Remind me again how prop 13 is crippling local budgets? Property tax revenue increases much faster than inflation, and it still isnât enough for local governments.
California people are overtaxed. Only the fools are hoping for more tax
There isnât a tax we Californians donât like.
Brainwashed people are sad
Prop 13 is exactly like rent control, both distorts the economics of housing. Itâs a big reason why local governments donât want to allow new housing to be built. Property taxes are assessed at market rate only when the property changes hands. Meanwhile the services residents of that house consumes, be it police, fire, schools etc all go up every year at market rate. Itâs much more lucrative for governments to zone land for commercial use. They can tax businesses at market rate and if the workers donât live in town no new need for services.
I would guess many opponents of Prop 13 donât expect (nor want) itâs potential elimination to cause an increase in total property taxes. Instead they would hope housing values would drop due to an increase to a more normal supply of houses on the market.
Thatâs such BS. The math says property tax revenue is growing at 6.6% a year. Thatâs more than 3x inflation. Prop 13 applies to commercial properties, so they arenât getting around prop 13 by zoning commercial.
Taxing businesses, on top of property tax on commercial properties. So local government has multiple tax streams by favoring commercial properties.
The 6.6% increase is looking backward. Letâs say you are the one responsible to forecast the cashflow stream in the next 30 years, whether to build a residential house or a commercial property. You have to guesstimate how often that property changes hand so you can peg its property tax at market rate. How do you do that? Do you just look back at the past and extrapolate? Do you need to guard band your estimate because of so much uncertainty involved?
I am old fashioned. I like balanced budget. If citizens donât want to cut services, then logic dictates we have to tax people enough to pay for things.
Waste. Waste. Waste. Nobody cares. No consequences
Too much tax. Need to cap the tax revenue and jail the wasting people. Also unwash the people.
Texas has a revenue cap of 8% earlier. But government abuses has caused this cap to be reduced to 3.5% now. Californiaâs Prop 13 is too loose, we should have a tax revenue cap of 3.5% in addition to 2% cap for existing owners. This 3.5% revenue cap can protect the new buyers and unite the people. New buyerâs tax base should be limited by the 3.5% tax revenue cap so that new buyers can get the Prop 13 benefit sooner.
âWhen Greg Abbott was running for governor, he said he wanted to limit property taxes. On Wednesday, he signed Senate Bill 2 into law, which is meant to do just that. The measure caps the rate of annual property tax growth in Texas at 3.5 percent, down from 8 percent previously. Local governments seeking to raise taxes by more than 3.5 percent must get voters to approve it. The aim is to slow the rate of tax hikes so people wonât be taxed out of their homes or businesses.â
How is it that here in AZ Iâm getting more services from state and local governments collecting a fraction of the CAâs taxes?
I donât know enough about AZ to comment. At the end of the day, itâs up to the voters. Expenditure should equal tax revenue. If voters insist on having those services, they should pay for them in taxes. You can say CA is very inefficient. I actually agree with you there. But why is it so inefficient? In a democracy itâs the votersâ fault. We collectively deserve the government we have.
One more point. I am glad we have a federal system. Each state can do their own things and experiment with different approaches. Texas can experiment with its small government approach and California can try another one. If Texas proves to be much more successful than California, there will be a lot of pressure for CA to change its ways. Part of the problem for CA is that it has been so successful economically. Yes, housing is screwed up and inequality rampant. But every state is trying to duplicate Silicon Valley and yet there is only one Silicon Valley, right here in California.
Itâs all producing revenue growth thatâs much faster than inflation. Their issue is spending not revenue.
The whole issue with voters is spending and tax increases are rarely voted on together. Voters are always asked if they want the new benefits first. Of course they vote yes, since who doesnât want free stuff. Itâs not until the new spending creates the budget problem that they are asked to raise taxes. The two should always be voted on together.
If you are worried about spending you should insist one dollar of spending be matched with one dollar of tax. There are only two ways to pay for things. Either by taxes or by borrowing. I have never seen anyone saying the way to rein in spending is by running up a huge credit card bill and not paying them off. Even worse any borrowing we do will not be paid by us but rather it will be our kids and grandkids.
Should include how it is going to be funded, existing budget or raise new taxes.
Riding on past successful policies donât imply the new policies are not damaging the future success. We can only know many years later.
Why do I see a post from July when it say updated 9 hr ago? Glitch in software?