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.
Proposition 13 prevents your government from getting greedy. I don't think you'd want your taxes handled like it is here in Oregon, either. There are people here who, despite our high property taxes, still think we should have sales tax. "They should lower the taxes some to make room for the sales tax." But I don't trust Oregon government; after cutting back the property taxes they would only creep them up every year until we have a "WTF" moment when we see our bill. However, much of our high taxes here can be blamed on the mass who think that everyone has money in their pockets to burn.
Our public schools are in bad shape, too. But until they can return to basics, stop the need to build new schools to look like palaces (costly as hell), and pare down on needless head administration, I will never willingly hand over more money for an institution that can't budget themselves better.
Prop 13 is the only reason my Parents can still afford to live in their house.
With out Prop 13 my folks and many many others from the Greatest Generation would have been forced out long ago, forced out of the area that they built and developed, making it what it is today.
Prop 13 is essential for those that own their homes, to keep them, preventing the state from taking them, forcing them out with TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL TAXATION!!!
Prop 13 is the only reason my Parents can still afford to live in their house.
With out Prop 13 my folks and many many others from the Greatest Generation would have been forced out long ago, forced out of the area that they built and developed, making it what it is today.
Prop 13 is essential for those that own their homes, to keep them, preventing the state from taking them, forcing them out with TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL TAXATION!!!
Right on! I wish we had a Howard Jarvis right now in Cali.
Yes the property tax system needs updating and should be at a level that keeps the public services paid for with them up to date at a minimum, and cutting edge should be the norm. Quality of life improvements from this would more than make up for the expense.
I am confused that you point out Ma. Taxes are lower and better set(?) to meet the needs of the community there, yet you argue that SF/Ca taxes need increasing? I probably missed something in your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbarry99
Hello, All.
I have come to feel that Prop 13, the JarvisGann Initiative of 1978... is ruining the quality of life in California.
Prop 13 pegs the property tax at 1% of the purchase price, plus a little bit for local "add ons"... (it is now up to 1.19% in S.F.
With each passing year it increases 2%.. Example: You buy a condo for $100,000, and your first year tax is $1,000, roughly.. Your second year is $1,020. (up 2%)
Cool...on the surface... But the long term effects are enormous...
You keep the place for 30 years, and you are paying about 10% of what the new owner would pay, if you sold today...
GRRREAT..you say, but, look at how ragged SF's parks and streets are getting, for example. Look at how little the public schools are funded, compared to other states...
In Cambridge, Mass., for example, the funding, per child, per year,....is MORE than twice what it is in San Francisco..
Is that smart, on the grand scale, for all of society? Is it not a terrible deal for the users of public schools, for the teachers, and so on.???
Here's the kicker: My wife and I bought a condo-townhouse for our Harvard graduate student daughter, last year. .... On a purchase price of $440,000, our property tax is $1,825 per year, with the "owner-occupier" credit...
Here, in SF, the prop. tax, on the same price, would be $5,236. per year.!!!!
The Mass. approach gives us a BIG discount, as "owner-occupiers". ($1,600)
It is better, I think, than the Cal. way, in that your taxes are not "Frozen in" at your original purchase price+2% bump up per year...
If you buy, there,..... you, ....over 30 years, will be around 35%-40% of you would pay here, initially, AND for each succeeding year. You pay less than here, at the start, but you pay that same %, more or less, for each year, and every year....
Here, I know many folks who say "I will NEVER sell and lose my real low tax bill", just as many renters say "I will never move and lose my real low rent-controlled rent...
I think that "Rent Control", in the larger view, is a bad deal, and, equally, I think that "JarvisGannProp13" is ruining California, and ruining public schools.
Prop 13 is the only reason my Parents can still afford to live in their house.
With out Prop 13 my folks and many many others from the Greatest Generation would have been forced out long ago, forced out of the area that they built and developed, making it what it is today.
Prop 13 is essential for those that own their homes, to keep them, preventing the state from taking them, forcing them out with TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL TAXATION!!!
And on the opposite side of the room, that's why so many of the younger generation with kids to raise CANNOT afford to live/stay in CA.
Listen, I'm in my 40's, have a family, older kids to younger kids. I really love CA and am looking to relocate there. However, am I a glutton for punishment? The few good brain cells I have left are telling me that I'd be the biggest a*s if I would relocate there right now with my children, including my two grown children who have finished college and/or finishing up college this year. What kind of life will they have? Will they be stuck renting forever, never being able to buy a house for themselves and their future family at some point which will start the whole relocation cycle again? I'm not too sure that CA is "all that" to break apart our family. This is not to say that I'm not still looking at CA...but come on, something has to give here. It seems to me that those who are working, paying taxes, and raising families are getting reamed big time, like they never get a break. How are people supposed to stay in one area, assimilate, establish roots, when they feel like they are running like hamster on a wheel 24/7?
I love CA for it's beauty, nature, the people, the ideas. I feel like newcomers are being to told to "suck it up or leave" by those that are sitting pretty paying $1,000 a year while someone else is paying $10,000 for a comparable property in the same neighborhood. I think that's why so many people are leaving; because they're tired of sucking it up and being made to feel stupid and used. Seems like one group of people has to subsidize another group of people. If one group of people "can't afford to live there without this Proposition 13", then why should another group of people have to subsidize them? Is this some kind of welfare system for homeowners?
Also, I'm not too convinced that this Proposition 13 isn't ripe for abuse for those that merely transfer their homes to their children/grandchildren who end up paying the same low taxes while others get the shaft/heavy tax burden.
On the other hand, I can understand people who say that they don't want to open up their mailboxes and have a coronary right then and there when they see that their property tax bill skyrocketed.
I don't know what the answer is, but something is amiss here with the current system (in my opinion).
Donna7... the extreme of someone paying 10 times what the neighbor or 30 years "Could" happen somewhere, I imagine.
The Bay Area reality is home owners of 50 years pay about 1/4 the taxes of someone that bought say 3 years ago... these long term home owners are also the ones that have been paying into the infrastructure for 50 years and their children most often have not accessed the school system for 30 years...
It's also a strange twist that I know of several long time home owners, 25 plus years that are paying more property tax than those that bought foreclosed properties in the last month on the same street.
Long Term Prop 13 Home Owners in these cases are actually paying more than the new home owners... how can this be
Prop 13 stabilized neighborhoods, it removed the real threat of people being forced from their homes due to huge tax increases and most of all, Prop 13 provides predictability to property taxes.
I've said numerous times... there is nothing to prevent a city or county from increasing property taxes with approval from the voters... my city of Oakland CA has almost never seen a tax increase NOT approved by the voters...
The problem is elected officials cannot do the very thing expected of citizens... manage the resource available and live within your means.
Everytime taxes increase, I'm expected to do more with less...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 02-19-2009 at 11:55 AM..
Right on! I wish we had a Howard Jarvis right now in Cali.
California needs another Howard Jarvis as much as it needs more gangbangers- i.e. not at all.
Jarvis is on my list of "Worst Californians Of All Time" (that would be an interesting topic for a CityData thread BTW). Without Prop 13 the state would still be the great place that it used to be, and IMO even the immigration problems could have easily been handled without Prop 13. Thanks to Jarvis, CA's public schools went from being amongst the 10 best in the nation to the 10 worst in the nation, and the quality of life deteriorated rapidly. In fact, the anti-Prop 13 people in 1978 were the ONLY people who predicted accurately the problems that CA would have later on.
It is largely thanks to Prop 13 that CA has the insane fiscal structure of dependence upon sales taxes, fines, and fees which have made the state less friendly towards small business and which contribute to the constant fiscal crises in Sacramento, this year's being the worst yet.
I my mind the two sins are 1. the proposition system 2. the gerrymandered districts. The state is so polarized that the representatives cannot do anything and thus we resort to direct democracy. At least politicians make it their job to understand how governments work in theory. The average voter has no ability to decide on the merits of the propositions unless they are simple like yes or no on gay marriage. Voters will never go for any proposition that hurts themselves such as tax increases but are all too happy to vote for someone else to pay higher taxes (ie the top 1% of earners). If the governor did one great thing it is that he finally got the redistricting proposition through. I hope that we can finally elect a group of moderate Democrats and Republicans who can pragmatically run this state. Sorry for the rank
California needs another Howard Jarvis as much as it needs more gangbangers- i.e. not at all.
Jarvis is on my list of "Worst Californians Of All Time" (that would be an interesting topic for a CityData thread BTW). Without Prop 13 the state would still be the great place that it used to be, and IMO even the immigration problems could have easily been handled without Prop 13. Thanks to Jarvis, CA's public schools went from being amongst the 10 best in the nation to the 10 worst in the nation, and the quality of life deteriorated rapidly. In fact, the anti-Prop 13 people in 1978 were the ONLY people who predicted accurately the problems that CA would have later on.
It is largely thanks to Prop 13 that CA has the insane fiscal structure of dependence upon sales taxes, fines, and fees which have made the state less friendly towards small business and which contribute to the constant fiscal crises in Sacramento, this year's being the worst yet.
My city spends nearly 15k per year per student... how much more is needed?
Class size was reduced to 22 pupils... I had 51 in my 5th grade class... with 1 teacher and no teacher's aid(s) and this was in the 70's pre prop 13.
The problem is the Legislature failed to act on out of control property tax increases in the 70's and then gladly shirked responsibility by stepping aside...
I agree that many voter's comprehension of the issues is lacking... even so, most all property taxes requiring voter approval are passed in my city...
By the way, a nearby city of Piedmont CA is almost 100% dependant of property taxes... the city has no industry and very little retail... yet it has public schools in the 99 percentile... how is this possible being dependant on property tax revenue post prop 13?
So what's the problem again?
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.
I agree, but am confused
