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.
Uhm, I'm not the one making the claim that prop 13 drove housing prices up. Exactly why should I be the one to supply data to refute an unfalsifiable claim? That's not the way it works.
You made no effort to supply data for your inaccurate claims about California real estate. Furthermore, there is this is not the sort of thing that you're going to get "hard data" on. There are a lot of variables and its extremely hard to isolate the appropriate ones to determine that "Prop 13 drove up housing prices". There are many reasons why Prop 13 should drive up prices though and things clearly started to change around the same time Prop 13 was passed (e.g., California started to get more expensive than the national median). Given this, I think one can make a strong argument that Prop 13 inflated real estate prices in California's major metro areas.
OK, I have watched the "Proposition 13" debate with interest and there seems to be a divergence of views, with the need for overall tax reform and reduced/more efficient state spending a common theme.
I would like to present an alternative which is similar to the model used in Australia (although not a true reflection as each state is different).
Eliminate "Proposition 13"
Introduce a "once off" tax/duty on the purchase price of property which could look something like this: $0-$100,000...1.5%, $100,000-$300,000...3%, $300,000-$500,000...5%, $500,000-$1,000,000...6%, $1,000,000 and above 7.5%
Limit annual property tax to 0.4% of "assesed fair value" (typically this fair value would be about 75% of the property's actual market value in average market conditions)
Offer concessions on the property purchase tax/duty to first home buyers below a certain income/property value threshold and offer annual property tax concessions to the disabled and pensioners/retirees below a certain income/asset threshhold.
This would have the effect of increasing the initial cost of purhasing a home (which may put downwards pressure on house prices), whilst relieving some of the annual cost pressure of home ownership (eg. a house bought for $500,000, assesed at $375,000 for tax purposes would owe $1500 a year in property tax, a more sustainable model than currently, in my opinion, which would owe $5,000 a year in property tax)
Any thoughts on this hypothetical?
(and yes the need for overall tax reform in Ca is much overdue, but more thoughts later)
Tax reform may be necessary but it isn't the root of CA's problems. CA's legislature has a spending problem.
If the largest State in the Union can do this... why can't CA, with all it's billions in revenue, get it right?
It's because the problem isn't lack of revenue, the problem is the obscene amount CA spends...
Sorry, but this is extremely misleading. "Largest state in the union"...yeah in land mass. How many people live in Alaska? 680,000! How many people live in California? 38,000,000! California's population is 55 times larger than Alaska!
In 2005 Alaska (state and local) spent $13 billion, where as California spent $480 billion. Wow, big difference. But wait, per resident Alaska spent $18,571 where as California spent $12,631 and yet its California that has a spending problem?!
California has a tax collection problem, and Prop 13 is part of that problem.
Sorry, but this is extremely misleading. "Largest state in the union"...yeah in land mass. How many people live in Alaska? 680,000! How many people live in California? 38,000,000! California's population is 55 times larger than Alaska!
In 2005 Alaska (state and local) spent $13 billion, where as California spent $480 billion. Wow, big difference. But wait, per resident Alaska spent $18,571 where as California spent $12,631 and yet its California that has a spending problem?!
California has a tax collection problem, and Prop 13 is part of that problem.
That only appears true if you are on the outside looking in. Ca has a big spending problem--did you know that kindergarden teachers top pay is $89,000 per year, plus government pension and health care--for a 9 month job! This is just one example of litterly hundreds...
Other examples: 50% of the staff for local water districs, schools, and universities, have nothing to do with water or teaching. How about the fact that there are 476 different providers of water? (yeah--we all know that every organiztion needs some bureaucrats---but 50%?????
How about these facts: Ca spends just a little over $4 billion per year for illegal alien health care, education, and criminal justice.
...or if you discount all that, how about this: California puts more people in prison for victimless crimes than any other stat? Or California has 32% of the nations welfare recepients, but only 12 or 13% of the nation's population.
California legislature has a reality problem, a spending problem, but NOT a tax collection problem.
Yet the legislature spends time debating on different types of dog licenses, and whether its ok to refuse to send your kids to school!!!
Sorry, but this is extremely misleading. "Largest state in the union"...yeah in land mass. How many people live in Alaska? 680,000! How many people live in California? 38,000,000! California's population is 55 times larger than Alaska!
In 2005 Alaska (state and local) spent $13 billion, where as California spent $480 billion. Wow, big difference. But wait, per resident Alaska spent $18,571 where as California spent $12,631 and yet its California that has a spending problem?!
California has a tax collection problem, and Prop 13 is part of that problem.
That only appears true if you are on the outside looking in. Ca has a big spending problem--did you know that kindergarden teachers top pay is $89,000 per year, plus government pension and health care--for a 9 month job! This is just one example of litterly hundreds...
Other examples: 50% of the staff for local water districs, schools, and universities, have nothing to do with water or teaching. How about the fact that there are 476 different providers of water? (yeah--we all know that every organiztion needs some bureaucrats---but 50%?????
How about these facts: Ca spends just a little over $4 billion per year for illegal alien health care, education, and criminal justice.
...or if you discount all that, how about this: California puts more people in prison for victimless crimes than any other stat? Or California has 32% of the nations welfare recepients, but only 12 or 13% of the nation's population.
California legislature has a reality problem, a spending problem, but NOT a tax collection problem.
Yet the legislature spends time debating on different types of dog licenses, and whether its ok to refuse to send your kids to school!!!
Said much better than I...
If the present course continues... we really won't have much to worry about anyway.
It is a real disappoint that even with our bountiful natural resources, population and ideal setting on this globe... it's still not enough...
The problem is all the alternatives to Prop 13 just mean soaking it more to property owners...
I have explained how other states and other countries operate with low or no property tax and yet the response is California property owners are not paying enough...
California already has just about every form of taxation found in the United States... and because it appears we are so wealthy... the State can mandate perfectly good Diesel equipment, at a cost of untold millions be sold for scrap or exported... we have so much excess capacity in the power grid that we can force power plants to close.
We have so much money that we can pay to haul away firewood and fine people for using EPA permitted and certified clean technology to heat our homes... even President Carter implored Americans to heat with wood as being patriotic... yet in CA this makes you a criminal.
CA is so rich that it can prevent Home Owners from clearing away underbrush to reduce fuel loads and then pay the millions to fight fires...
I could go on... my point is Prop 13 works and we don't need an alternative.
That only appears true if you are on the outside looking in. Ca has a big spending problem--did you know that kindergarden teachers top pay is $89,000 per year, plus government pension and health care--for a 9 month job!
I'm not "on the outside looking in", I was born and raised in this state. I'm not sure why you think looking at the top pay for a Kindergarden teacher is going to tell you much about spending, the only people that would receive the "top pay" would 1.) Have far more education than the average teacher, 2.) Have been working as a teacher for a long time, essentially close to retirement.
Someone in private industry with comparable education and experience will get a similar salary.
I would prefer if the state moved all public employees to 401(k) instead of state pensions. The costs would be fairly similar with a matching program up to say 7%, but the state would not be on the hook for the poor investment decisions of pension fund managers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
Other examples: 50% of the staff for local water districs, schools, and universities, have nothing to do with water or teaching.
This is not an example of a "spending problem", private universities have a large amount of non-teaching staff (more if anything). Any research universities is going to have a lot of research staff to support the research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
How about these facts: Ca spends just a little over $4 billion per year for illegal alien health care, education, and criminal justice.
There is no way out of spending money on illegal immigration issues. I guess you think you can put up a sign that says "Go home" and be done with it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
California puts more people in prison for victimless crimes than any other stat? Or California has 32% of the nations welfare recepients, but only 12 or 13% of the nation's population.
1.) California has a lot of drug trade, so that is only natural.
2.) This is likely due to the high costs in the state, I have no problem reducing welfare as its really just a subsidy for property owners in the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
California legislature has a reality problem, a spending problem, but NOT a tax collection problem.
The state could modify some spending, but there is no way it could significantly reduce spending. California does not spend significantly more than other states (nor does it tax significantly more than most states), so all the talk about a "spending problem" is just political rhetoric.
Most of the problems are the result of bad tax policy, policies that over tax one group while under taxing another. Prop 13 does just that on multiple levels. If forces the younger/newer residents to pay more taxes than older residents. It has forced the state to increase productivity taxes (income tax, corporate tax) to unattractive levels to make up for shortfalls in property tax revenue.
I suggest California mimics Texas, implement high property taxes, reduce the government costs associated with building, eliminate the income tax and significantly reduce the corporate income tax. This of course would never happen, because it would take money from real estate investors and speculators. California is a state that transfers wealth from the productive and gives it to unproductive real estate interests.
I suggest California mimics Texas, implement high property taxes, reduce the government costs associated with building, eliminate the income tax and significantly reduce the corporate income tax. This of course would never happen, because it would take money from real estate investors and speculators. California is a state that transfers wealth from the productive and gives it to unproductive real estate interests.
Higher taxes are confiscatory... where would all these all these older residents go... maybe Section 8 housing?
Real Estate Speculators have not been raking in the dough... just open any paper and see how many Speculators lost everything...
I do agree California is a state that transfers wealth from the productive and gives it to unproductive...
We are a nation of people that fled the lands of their births looking for a better life... the right to own property without fear of loosing it to your goverment is a cornerstone of what this country great...
...There are a lot of variables and its extremely hard to isolate the appropriate ones to determine that "Prop 13 drove up housing prices". There are many reasons why Prop 13 should drive up prices though and things clearly started to change around the same time Prop 13 was passed (e.g., California started to get more expensive than the national median). Given this, I think one can make a strong argument that Prop 13 inflated real estate prices in California's major metro areas.
Disagree. Prosperity drove prices up. In 1978, the year 13 passed, the high tech boon in CA was fully entrenched and ready to explode.The mid-west and eastern grads were coming in droves to CA to work for Intel, IBM, Apple, and hundreds of start-ups and ancillary businesses. Employment growth was experienced everywhere and with it came housing needs. Supply and demand was the driver on higher prices.
The state's problem is not Prop. 13, but uncontrolled spending by our legislature.
Higher taxes are confiscatory... where would all these all these older residents go... maybe Section 8 housing?
If someone can't afford the taxes on their home then they need to sell their home and get something cheaper, mentioning section 8 housing is just hyperbole. California's big cities have a worse problem with poverty problem that many cities with higher property taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Real Estate Speculators have not been raking in the dough... just open any paper and see how many Speculators lost everything...
Actually many speculators are still making plenty of money, but talking about what people are making today while ignoring the massive gains during the housing bubble does not make too much sense. Buying real estate in California is now like buying stocks. When someone decides to raise a family and purchase a home, they should not have to do a rigorous analysis on the real estate market to make sure they are not going to get hosed. California's real estate market needs to be stabilized and Texas gives a good example how that can be done in a large state with a big economy.
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.
Exactly why should I be the one to supply data to refute an unfalsifiable claim? That's not the way it works.
