevada as the cost of doing business is less across the board... one went to St. George Utah.

Business has no vote so it easy to get voters to sign on if it only applies to business...

The beauty of Prop 13 is in it's simplicity... volumes of tax code reduces to a couple of short sentences...

Splitting the tax roll would be nightmare... just think of all the mixed use property in urban areas... first floor commercial and residential above...

Farmers were a big part of the Prop Tax revolt in that often the family farm or family business would need to be sold as taxes increased or if the property passed to the next generation...

Not sure why staggering numbers of people would leave California to open a small business in Nevada, Nevada has a very high small business failure rate. Commercial Property tax can increase by 7% a year

I think we could annually increase commercial property tax (based on appraisal) subject to a cap of 3-4% a year. But, if nothing else this kind of outrageous cheating needs to addressed through legislation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr.../#37d3bb883c5f

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I think we could annually increase commercial property tax (based on appraisal) subject to a cap of 3-4% a year.

Just remember that if you take away Prop 13 for landlords and at the same time saddle them with rent control, you are putting their balls in a vice and something is going to break. The most likely outcome is going to be the landlord leaving the business, and possibly losing a lot of their investment if not all of it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Just remember that if you take away Prop 13 for landlords and at the same time saddle them with rent control, you are putting their balls in a vice and something is going to break. The most likely outcome is going to be the landlord leaving the business, and possibly losing a lot of their investment if not all of it.

I never advocated for rent control, I think it's stupid and should be outlawed.

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

It's a spin that is meant to chip away at Prop 13...

The California Constitution prohibits a split property tax roll...

Chipping away at "Commercial" is the best way to eventually change Prop 13 for all...

Yep, now it's commercial properties. Then it's your house. I think all this "Prop 13 is unfair for new owners" is just smoke and mirrors by public employee union shills for what they really want: more of your money.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand.../#6e7c34a34e03

Quote:

"$100K Minimum Wage' For 220,000 Highly-Compensated California Public Employees Costs Taxpayers $35B"

During the recession they took away assistance money poor senior citizens were receiving. Recently the democrat-controlled government voted not to reinstate the program. It seems they would rather give public employees an extra Bahama cruise a year than help our most needy senior citizens.

What kind of monsters do that?

Is there an end to this greed?

[TheFlats]

Yes because I associate assistance for the poor and elderly with the Republican platform. Never mind Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid had to be fought for tooth and nail by the Democrats.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Yep, now it's commercial properties. Then it's your house. I think all this "Prop 13 is unfair for new owners" is just smoke and mirrors by public employee union shills for what they really want: more of your money.

^^ This

Give 'em an inch, they'll eventually take a mile. Nope, Nada, NO way. Until the price of housing comes down - laughing that I'm even writing it - Prop 13 needs to stay in place. It's bad enough now when people pay three quarters of a million for a home and end up with a $7500. annual property tax burden right out the gate then possibly see a 2% increase in years, thereafter.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by davidt1

During the recession they took away assistance money poor senior citizens were receiving. Recently the democrat-controlled government voted not to reinstate the program. It seems they would rather give public employees an extra Bahama cruise a year than help our most needy senior citizens.
What kind of monsters do that?

Are you talking about the State supplement to SSI grants? ? That's complicated. The federal SSI grant for an individual is $735. California did not TAKE away the supplement, but lowered it from $233 to $156, or by $77.

States are not required to supplement SSI, only a few do so and usually by a smaller amount than California. The downside to the State Supplement is that due to a federal rule when a state provides a supplement, the recipient is denied SNAP benefits, the feds call it a 'cash out' rule. So, if California didn't pay any supplement a recipient would receive $735 plus SNAP benefits, California has submitted a request to the feds to terminate their cash out rule but as far as I knjow it hasn't been addressed. AJR 35 Assembly Joint Resolution - CHAPTERED

So, in my opinion it's not as bad as it sounds and it has nothing to do with public employees taking extra Bahama cruises (where do I sign up for mine by the way?) And SSI is not a program exclusive to old folks: "As of December 2015, the number of recipients was about 8.3 million. Of this total, 4.9 million were between the ages of 18 and 64, almost 2.2 million were aged 65 or older, and almost 1.3 million were under age 18."