Overturning of Prop. 13 sought in lawsuit (California)

[alp227]

Proposition 13, which revolutionized government financing in California by slashing property taxes and erecting new barriers to other state and local tax increases, was upheld by the state Supreme Court soon after it passed in 1978, seemingly ending all questions about its legality.

But a team of lawyers headed by a former federal appeals court judge has sued to overturn a crucial provision of Prop. 13 - the requirement of a two-thirds legislative vote to raise state taxes.

The lawyers argue that the two-thirds requirement has been undermined by more recent decisions of the state's high court. In particular, they contend, the court's May 2009 ruling on same-sex marriage defined the limits on voters' power to amend the California Constitution by initiative, and showed that a change as far-reaching as the two-thirds requirement exceeds those limits.

The requirement "upsets the bedrock principle of lawmaking by majority rule upon which the California Constitution was founded," attorney William Norris said in papers filed with a state appeals court in Los Angeles.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/27/BAC11MHEBD.DTL

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Be interesting to see if it works this time around, but I doubt it

Besides, the Gann Initiative is the real killer. It top lines government at all levels.

[itsrobert]

2. Oh Great, just right after I purchased a home

n/t

[slackmaster]

3. You're not paying your fair share, you ungrateful 1%er

Fork it over.

[schmice]

6. You are so wrong.

Why do you equate home ownership with being a 1%er? Many of us are struggling just to keep our heads above water. Our biggest investment is usually our home. We have kids to raise and send to college so that they can learn and be better providers for their families. When Reagan decided to charge tuition at state colleges many people were robbed of the opportunity of an education. How can you say that we aren't paying our fair share? You sound like an embittered person who would bring everybody down just so that you can make your political point. I'm not rich but do have a house and drive an 11 year old van. How does that make me a 1%er? People work their entire lives just to have a place to call their own and raise their families. Your brilliant solution would mean that people would lose their homes in droves. How will that help neighborhoods. And here's something you didn't consider. If people lose their homes, the tax base would shrink and the entire state would go to shit more than it already has. I am a lifelong Democrat but the California Democratic Party is dysfunctional. Who do you think is going to reap any benefits from this? The poor? Hardly. There is such a waste and so much theft from the money that has been earmarked for programs benefiting the needy. You are just reacting to something you know little about. Get educated. Enforce the law against the thieves and wastrels and there will be enough money to go around. Think about the elderly and those on fixed incomes who could not afford to have their homes taxed even more.

[tularetom]

10. Sometimes the sarcasm thingy isn't necessary

or at least it shouldn't be when the is so obvious.

[schmice]

13. Really?

That was sarcasm? FAIL

[Control-Z]

41. It's mostly only a FAIL

to a newb, like yourself. Read a little. Get to know us before you jump to conclusions.

And welcome to DU!

[Gormy Cuss]

12. psst....slackmaster is a CA residential property owner too

and not a 1%er. I think he was being sarcastic.

[schmice]

19. And you know this how?

It's comments like his that are destructive. To say something outrageous and then have him or others say that he was only being sarcastic and was kidding isn't really helpful. I've worked my balls off providing for my family. My wife works too. We have three college tuitions we are paying for and going broke doing it. Our property, state and federal taxes make it difficult to live. How much of that money is wasted. Here's one for you. My wife was a library aide at a LAUSD elementary school. The library was to be closed for a short time so that it could be expanded and updated at a projected cost of $75,000. Almost two years later, it was finished. Total cost $250,000. And you know what? It was a shoddy job. There were many days when either one or no workers showed up, but the taxpayers were charged as though a full crew had been there. Anybody get investigated? Nope. And now they want more money? To hell with them. We are the needy ones and these corrupt politicians just want more. I like Jerry Brown and have voted for him several times. I'm not a 1%er and neither are most of the homeowners I come across. There has to be a better way. My fear is that my rage against raising property taxes will paint me as a Republican. I am not. I just had enough of having our money wasted and stolen by people who are unaccountable. This is not a joking matter for most of us.

Frankly, idiotic remarks that could have a direct impact on whether people will be able to stay in their homes "but said in sarcasm" shows little social consciousness.

[slackmaster]

20. I express social consciousness by donating to worthy charities, not by posting on anonymous forums

It's certainly not a joking matter for me. My family had its budget busted in the mid-1970s due to runaway assessments and property tax increases in San Diego County.

BTW, here's a link to a comment I posted about this topic yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1040&pid=113

[schmice]

30. I'm glad it isn't a joking matter then.

And I express mine by actually feeding the hungry in person when I'm not representing them in Court (at no cost to them) which I've been doing for over 20 years. I do it because it is the right thing to. I don't just post on anonymous fora.

We all have our special calling. It doesn't always lead to financial fortune but it pays off by making a difference in people's lives. I don't begrudge people who earn a lot of money and live a comfortable life either. People should enjoy the fruits of their labor. I just want fairness. The rich and the corporations did not get there by themselves, as Elizabeth Waren says. They should pay their fair share. We who make up the vast majority shouldn't be forced to pay what shouldbe someone or something else's share too. And I don't want to get ripped off by paying large amounts of taxes for goods and services that are overpriced, wasteful and, in the end, sub-standard.

Once these politicians get into office, they get used to the perks. They like to be called senator or assemblyman and, as a result, do whatever they can to insure that they stay in power. They get along by going along with what their corporate sponsors tell them. (There are only two people in Washington that I can think of off-hand that are not like that. Can't think of anyone in California.)

That's where I'm coming from. I am a hard working conscientious citizen who deals with the least among us. I know what unfairness can do and how it becomes toxic to a community and the nation.

End of my rant. I'm done.

[Ken Burch]

55. This suit wouldn't affect your bloody property taxes, though.

You have no reason to object to the removal of the supermajority requirement on tax hikes.

And there's a real moral question here if it did...

Is keeping property taxes down for some worth the irreparable damage 13 has done to the educational and social welfare systems, and to labor law and environmental law enforcement(none of which can be made up by the trivially small charitable donations you made...I'm assuming you're referring to the wrinkled dollars you put in the Salvation Army drum).

I'm a young grandparent, and I would NEVER make my grandchildren suffer just so I could keep a few extra dollars in my pocket. That's what you helped do by passing this immoral, life-hating, future-destroying measure. Fine, you got to keep you precious home...but you damaged the lives of millions of other people and you don't give a damn about that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. You need to read up on Prop 4 (Gann)

It top lines all levels of government in the state. Much more limiting in the long run than Prop 13

[Ken Burch]

69. Then that needs to be challenged, too.

Nothing progressive can happen while the supermajority requirement is kept in place though. The supermajority dooms California to permanent austerity.

13 helped a tiny handful of people, almost all of whom are dead now, so why even bother defending it? It doesn't help anyone who's young, anyone who works for a living, anyone of color, anyone who's poor. It doesn't help anyone who would ever vote Democratic or ever did.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. You clearly are not aware how popular they were at the time

The followup initiative (Gann) passed with 75% of the vote. That is a lot of working people, people of color, poor, and many Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

99. Bans on interracial marriage were once popular, too.

So was the Fugitive Slave Law...popularity doesn't make right.

[schmice]

117. Comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.

[Ken Burch]

124. the common point is that the things I mentioned were once JUST as popular as Prop. 13 and Prop. 4

In and of itself, that isn't a case for not challenging them in court.

[slackmaster]

137. Maybe not, but it might affect everyones' income tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc.

So it is in my interests, and everyone's except for the incumbent political class, to preserve the 2/3 requirement for raising taxes. Until we have politicians who can be trusted to run a responsible budget, their power must be held in check by the people.

Fine, you got to keep you precious home...but you damaged the lives of millions of other people and you don't give a damn about that.

This seems to be bordering on a personal attack. I want to protect future generations from uncontrolled taxation. I want today's children to be able to get jobs and start their own businesses, and I want them to be able to buy their own homes if they so desire.

[Ken Burch]

160. In other words-you got yours.

And the sad thing is, you assume the things you have in life were solely due to your OWN efforts-in reality, no one makes it solely on their own-there are too many interconnections for that to be true for anybody.

You need to remember that we're all in this together-and that most of those with less than you are in that condition as much from bad luck as anything else. The fact that you have more money than others doesn't make you superior to them, and it doesn't entitle you to judge them or decide that they can be written off as expendable.

[slackmaster]

172. You've already suggested that I'm a racist because I support Proposition 13.

Now I'm selfish and heartless because I oppose raising taxes on people who are already among the most heavily taxed in the USA.

The fact that you have more money than others doesn't make you superior to them, and it doesn't entitle you to judge them or decide that they can be written off as expendable.

The fact that some people have less than I do doesn't entitle them to take it from me by force of arms.

[Ken Burch]

174. Nothing I was talking about equals anybody taking anything from you "by force of arms".

It's not like having your taxes go to supporting efforts to fight poverty is equivalent to either being mugged OR being overthrown in a revolution.

Here's what I'd do to change the approach to poverty:

I'd switch from handing out benefit checks to actually creating real jobs programs, with real skill training included, in impoverished areas, to those physically able to work, virtually all of whom want to work(and, since most of that poverty was caused by the government-ordered "redlining" policies on credit and insurance that started in the late 1930's, it should be government that funds those programs, under the control of the poor rather than of bureaucrats, to make up for that)and I'd impose a massive reduction in university tuition rates so that higher education, without which nobody can rise out of poverty these days, is actually available to all, rather being nothing but a system of white-collar trade schools for the 1%.

What do you say about those ideas?

Are you willing to admit that most poor people WANT to work and don't need to be goaded into trying to help themselves?

You are revealing a lot of very ugly things about your views of the human race in this series of posts. Perhaps you're not a 1%, but you are thinking like one, which, if you aren't among that crowd makes no sense, since no one who isn't megarich now is going to become megarich later. Only those born with wealth die with it nowadays.

If you say you aren't racist, I'll accept that...but you damn sure are classist. You simply assume that those who have less than you have brought their misery on themselves. And even though you've complained(at times rightly)that I've been judgmental towards you, you simply assume that you are entitled to judge the poor-even though you live your life in cocooned suburban comfort.

You need to accept that you're just another member of the human race. And you need to accept that subjecting the poor to paternalism and morals lectures is totally inappropriate. Almost nobody is poor due to laziness or lack of character. And unless you've somehow managed to meet every poor person in California, you're not entitled to say otherwise, because if you don't know them, you're just guessing about them.

And charitable contributions don't help the poor at all (I mention this since you bragged about your support of charity in another post), because charity doesn't change the conditions the poor live in.

[Ken Burch]

58. getting rid of the supermajority requirement wouldn't affect property taxes

So I assume you'd be ok with that...right?

[slackmaster]

16. Easy there, I was being sarcastic. I have a long track record on DU of being pro-13.

I am 53 years old and a homeowner in San Diego.

My parents, one D and one R, were both very strong supporters of Prop. 13 back in 1978. I was 20 years old at the time, and could see very clearly what uncontrolled tax rates and reassessments were doing to their budget, and to other families in our neighborhood.

It's imperfect because it gives too much protection to owners of commercial property, but if I had the 1978 election to do over I'd vote Yes on Prop. 13 without hesitation.

[CountAllVotes]

18. thanks for the clarification

[schmice]

21. You were just being sarcastic?

There are some things that are over the top. I don't really see how your "sarcasm" is helpful since some will take you seriously and use your words as proof that the only way to fix our budget woes is to raise taxes. I'm 59 and have three kids. I will not be able to retire because of our financial condition. For anyone to suggest, whether in jest or in sarcasm, that our homes be further taxed is the height of irresponsibility.

[slackmaster]

23. The old DU is still up. Feel free to search it or just use Google for my posts on the subject.

Here, I'll save you the trouble:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=972&bih=571&q=slackmaster+and+%22proposition+13%22&oq=slackmaster+and+%22proposition+13%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1487l9341l0l9562l36l33l2l21l23l0l196l1309l3.7l10l0

[schmice]

25. Maybe later.

I'm just pissed off that there are lots of people who believe what you said "in sarcasm". I'm glad that you don't really believe what you said, but it still rankled me to no end. You may not be among those who advocate that but I'm am tired of worrying everyday where we are going to get the money necessary to pay our utilities, food. back taxes (due to having had to borrow against my 401K to eke out tuition for our kids) and just about everything else. We couldn't even afford to get our kids anything for these holidays. You know what that feels like? Millions of us do and we can't take it anymore. Your flippant remarks brought real tears to my eyes. I'm sure that you are a decent person who means no harm, but words like yours have consequences. I'm drowning here because 10 years ago, we had to get a bigger place so we could take in my sick widowed mother-in-law who ended up with Alzheimer's Disease. Vacations? One. Dinners out? Rarely. We were stuck with the entire mess and the bills. I don't regret our decision because she was my wife's mother. So when people say that we should give more to a system that is rife with waste and dishonesty, I say, I've already more than given.

[Ken Burch]

56. 95% of the human race has it worse than you.

You can't defend 13 and still say you have any progressive views, because 13 has destroyed everything progressive and positive in California. Now there's just private schools for the few, colleges only rich people can send their kids to, environmental protection and labor law enforcement doesn't exist, and the poor are doomed.

But you have your precious bourgeois house, and that's all that matters to you.

Why do you even post on this site?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Not true, but why ruin a good screed with facts

Prop 13 forced changes in funding structure, but the damage was not done until years later when it became clear that the new funding struture was unsustainable and the CA leadship refused to own up to it. Prop 13 is a handy target for those who are unwilling to acknowledge what was a political failure.

[Ken Burch]

71. If those changes hadn't been forced, the problems with the new funding structure would never

have happened, because there'd have been no new funding structure.

It would have been enough to pass a measure exempting people on fixed incomes from paying property taxes. They should have left it at that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. The California pols had a responsbility to do the right thing and instead kicked it down the road.

Once Propr 13 and Prop 4 passed, they should have dealt with it effectively. Instead they ignored it. Then again, term limits, (another initiative) problably encouraged it.

[Ken Burch]

98. But there was nothing they COULD do without raising taxes

And they couldn't raise them with the supermajority giving Cali's economic royalist minority a veto over everything forever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. What makes you so confident about that?

There were alternatives that were never taken seriously in that regards as well.

[Ken Burch]

114. So what were those alternatives?

And could any of them have gained the assent of the plutocrat minority in the Assembly and Senate?

[schmice]

121. agreed

[Ken Burch]

169. What? Raising the sales tax? That can't be something progressives could support

What alternatives are you talking about?

You can't avoid cuts in services WITHOUT replacing lost revenue. Revenue that disappears has to be replaced. It isn't possible to "do more with less".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

164. Really?

Certainly was not the view here in CA then or now by economists and many others. The state was riding multiple bubbles and state government just funded the cites and counties directly. Today the decision by Jerry Brown to immediately kill one of those fund sharing programs was supported in the state court.

[Ken Burch]

166. So what, as you see it, was this magical way

to solve the problem WITHOUT raising anybody's taxes at all? You seem fairly smug about there being one...so give with the solution already.

[Ken Burch]

161. "Doing the right thing" was going to have to involve tax hikes

When revenue is lost from one source, it has to be made up elsewhere. You don't just cut down to what's left-or at least not if you disagree with Tea Party.

[schmice]

120. You are so wrong.

I have very progressive views even though I see the benefits for homeowners which are derived from Prop 13. You make it sound so evil and shameful to be able to own a home. Prop 13 was a reaction to out-of-control spending on programs which often didn't cure the problem. Many of these programs didn't require recipients to do anything to help lift themselves out of their poverty. Kind of like that Chinese proverb about giving someone some fish and feeding him for a day rather than teaching someone to fish so that they could feed themselves for life. They became dependent on the kindness of strangers.

I have no problem giving to the needy but I have a problem when people who are otherwise capable are satisfied with taking and not doing anything to improve their own lot. I also have a problem with people complaining about the crappy condition of the vandalized classrooms when it is their own children doing the vandalizing. I have a problem with people complaining that their kids aren't learning when their kids are disrupting classes and even accosting teachers and the parents do nothing. I have a problem with parents who don't spend quality time with their children reading to them early on and not encouraging them to strive for better things. I have a problem with parents who spend their money on alcohol and drugs and junk food and not being good role models. I have a problem with kids who think that they have something coming to them and don't make the effort to fend for themselves. I have a problem with people who feel like we owe them a living when they are not willing to do their share.

As for your statement that all that matters to me is my precious bourgeois house, you don't know what you're talking about. My wife and I work our asses of so that our kids can have a chance at a better life. I want my kids to see what is possible if they put their minds and backs to it. We have taught them what using initiative can do in their lives. What is wrong with enjoying the rewards of our labor? I am more than willing to supply them the tools for success but there comes a time when they have to use them. You are living in a mythical Utopian world whose time has passed. I believe that Marx was right about a lot of things, but his vision was just a pipe dream because it would have required all able people to do their best for the good of all. Too many people are looking for a hand out rather than a hand out.

Why do I even post on DU? Because I believe that what some people say is worthwhile and thought provoking. I've found some kindred spirits on the site; people who are able to get past the rhetoric and are able to see the nuances and complexities of the situation.

[Ken Burch]

162. So, you have an issue with the way social programs have worked

Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

News flash: so do the poor(and they have had issues with the way those programs have worked since they were set up, since most of them were set up without anyone actually ASKING the poor what would be most helpful to them).

The problem is, forced cuts in spending NEVER result in social programs being improved-all they result in is reductions in the services and in the staffing of the programs. That's why none of our pathetic remnants of national social programs ended up being more effective after Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush the First, Clinton and Bush the Second got through meat-axing them.

The poor don't WANT handouts. They don't WANT to sit around doing nothing. They DO want to work and to better themselves, like everybody else does. Thanks to all the thing that have happened in California since Prop 13(even if we accept that 13 wasn't solely responsible)the poor have no ways out at all.

A really effective response to poverty would mean actually creating jobs programs in impoverished areas(and, since most of that poverty was caused by the government-ordered "redlining" policies on credit and insurance that started in the late 1930's, it should be government that funds those programs, under the control of the poor rather than of bureaucrats, to make up for that)and a massive reduction in university tuition rates so that higher education is actually available to all, rather than to the economic elite.

Yes, people should try to help themselves, and most of the poor DO try to do so. But the judgmental and dismissive attitude you displayed in that post doesn't help any of them. You sound like you're all for pulling up the drawbridges and leaving the cities to die, unless reviving the areas of poverty somehow means some rich bastards in the 'burbs can make a killing off the deal. I hope that's wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

(On a different note, I apologize for personalizing things too much. It was in response to the general "so what?" tone I felt I was getting from the Prop. 13 defenders, but I could have found another way to respond to that. Sorry.)

[LanternWaste]

26. Maybe inserting emoticons would save trouble too.

"Here, I'll save you the trouble..."

Maybe inserting emoticons would save trouble in the long run too...

[slackmaster]

27. I just re-discovered them this morning. There are a bunch of new ones, and they don't always work.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

59. I was living in Mission Beach in the sixties

and all around us, older people on fixed incomes were losing small beach cottages, their only homes, because they couldn't pay the rapidly increasing property taxes.
Prop. 13 was the only thing that saved them, but for many it was too late.

[Ken Burch]

62. It wasn't worth the horrible damage it caused.

Some other way could have been found.

It wasn't worth killing public education in the state, making university education affordable only for the white wealthy(there are few if any minorities on UC campuses anymore unless they're good at sports...and almost no working-class people at all-if you were an actual Democrat you'd regard those facts as a tragedy).

There's nothing progressive remaining in California now...it was all killed when 13 passed and the fascist supermajority requirement was put into place.

Brown's alternative property tax measure would have protected those people just as well).

None of the things that were lost forever due to 13 can ever be made up for by volunteers or charity. Charity doesn't actually do anything to reduce poverty and never ever did.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. The damage was done by the pols, not the people who voted for Prop 13 and later prop 4

Look at how the new funding structure was hastily erected was failing for years and none of the California pols was willing to address it.

[Ken Burch]

68. The ONLY way to fix that is to get rid of the supermajority requirement

There's nothing else that could work at all.

And the people who actually benefited from 13 are pretty much dead of old age by now...so why even bother keeping it?

[Ken Burch]

72. Once 13 passed, there was NO ALTERNATIVE

but to hastily erect a new funding structure. They didn't have the luxury of taking their time.

And with the supermajority requirement(which I assume even YOU would oppose)there's no way of addressing it now.

It would have been enough to exempt people on fixed incomes from paying property taxes. Why couldn't it have been left at that?

[Ken Burch]

44. The "waste and theft in social programs" thing is just a racist, right-wing meme.

There's never been any more waste in social spending than among any other sort of spending-including the massive spending on megaprisons(most of which are just concentration camps for minor drug offenders of color) that people like you cheer for.

You don't care about anyone but yourself if you still defend "13".

That measure has had nothing but immoral effects.

[schmice]

79. Maybe if you had read all my comments on this thread

you would have realized that I was talking about the politicians and the bureaucrats who have a way of dissipating the money earmarked for the poor and needy before it even gets to them. To say that I don't care about anybody but myself if I defend Prop. 13 is untrue. You are either not from California or else you are too young to remember why it was overwhelmingly passed. There was a time before the election when Prop 13 looked like it was going to be defeated. Tax bills were ready to be sent out but Mr. Pope tried to put the mailing off until after the election so that the voters wouldn't know about that. Somehow, some of those tax bills with their incredible hikes for ALL people were accidentally sent out before the vote. There was a scandal about that and people realized that they would not be able to afford such a tax hike and were in danger of losing their homes. We aren't talking about the very wealthy. We are talking about many of the elderly and people on fixed incomes. They felt lied to, betrayed and realized that they were being played. Prop 13 passed overwhelmingly. The politicians were spending money freely and in many cases unwisely and people just revolted.

Your statement that I cheer for massive spending on megaprisons which are mostly just concentration camps for minor drug offenders of color is the farthest thing from the truth. My job is to keep people out of prison. If you had read all my comments you might have picked up on that. Unfortunately, you just chose to shoot from the hip without putting anything in its proper context. I don't believe that people in possession of drugs should be jailed. It is a waste of resources and does not address the real problem which is addiction. As for people who deal hard drugs and help people ruin their lives, I'm not so sure. Drug dealers are a scourge to the community. When they enslave people to the needle or to the crack pipe and don't care except that they make their profit, I have a real problem. They are predators. On the other hand, imprisoning them and rendering them virtually unemployable isn't working either. When they get out, they are going to go back to the only trade they know will bring in an income. In the process, they will ruin more lives. Still, I will advocate zealously for them because even they deserve a strong defense.

I agree that Prop 13 has had detrimental effects. Many of those effects, however, might have been minimized if the politicians had realized that they had to come up with a coherent plan to govern in a fiscally responsible way. It is possible to do both.

[Ken Burch]

168. I retract the comment on megaprisons then.

Still, in exchange for property taxes being kept down, there could be an agreement that taxes on the rich could go up. It's not as if California has to damn itself to eternal austerity. If the status quo remains in place on revenue there, it will be pointless for the Democratic Party to even bother to contest elections in that state. There's no difference between austerity budgets passed by liberals and austerity budgets passed by conservatives. All austerity is the same.

Fiscal conservatism ends up imposing conservatism on all other issues.

[JDPriestly]

127. Has anyone checked to see if California property taxes are that much lower than

the property taxes in other states?

I think the rates are lower, but because properties here are so overvalued, the amounts collected are about the same.

One of my relatives lives in a community in another state in which property taxes are considered to be very high. She and I pay about the same amount on our houses. She has a much nicer house on a much bigger lot, but her house is smaller than mine, so I figure that while my house cost more,our the houses are really of comparable value.

I don't think our property taxes if figured in dollar amounts are all that low. And remember that our taxes increase by a certain percentage every year.

Also, every time a property is sold, the tax base on it is recalculated based on the most recent sales price. That means that the taxes collected at the peak of the bubble were exceptionally high. So in addition to a housing bubble that was way over the top in California, we also had a tax bubble that was way over the top. Where did the money go?

[mainer]

140. Mill rates of 1% (like California's) aren't all that unusual in other states

Here in Maine, the rate is decided by local communities. And even with that low a mill rate, some old-time Mainers are in danger of losing their generations-held homes because they live on the water.

[JDPriestly]

144. The property tax rate sounds reasonable enough in California.

The problem is that we have so many millionaires who come here that a house that would sell for maybe $140,000 elsewhere sells for $800,000 or more here.

Right now, our property taxes are figured from the price at which we bought our homes -- not the estimated current sales value. Each year a certain percentage is added automatically to that original price value.

You can see the problem for people who have lived in a house maybe 25 years or 30 years -- who pay the tax rate based on their purchase price but live in a city in which housing prices boomed and haven't unboomed that much yet.

New neighbors buy houses for several times what some elderly couple paid back when they were young. And now, the elderly couple is living on a very low fixed income in the same neighborhood in which their kids grew up. The house increased in value, but the couple's income shrank.

So, an increase in property taxes would evict a lot of oldtimers from their neighborhoods. Prop. 13 was passed at a time in which inflation had caused the same problem and the increases in inflation which resulted in increased housing prices priced people who had lived in their homes for many years from those homes.

If children inherit a home, I believe that is an event that requires a recalculation of the tax base. So this is not a matter of kids inheriting a house and paying lower taxes on it than would be fair.

I think this problem is unique to areas in which housing prices are very, very high and in which the boom hit hard and hasn't really ended.

[Gormy Cuss]

146. That on percent is the ad valorem rate for state collection. Most CA property owners pay 1.25-1.5%

because of all the local bonds and parcel taxes. So in terms of a mill rate it looks comparable.

What really saves owners money under Prop. 13 is that the valuation of the property for purposes of taxation can only increase by 2% per year unless there's an ownership change or there are major changes to the structure(s), like an addition or detached in-law unit.

Because of the 2% annual cap most of us who bought before the crash are still being assessed at considerably less than current market value. If however the current market value of the house drops below the assessor's value, an owner can petition for a temporary reduction in the assessed value and many owners have done so.

Prop. 13 was sold as a keep-grannies-in-their-homes protection but as is often the case with CA props, the biggest beneficiaries weren't the ones in the campaign ads.

[mainer]

141. Here's a site comparing income, property, and sales taxes state by state

California taxpayers get hit hard in all three categories

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/state-tax-rate-maps-how-does-your-state-compare.html

[Ken Burch]

50. And prop 13 massively increased the tuitition at the UC system, making many campuses

virtually all-white(with the exception of those non-white kids who were good at sports).

Nobody was ONLY able to keep their homes because of 13. And none of the tiny degrees of good that might have been done by it
were worth the evil consequences of the massive cuts in social and educational spending it imposed.

It's because of Prop. 13 that Jerry Brown is governing the state exactly like Calvin Coolidge would, and well to the right of the way Reagan actually DID. There's no difference between a Democratic governor forced into fiscal conservatism and a Republican governor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. More mistatements

It is not the Prop 13 that has lowered the minority population on campus. That is due to Prop 209. UC in state costs are still lower than other states, for example MD. The campuses are also large oriental populations.

People were indeed able to keep their homes, those on fixed incomes when the cost of CA real estate was rising rapidily on a monthly basis. Retired people were no longer able to keep homes they had fully paid for due to tax increases.

You have also failed to consider Prop 4

Jerry Brown created the faulty financial structure post Prop 13 that later proved to be unworkable. By then he was out of office. However, his successors turned a blind eye to it for years and own the current state of failure.

[Ken Burch]

84. Even without Prop 209, minority and working-class enrollement was declining in the UC system

due to the massive tuition increases. It's disgusting that people in your state think it's no big deal that it costs $20,000 a year to go to a UC school now when it cost $600 a year in the Seventies(and was free until 1970).

Tuition increases are always going to mean a whiter, yuppier campus. And such a change is always going to be a tragedy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. You might want to check you stats

Prop 209 was the real change agent when it came to race. You are ignoring the substantive oriental segment in the system. The current scandal is that the system is encouraging out of state admissions to the premier campuses since it brings in more $$$

Costs in the UC system are indeed more than they once were, but they are still in line across the US. Its not a good thing, but it is no worse than many other state college systems. I have some concerns about about the cost of higher education, but its not just limited to California.

[schmice]

113. It isn't so much a matter based on race as it is based on economic status.

[Ken Burch]

102. You haven't offered any alternatives

And the supermajority requirement makes it impossible to make up the revenue loss through increases in income tax or corporate tax. At least you could admit that the supermajority requirement needs to go.

[schmice]

109. I have ambivalent feelings.

I don't believe that the California Democratic Party can be trusted any more than the Republicans can. As Ariana Huffington said, they are all pigs feeding out of the same trough.

[Ken Burch]

111. So you've possibly made a case for forming a third party in Cali

You haven't made a case for the supermajority requirement. Clearly THAT has only served the rich.

[schmice]

116. Only served the rich?

Hardly. Prop 13 was passed overwhelmingly by all the voters in the state. The rich are only a small percentage of the population. Besides, the people who could least afford massive tax increases on their houses would have been affected more. They voted their economic interests. If you just keep giving the politicians more and more money, they will spend it. They spent money like drunken sailors and never thought about saving it for when times grew lean.

[Ken Burch]

125. The phrase "only served the rich" was in reference

to the supermajority requirement. Can you really say that requirement helped ordinary people?

[roody]

14. It is not wrong, but Prop. 13 also

limits commercial property taxes.

[schmice]

22. I am not a business owner

but I can understand how those who are just scraping by would oppose having to pay higher commercial property taxes. What's our state's unemployment rate? Would this drive it down?

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Are you aware that commercial property taxes can be held down MORE than residential taxes under 13?

When individuals sell residences, it's usually a 100% ownership transfer and the new basis for the tax is the sales price. For commercial property though, the basis increases only if more than 50% ownership transfers and there are many, many exceptions to what constitutes an ownership transfer.

Here's an article from a few years back that illustrates this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/13/business/fi-hiltzik13

It's not the rate paid by commercial properties so much as differences in the way commercial property are held that make it inequitable. From the link above:

[div class='excerpt']The idea is to reverse what has been a shift in California's property tax burden onto homeowners from business owners under Proposition 13.

In Los Angeles County, for example, single-family residences accounted for 39.9% of the tax roll, by value, in 1975, before Proposition 13. This year their share is 55.8%. In the same period, commercial-industrial property has gone from 46.6% of the tax roll to 30.9%. These figures are from the county assessor's annual report, but a similar pattern holds statewide.


Now that's a simple statistic but it's unlikely that the broad change in tax burden is because real commercial property value has grown by that much less.

[jaysunb]

37. Thank you !

I was wondering how long it would take the "emotional" aspect of this odious law to be exposed on this thread.

I'm a beneficiary of prop 13 and would not like to go back to pre-78 days, but there were several poison pills in it that Jarvis and Gann KNEW would screw this States educational and other tax rates to the wall.

I always find it ironic that so many others bite on the bullshit...still...just like they did in 78.

[slackmaster]

17. Your father's property tax should be determined by what other people are willing to pay for his home

Not what he actually paid for it. Or so say opponents of that provision of Proposition 13.

(this is sarcasm BTW.)

[Ken Burch]

45. Your dad would have been able to stay in his home anyway

Keeping him there didn't require shitting on the poor the way 13 does.

That measure was immoral. There can't be any positive values in anything that causes that much suffering. And even YOU would have to admit that the two-thirds requirement on raising taxes is unconscionable and effectively gives bazillionaires a weighted vote in Cali politics.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. The failure was that of CA politicians afterwards

What happened was not inevitiable and not soley the cause of Prop 13

[Ken Burch]

51. It's economic royalism to defend 13.

The effects it had were exclusively negative. It made university eduction unavailable to all but the children of the white wealthy, it destroyed the public school systems of the state(systems that can never be adequately replaced by private schools, since private schools are also available only to the rich and mostly available only to the white and universally focus on teaching their students to be incurious right-wing bigots) made labor and environmental laws unenforceable due to lack of funds.

Even if ANY good were done by 13, it could never make up for all that evil.

California is dying as a result of 13. If, at least, the supermajority thing isn't thrown out, California will be the Mississippi of the West Coast in a few decades.

That's all right by you, so long as a few bitter old white folks, none of whom ever did anything generous in their lives have low property taxes?

Prop 13 is killing the youth of California and the future of California so people of the past wouldn't have to see successful working-class and Rainbow people in their neighborhoods. It had NO positive intent.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

60. "So long as a few bitter old white folks, none of whom

ever did anything generous in their lives have low property taxes."
How dare you judge my mother like that.
Did you know her?
My folks bought the only home they ever owned in 1947 for $10,000.
In 1989 my father passed away and my mother lived on $1,000. a month from Social Security.
That home wasn't an investment, it was shelter and Prop. 13 allowed her to stay in it until 2004.
You might want to choose your words a little more carefully next time.

[Ken Burch]

61. They could have voted for Prop 8, the non-barbaric alternative

which would have controlled property taxes without gutting everything progressive in the state.

It's not as if 13 was the ONLY possible way to help people like your mother.

And many of the people who voted for it didn't do so out of any personal privation-they just didn't like government helping people who weren't exactly like them(if that wasn't your mother, fine). Howard Jarvis wasn't struggling to stay in his goddamn mansion.

There had to be some other way of keeping people like your mother in their homes that wasn't so socially ugly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. That it got no serious traction with the voting populace should be a clue

That included working people, people of color, and a whole bunch of Democrats

[Ken Burch]

107. It got no serious traction because Howard Jarvis was a bazillionaire loudmouth

who was able to bluster the state into giving him his greedy way.

It would have protected everyone that 13 protected. There was no good reason to insist on the meat-ax approach.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. It is pretty clear that you were not around when this all happened

Jarvis had a very obnoxious style, but I watched him beat Gov Brown one on one several times in the media.

You cannot bully the voters and that is not what happened. The message resonated with LOTS OF DEMOCRATS, espcially after people saw what multiple levels of government did after Prop 13 passed to get around it. That is why the Gann Initiative passed with little fanfare.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. More hyperbole and very few facts

I addressed you specious claims on the impacts of on the UC systems. Prop 209 is clearly the primary driver.

California problems are due to the pols who refused to do the right thing when it became clear that the new financial structure was unsustainable. We could have worked around Prop 13, our political leadership failed us.

One can argue intent until the cows come home, but clearly some were helped by it.

[schmice]

87. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Your view that only children of white wealthy parents can rise to the top makes me realize what little regard you have for the abilities of minorities. You are guilty of racial profiling.

[Ken Burch]

97. You twisted my words there.

Nothing I said comes anywhere close to saying that "only children of white wealthy parents can rise to the top". Anyone can, if given a real chance. The problem is, 13 ENDED the real chances for everyone who wasn't wealthy and white in California. There's a huge difference between saying that and saying what YOU said I said.

Massive cutbacks in public school funding are inherently racist and classist. So are massive increases in UC tuition(ALL the people of California had a chance for a college education in '78-it's mainly the white ones who do now. Everyone else LOST opportunity due to 13 and the massive cuts in social and educational spending it helped to cause.

Prop 13 ended hopes for most of the Rainbow in the Golden State. It's made California a blander, whiter state, lessened diversity, and closed doors for millions. The tiny handful of people who held onto their homes don't make up for that-and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, all that needed to happen to protect the old folks was to simply exempt people on fixed incomes from paying property taxes. The chainsaw approach and the anti-democratic supermajority requirement were never necessary.

Prop 13 was about drawbridges being pulled up and glass ceilings being put into place. It crushed opportunity and hope and brought nothing that made up for that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Quit with the false memes

Prop 209 is what changed the racial mix not Prop 13.

CA has been continuing to become less white since Prop 13

There were ways for the pols to address the problems. They chose not to, kicked the can down the road and whined about the supermajority, when other solutions were still viable.

[Fredge]

57. Yeah...

[still_one]

4. Prop 13 happened because people were losing their homes because they could not afford the property

taxes. Not only will it not pass, but it would be the worst thing for the already slumping real-estate market where people are losing their houses

If they need revenue, increase the gas taxes, maybe sales tax, give incentives to encourage businesses to come into the state so more people are working, and on the tax roles, but to increase property taxes by eliminating prop 13 would make the California economy even worse

[SoapBox]

5. Super DITTO!

...there needs to be some major education about this. You are spot on.

It amazes me that they want to penalize those that actually just stay in their homes.

NO, NO, NO on getting rid of Prop. 13!

[schmice]

7. Thank you.

[Ken Burch]

46. Nothing good that came of 13 could possibly have been worth the damage it did

It's evil that university tuition was made unaffordable for all but the wealthy.

It's evil that social programs have been cut to nothing.

It's evil that environmental laws are unenforcable.

It's evil that all public schools in California are falling apart(because the white wealthy, the only ones who gained from it, all have their kids in virtually all-white private schools, an educational experience that guarantees their kids will grow up to be soulless reactionary robots, since no one who goes to private schools ever develops liberal views on anything).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Nonsense

I addressed your specious claims about the impact on UC earlier

Prop 13 has little to do with social programs

You have not shown how Prop 13 cut environmental programs

President Obama went to a private school.

[Ken Burch]

82. Anything that affects state revenue

affects whether programs will be funded or not. That's why there were the horrible consequences for universities. No Prop. 13, and the universities and public education would still be just fine in California. And if this was just about protecting old ladies on fixed incomes, Prop 8(I assume that's the correct number)that was also on the '78 ballot would have done that. Or an initiative could have been filed or legislation passed simply to exempt those on fixed-incomes from property taxes. It's not as if 13 was the ONLY possible way.

And the supermajority requirement, which is the issue here, made it impossible to do anything about the funding structure. There was no way to deal with that without raising taxes somewhere. It was never just a question of reallocating funds.

[schmice]

95. You are not an economist.

Do you realize that just exempting people on a fixed income is not the answer? What about people with a family to support? If their property taxes just keep increasing, they won't be able to afford their homes. If the state depends on property taxes being paid, but fewer and fewer people are property owners, what happens to the tax base? It shrinks. What does that result in? Less money available for social programs, fixing streets, paying firefighters and police etc. What does that lead to? Higher unemployment. What does that do? It forces the state to pay more unemployment insurance claims which further drains the resources which would have gone to work projects and social programs. Sometimes political ideals have to be considered in the light or economic realities.

[Ken Burch]

100. So it was done YOUR way and there's NO money for social services or any of the rest

How, exactly, did that approach lead to anything better?

[AlbertCat]

9. they could not afford the property taxes

So, is Prop 13 just about property taxes? Is that the only tax it effects?

I'm really asking... I don't know. I don't live in CA.

I thought it was about ALL state taxes, which makes it a bad idea, it would seem.

[KansDem]

36. I was living in California during the Prop. 13 campaign...

My sister and her husband swore up and down that if Prop. 13 didn't pass, they'd have to move out of state. I don’t know how many times I heard her say this.

Well, Prop. 13 passed and the next thing they did was buy a second home in Big Bear.

I think they got "entitlement" confused with "need."

[Gormy Cuss]

31. No, it's not just about property taxes. The provision for a supermajority affects all

state tax votes within the legislature.

[jaysunb]

38. Bingo !

The personal property tax could easily be culled and the rest dumped. We'd be soooo much better off.

[closeupready]

29. Gas and sales taxes are regressive. Property taxes are progressive.

Are you sure you're on the right board?

[Ken Burch]

112. thanks for that.

Anytime somebody says "tax consumption, not income" they're on the Right.

[Ken Burch]

52. "Incentives to businesses" is right-wing code for "break the unions and kill the poor".

Any businesses attracted by those means would just bleed the state dry for money and give nothing back in return.

Why are you posting here if you're a reactionary?

[schmice]

83. There is no analysis in your statements.

Also, name calling is not the answer. I believe that a strong union movement is important because it protects workers, ensures decent wages and allows a strong middle class to exist.

[Ken Burch]

89. Sorry...but everytime somebody says "incentives to businesses"

we ALL know what that means...and it always means "let the rich rob you blind and get nothing in return". "Incentives to businesses" only bring in WalMarts...they never bring in Ben and Jerry's or any of the tiny handful of other "enlightened" businesses.

"incentives" is just code for "bribes". What else is there to say?

[SunSeeker]

123. Prop. 13 happened because of slick marketing by big commercial interests.

Only bolstering the middle class will increase business-and save homes. Prop. 13 did just the opposite. It devastated our ability to maintain our infrastructure and schools. It thus hurt the middle class and our ability to get ahead. We have less money to spend, which is what really hurts business. Those at risk of losing their homes back in 1978 could have easily been helped with a small scale program or exemption from property tax increases for those on fixed incomes. Instead, big commercial interests seized on that issue and used it as cover to slip their corporate welfare agenda through. By the way, with property values plunging, so are property tax bills. My bill was lower this year than last. That's little consolation for the loss in my property value.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

132. It and Prop 4 were supported in large numbers by the voters

That alone should have been a clue for the pols, who unfortunately were and remain clueless.

The distrust ran deep back then, look at what Gann Iniative did.

California pols had an opportunity to restructure the state revenue stream and screwed it up. That was clear many years ago but instead of fixing it, they kicked the can down the road.

[Tansy_Gold]

151. If I'm not mistaken,

Gas and Sales taxes are among the most regressive, meaning they fall most heavily on the poor and working classes.

Why not jack the property taxes higher on second, third, fourth homes? Or a surtax on homes with assessed values over a stated amount/ % above median?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

153. There have been any number of good suggestions over time

Pols kept whining about Prop 13 and Prop 4 and never really explored what could be done. The long term impact is their failure, not that of the voters who told them to develop other strategies (the underlying message of Prop 13).

[JDPriestly]

48. It won't affect you that much.

It will affect those of us who "bought" our homes many years ago, are on Social Security or fixed incomes of other kinds and may or may not have to pay much higher property taxes if Prop. 13 is repealed.

Many of us would have to sell and move out of state.

[Ken Burch]

53. What good is it for a few bitter old white people to keep their homes

at the price of the destruction of the educational system(and the massive increase in university tuition)and the destruction of social services AND the destruction of environmental and labor law enforcement(both of which are impossible with the funding cutbacks 13 caused).

What's so special about this life-hating, racist, obviously right-wing band of old people that they should get the right to destroy California(or force it back to the Coolidge era, which is the same thing)?

Do you not get it that 13 makes it impossible for any of the things you supposedly believe in as a Democrat to ever happen in California?
There's now nothing progressive in that state at all, thanks to that evil measure. It's all gone.

How can you say it's worth it?

You have NO RIGHT to say you care about workers, the poor, good schools, or a liveable environment if you still defend 13. There's no way for California to have anything progressive ever again without 13 being overturned. Austerity and progressive ideas are always totally at odds.

[JDPriestly]

77. Our taxes have risen every year.

I favor increasing taxes, but how do you increase those taxes fairly?

Increasing property taxes is not a good idea -- not for the young who have just bought their homes at prices that are much too high, nor for the old who would be virtually evicted by higher property taxes.

In my view, it is the income taxes that should be raised. If people enjoy increases in their income, then those increases should be taxed. But if people are not working, are on fixed incomes or unemployment or not receiving increased income, the burden of increased taxation should not be placed on them.

The burden for the increased taxes should be placed on those who are receiving higher incomes now than they did a couple of years ago.

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

You can't squeeze higher taxes from people who are barely holding on to the home in which they have lived for many years.

[Ken Burch]

80. Then the answer would just to have been

to exempt people on fixed incomes from property tax.

And you didn't address the supermajority requirement with that...surely you don't approve of THAT?

The supermajority requirement makes it impossible to raise income taxes, too.

[JDPriestly]

145. I think that maybe the Supreme Court did not allow that. I'm not sure, but I think

that was considered to be discriminatory.

[mainer]

138. California top state income tax 9.3% + 1% millionaire surcharge

How much higher should Californians be taxed? 12%? 20%?

Plus they have a pretty hefty sales tax as well.

[Ken Burch]

167. But, as long as the supermajority requirement stays in place

The plutocrat minority(the only ones who'd higher taxes on the rich, since they'd be the ones paying them)will always be able to buy a blocking minority.

And eventually, the remnants of California's social safety net will be gone...or maybe reduced to the Chile-under-Pinochet level of giving a pittance to the poor to sweep the streets.

The supermajority is going to eventually give your state a feudal division of wealth...a tiny few holding all, and everybody else living at their mercy.

How much has to be lost before you WON'T be ok with things continuing to get uglier and uglier, and with Jerry Brown(or any Dem that might succeed him) being forced to govern like Calvin Coolidge on the budget(which means that such a person could only be different than Republicans on trivial side issues, since nothing progressive can be done under an austerity budget)?

[JDPriestly]

178. True. As I pointed out, we need to raise income taxes.

The outrageously high-priced housing market here would force seniors out of their homes. That is not good for a city.

Seniors do not commit much crime. They add to the culture and the democratic oversight of the city because they, for the only time in their lives since childhood, have some leisure to invest in culture and community activities.

Fact is that if you receive, $13,000 per year (close to the average Social Security benefit) and pay $3-4,000 per year in taxes, you are paying too much in property taxes.

On the other hand, if you are earning $250,000 or year, you can afford to pay a hefty sum more in taxes and still live pretty well even in California.

[alp227]

154. you might've forgotten about the state DREAM Act

that was something progressive (in-state tuition for students if they were brought here illegally as kids) but given how the UC/CSU systems have been defunded throughout the decade the impact of this program will likely be limited. Cool down a bit so that your brain can gather everything right, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

54. Actually, Prop 13 INCREASED your property taxes

since you didn't own a home before it was passed. 13 screws over everybody like you in California.

[JDPriestly]

85. Prop 13 was passed long before we bought our house.

[Ken Burch]

86. But your property taxes are much higher than they would have been without 13

since the pre-1978 property owners were grandfathered.

[JDPriestly]

126. I live in an older, well established community that is being gentrified.

Very few of the people living here now were living here when we moved here and we moved here a long time ago but well after 1978.

It may be that in small towns, people are still in the houses they lived in in 1978, but that is not so common in the cities.

[slackmaster]

143. I think it's impossible to say what anyone's present taxes would be in the absence of Prop. 13

The real benefit of it for homeowners and taxpayers is a system of predictable, stable taxes more than low taxes. We certainly don't have low taxes in California.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Again, more bad information from you.

Prop 13 established a fixed formula for real property taxation. It did not increase taxes on anyone. What it lead to was different amount of taxes on equivalent properties based on when you bought it. That went to court and was found to be allowable.

Prop 4 was a response to what all levels of government did to get around Prop 13. It gave top lines to government and depending on where California is in the economic cycle, has either had a serious impact or none at all. It too was challenged in court and survived. It was supported by 75% of the voters.

[Kablooie]

171. Luckily, even if this passed it wouldn't change the property tax provision.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. The supermajority provision SHOULD be overturned.

It's the single most destructive part of Prop. 13.

[schmice]

32. Supermajority

I have ambivalent feelings about this. I don't trust the politicians in Sacramento. Doesn't matter what party they're in. They all cowtow to their special interest sponsors. Besides,what percentage of the money that is spent is wasted.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. I don't trust them either, but we can't blame them for doing nothing when their hands are tied.

That's what that supermajority provision does. It's too high.

[KT2000]

24. Washington state has this too

I hope this works because Washington is headed for the same fate as California.

[tedder10]

34. narcissistic Californians

I too am a California homeowner and prop 13 was the single worse thing to ever happen to education
in the history of the state. California went from top 3 in country in education to bottom 5 in education.
I had always heard the future was in our children and to destroy their education to save us a few bucks
was incredible shortsighted and foolish. we should be investing in their education and instead we threw
them under the bus and for what? A crisis that didn't exist. You want to tell me that more people were going
to lose their homes in 1978 then have lost their homes in the last few years? The Midwest were I grew up,
has much higher property taxes and they don't whine about it like narcissistic californians I hear. Jeez Louise,
grow up and figure out that perhaps we should be thinking about how to improve the education system we
torched just to save a few bucks.

[slackmaster]

35. Did you attend public school here?

Nearly every line in your post contains a spelling error, an incorrect verb conjugation, an incorrect word, lack of capitalization, or incorrect punctuation.

You want to tell me that more people were going
to lose their homes in 1978 then have lost their homes in the last few years?

That's an irrelevant comparison. The population now is more than 50% higher now than it was in 1978, and the conditions that have led to the current spate of foreclosures did not exist then.

I remember the time very well. It really was a crisis for people who were fortunate to have chosen to live in areas that experienced rapid increases in market values for residential real estate. People who were on fixed incomes were screwed - Taxes were being assessed based on what other peoples' homes were selling for during a wave of speculative buying, rather than what they had actually paid for their own homes years or decades earlier when the market was not insane. County and local governments were greedily grabbing up the revenue windfalls without regard to peoples' financial security.

There is plenty of money being paid in taxes here - It's just going to the wrong places. Proposition 13 shifted the income base of the state from being based on property values to relying on income, yet the state continues to enact policies that are anathema to job creation. Businesses are leaving the state in droves because of restrictive laws and high taxes.

We need JOBS in California, not higher taxes.

[jaysunb]

39. No. We don't need higher taxes

we just need the corporations to pay their fair share and let the majority rule in the State government.
And btw, I was a home owner in 78, and I was still pissed at the notion of destroying the best education system in the country.

Maybe I can't spell very well either but I do understand common sense and the racism the went into this fucked up law.

[slackmaster]

40. Racism?!?!

[Ken Burch]

47. Of course there was racism

Prop. 13 was passed, in large measure, to make sure that university education became unaffordable to all but wealthy whites, to make sure that school funding was cut to nothing, a step that only benefits wealthy whites, to make sure that their weren't any funds available for labor or environmental law enforcement in the state, something ELSE that only benefits wealthy whites.

It was passed after a decade in which the nearly half-the-state that wasn't Aryan was making massive gains and was about to wipe out the economic vestiges of the segregationist past. As a result of that measure, all such progress and virtually all progressive change(other than LGBT rights)ended in California.

The state's been a dead zone for anybody who wasn't white since 1978. Everyone who voted for 13 and still defends it bears the shame of that. NO one who voted for 13 has ANY right to say they're against racism, because being against racism REQUIRES a person to be for economic equality and social justice...not just "legal equality and that's it".

[jaysunb]

64. Bingo ! Bango ! Bongo ! n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. More unsupported hyperbole

Your specious claims about education were previously rebutted. The short version is that Prop 209 is what changed the racial mix on campus. UC costs are still lower than some other states.

The real porblem was the new financial structure was untennable in the long term and the pols REFUSED to admit it and make required changes. Prop 13 and Prop 4 made great whipping boys, but the pols refused to do what was required at the time.

Yes CA is an economic dead zone in many ways to many people right now, but its not race based.

[Ken Burch]

101. That structure couldn't be fixed without the ability to raise taxes

and the supermajority requirement of 13 made it impossible to raise taxes. Without that, nothing at all could be done.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. No other way but revenue?

Right now I agree that more revenue is needed, but there are many causes for that. There were prior DECADES where that was not the case. Moreover addressing it then would have made current budgeting much easier.

[slackmaster]

134. Sorry Ken, you're waaaay out in left field on this one. I remember the discussion. My parents...

...were strong supporters - Dad (my stepfather) was a life-long Democrat who grew up in deep poverty. He was forced to hunt rabbits for subsistence at age seven. Mom was at the time Republican, and she had grown up in poverty too, in a small town in Iowa during the Great Depression. Until her father joined the Navy and went off to serve in World War II, their nightly meal usually consisted of cabbage soup.

Neither of my parents had any trace of racism in their support for Proposition 13. For them, and for me, it was all about fairness. It was about not busting the social contract with people of modest means who bought their homes before a wave of speculation that drove prices up to levels that few people could have expected. My mom was widowed at age 31, in 1965. She used the small insurance settlement as a down-payment on a house that seemed to be in a decent neighborhood, near a good elementary school so my brother and I would be safe and get a good education. The neighborhood happened to be in La Jolla, just south of the then-new UCSD campus. She had just gotten a job working in the catalog department of the nascent library. I don't recall what she was paid, but there was no union representation at the time and I doubt there were any benefits like health insurance.

In 1978 my parents weren't on fixed incomes yet, but my dad's salary was always modest. Planning our family BUDGET became unmanageable because of a series of sudden, unexpected tax increases. That also happened to be a time when fuel prices were skyrocketing, which in turn affected food costs. People figured out that taxes were something they could exert some control over, by restricting the power of governments. The problem that gave rise to Proposition 13 is still there - Government at all levels hasn't figured out how to run a responsible budget. There is plenty of money coming in to the state, but the state always spends more than it takes in. We're in deep water now because the state didn't save up a reserve for the present global economic downturn. The political class messed up the state, not the voters.

The state's been a dead zone for anybody who wasn't white since 1978....

That's just nonsense, Ken. A majority of freshmen entering the major UC campuses are now Asian. Hispanics have made tremendous gains in economic and political power since 1978. Things are far better for women than they were back then.

NO one who voted for 13 has ANY right to say they're against racism, because being against racism REQUIRES a person to be for economic equality and social justice...not just "legal equality and that's it".

I'm calling you on this. I supported Proposition 13 in 1978, I'd still support it, AND I'm against racism.

[Ken Burch]

49. Are you quoting from a Republican campaign pamphlet there?

"restrictive laws" is code for "anything that makes me try not to pollute that river and anything that makes me treat my employees as human beings".

California has nothing to gain from a massive influx of Walmarts...which are the only kinds of businesses your right-wing philosophy ever brings in...other than sweatshops or farms where the growers still ignore the farmworker laws.

[Ken Burch]

63. Jerry Brown's alternative property tax measure in '78 would have protected those people too.

And it would have done so without having the effect of killing everything progressive and inclusive in California.

Do you not CARE that public schools are dying(that was 13's fault)?

Do you not CARE that university education is only affordable for the rich in California now(THAT was 13's fault)?

Do you not CARE that social spending has been cut virtually to nothing?

Do you not CARE that labor law and environmental law can't be enforced in California now(they could only be enforced if
there hadn't been the massive decline in state revenues caused by 13 and made permanent by the anti-democratic supermajority
requirement).

That tiny handful of people on fixed incomes with homes weren't more important than everything and everyone else. And the fact
that they got to stay in their homes cannot possibly justify all the misery and injustice that 13 caused.

Democrats have a universal conception of social justice. If you still back 13, you have no compassion for the poor and no sympathy
for workers at all...the poor can't be helped by private charity in any meaningful way(especially since private charity is based mainly on pretending that the poor are poor because they're personally immoral, something all decent human beings know to be a lie)and since no boss can ever be trusted to voluntarily not treat his employees like shit.

[slackmaster]

139. Two links for anyone who is interested in real information about the California state budget

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html

See the summary charts at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf - There's a chart on page 9 that shows where the money is really going. K-12 education and Health and Human Services are by far the biggest budget items.

The biggest source of loss of state revenue for 2011-2012 is expected to be from decreased sales and use tax. Property taxes don't even appear as revenue for the state, because they are paid directly to counties and municipalities. The state nets about $6 billion by taking more from local governments than it pays out in transfers.

Before 1968 all public schools in California were financed locally - mainly through property taxes. (I was in elementary school at the time.) A series of new laws and court decisions migrated funding to a state-controlled system. It's terribly simplistic and IMO intellectually dishonest to blame all of the problems our schools have today on Proposition 13. The history is far more complex, and it really has nothing to do with lacking compassion or sympathy for anyone. The real issues have always been greed and power, both outside of government and within it at all levels.

http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_history.html

[Ken Burch]

42. self-delete

had incorrect information.

[Ken Burch]

43. It needs to be overturned, if for no other reason than the fact that

thanks to the class-and-race-vengeance-based austerity it created, only rich white people can afford to go to college in the UC system now(unless you happen to be good at hoops or football, of course).

It's an unspeakable tragedy that tuition at UC is over $20000 a year now, when it was only $600 a year before "13".

Two generations of rainbow Californians have been denied university education so that bitter, spiteful old white folks could keep their bloody property taxes down to nothing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. Please lose the false memes that Prop 13 gentrified public higher education in California

Its a lie. Prop 209 did that. UC costs are still less than other states, though no longer next to nothing.

[SunSeeker]

70. Prop. 13 was a trojan horse sold as saving grandma but it killed her grandkids

I have been a resident of CA since before Prop. 13 took effect and what it has done to my state is nothing short of disasterous--and yes I own CA property. Prop. 13 would have no bad effects if all it did was keep property taxes low for elderly with fixed incomes. But that was just the hook rich commerical interests used to get everyone to vote for a horrendous wish list of right wing goodies, the worst of which is the 2/3 supermajority legislative requirement to raise ANY taxes, not just property taxes. Worse, it shifted the property tax burden from commercial properties to individual homeowners.

You see, under Prop. 13, the property is taxed using the "basis" of what you paid for the property. The basis jumps up to full market value when the property changes ownership, which happens quite often with individuals. But businesses create corporations to hold the property and corporations live forever, so the basis never goes up. That is why, as Gormy Cuss points out, single-family residences accounted for 39.9% of the tax roll, by value, in 1975, before Proposition 13. This year their share is 55.8%. In the same period, commercial-industrial property has gone from 46.6% of the tax roll to 30.9%. So, Prop. 13 turned property tax into a regressive tax.

As a result, California has gone from being the Golden State to being Tennesee by the Sea. Schools, libraries, infrastructure are crumbling and college (University of CA used to be free!) is now out of reach for our kids. Taxes on the rich can't be raised to pay for desperately needed healthcase for the poor or anything else; there's just enough Repugs in the state legislature to keep the Dems from getting a 66% vote on any tax. Our kids have no future in California.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Prop 13 saved seniors, weak pols are what hurt their grandchildren

After Prop 13 and Prop 4 (also important, but few even remember it today). Jerry Brown and others created a new financial structure that later proved to be untennable. The pols in office at the time refused to do the hard work needed and just kicked the can down the road.

[Ken Burch]

91. With the supermajority requirement, it wasn't possible to "do the work"

There was no way to address that WITHOUT tax increases.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

135. Revenue, espcially early on was not the issue

Today that is different, but the causesfor revenue losses are many and Prop 13 is not considered a driver.

[Ken Burch]

93. Prop 13 wasn't necessary to save seniors

All that would have been needed was simply to exempt people who were actually on fixed incomes from paying property tax if the owned homes. Nothing beyond that was needed.

Or, at the very least, the other property tax measure on the '78 ballot would have been sufficient.

But Howard Jarvis didn't give a damn about anybody's grandma...nor did the overwhelming majority of the people who backed 13...they just wanted to stop time and end social progress in California...and they damn well did. There's been no meaningful progressive gains there since(and the same-sex marriage thing in SF, while good, is a minor gain in the great scheme of things).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

136. Interesting slam against the Democrats, working people, the poor, the retired, the people of color

who all voted for 13, 4, and other initiatives that have limit the California pols who they clearly do not trust.

You argue against the express will of the people as to how revenue is to be raised. They are voting their pocketbooks, since the real estate taxes were getting seriously out of balance.

Reality is that the pols had an opportunity to fix things, flubbed it, and the kicked the can down the road. Is it any wonder that California voters are loath to trust them.


This all comes down to the clear fact that voters in California do not trust their pols when it comes to raising and spending money. It was never racist, it is a basic trust issue. An issue that Jerry Brown helped cause and is now trying to fix again using a crisis meme. It probably won't work this time either.

[Ken Burch]

158. It wasn't very many poor people voting for 13

Only a tiny handful of the poor would have actually owned homes. None of the majority who lived in rental homes would have backed it.
And I'm pretty sure a majority of Dems would have voted against it.

The problem with high valuation on people with fixed incomes, even if those people couldn't have been exempted from the property tax rates, could have been solved or at least alleviated by giving them a credit on the state income tax.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

163. Too bad the facts do not bear out your assumptions

Renters supported it since unless they were in some of the few rent controlled areas, rents were going up to pay the increasing taxes.

Prop 13 and Prop 4 were supported by Democratic politicians and voters. The state was not 75% republican back then

Courts and the people rejected your "fixed income" exemption, since the problem was not just for those with fixed incomes.

[Mojeoux]

155. Full Agreement. I saw Prop 13 ruin my daughter's school.

They had progressive programs used by the top private schools in the country. Not only did they work wonderfully, these programs really got families involved with education.

They had to stop because they couldn't afford the PG&E for the space. So they had to just squeeze more kids into fewer classrooms.

Now only well-to-do neighborhoods have good public schools, and the poorer schools are used in arguments to privatize all schools.

It is such sickening and shameful reality for such an enlightened State that once was lauded for it's commitment to educate all Californians, rich and poor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

156. Your fight is not with Prop 13 or 4, its with the pols who did not do their jobs for several decades

There was ample time and even ample funds in the short term, but they kicked the can down the road which lead to where we are today.

[Ken Burch]

159. Indeed. Other than the tiny minority of fixed-income seniors

whose problems could have been solved by non-Draconian means, most of those who backed 13 and 4 were saying nothing but "I got mine-to hell with you!" to everybody in the state who was different than them. There was no way to prevent what happened after those measures simply by re-jiggering revenue distribution, since there wasn't going to be enough revenue to re-jigger.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

165. Again factless hyperbole

Prop 4 passed with 75% support. That is hardly a

Your proffered approach was reject by the courts and the people.

The revenue stream was there...for a while. The pols saw what was coming and abdicated. Those in office today are blaming their predecessors, but then again some of them are back in office (Brown)

[Ken Burch]

170. What kind of turnout was there in the election in which Prop. 4 passed?

I'm guessing it was very, very low. That wasn't an election which the poor were heard. By then, they'd all given up on politics...and who could blame them? 13 had already biased everything against the vast majority of the poor...and there's no way any savings they got in property tax relief made up for the services they all lost.

[kwassa]

76. It takes a 2/3 vote of the legislature to raise taxes, an impossible standard, meanwhile ...

the state constitution can be changed by a simple majority vote in a resolution. Anything over 50% will do.

California needs a real state constitution, not something ruled by resolutions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Initiatives are certainly a mixed blessing

Overall they are a brake on the pols, which is called for now and then.

[SunSeeker]

122. Initiatives have been a disaster in CA

Besides the blatantly racist, homophobic initiatives, there's truly evil corporate welfare ones like Prop. 13 or Prop. 26, passed in November of 2010. Like 13, 26 was marketed as helping the little guy with skyrocketing fees by extending the 2/3 voting requirment to fees, like it is with taxes. But in fact, most fees the average person encounters are exempted, such as fees for marriage licenses or fishing licenses, state park entrance fees, or trash collection fees, since they do not “exceed the reasonable cost of providing” the service or product or license to the payor. Who does it help? The initiative's biggest contributor: Chevron (gave $4M). Big tobacco, alcohol and the US Chamber of Commerce also funded this "CA intitiative." Prop. 26 is aimed at saving industry billions on such things as a per-barrel severance fee on oil or fees on cigarettes and tobacco to fund medical treatment, education and law enforcement programs. If a severance fee were enacted, like it is in other states, it would likely cost big oil $1.2B. Last year Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have raised CA’s oil-spill prevention fee from 5 cents per barrel to 6 cents per barrel. The fund faces a projected $11M deficit and thanks to Prop. 26 it has no chance to recover, even with our new Democractic Governor. The GOP controls more than 1/3 of the legislature; it’s unlikely to get a 2/3 vote. So, with Prop. 26, big oil has managed to push more of the cost of their pollution onto the people, just like businesses were able to push more of the property tax bill onto individual homeowners with Prop. 13.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

131. Tell that to the mountain lions

There have been initiatives that have been popular and not corporate backed.

The recent moves to limit initiatives have been a failure. Widely perceived as pols trying to stop the people, they have also backfired, making it more expensive and therefore attracting more big money. Then again, pols are so used to it, that might have been their idea all along.

Initiatives are Peoples Democracy, and I am not so sure we want to limit that, especially in state where the pols have failed us so miserably.

[Gormy Cuss]

147. Exactly.

Initiatives in this state are a lobbyist's dream. Dupe the public into thinking you're doing something good and hope that no one reads the rebuttals in the voter information packets. That's the formula.

I've always lived in states with binding referenda yet I've never seen anything like the Prop. circus in CA.

[Ken Burch]

92. It also needs real campaign finance reform laws

so that control of the initiative process can't be bought by the wealthy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. Much of that is already underway

But note that many iniitiatives are/were grass roots based

[SunSeeker]

119. What's Underway? All I see is paralysis caused by supermajority requirements.

The only recent truly grassroots CA initiative I can recall was the one to legalize pot. It failed. The initiative process in CA has been hijacked by the rich and powerful, like our government as a whole. I don't see anything underway to fix the disaster Prop. 13 created. And don't blame it on the "weak pols." They can't get anything done when they need a 2/3 majority to pass it. And the evil bastards behind Prop. 13 knew that, which is why they slipped that in. And which is why the Rethugs slipped that 2/3 requirement in their crazy balanced budget amendment floated at the federal level. Good thing that went nowhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. New regulations are flowing down

Limits on paid signature gathering, limits as to which elections they can be on the ballot are the latest.

Also note that legislature can place initiative on the ballot directly.

Some think it is due to pols hoping they can get through the back door what they cannot win directly.

[Tumbulu]

118. Now that is worth dreaming of-

getting rid of the 2/3 majority to raise taxes will make all the difference.

[mainer]

128. Excuse me for saying this, but Californians are already highly taxed

9.55% income tax (highest bracket)? Property tax at 1% of appraised value?
If California can't operate with those tax levels, something is really wrong.

I don't live in California, but those numbers would keep me from moving to that state, no matter how sunny and warm it is. Compare those income taxes to other states in the country, and you'll see that Californians have every reason to fight any other increases.

-------------------


CALIFORNIA
Sales Taxes
State Sales Tax: 8.25% (food and prescription drugs exempt. Tax varies according to locality. Can be as high as 10.50%)
Gasoline Tax: * 46.6 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: * 48.7 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: 87 cents/pack of 20

Personal Income Taxes
Tax Rate Range: Low - 1.25%; High - 9.55%. For 2010 the state has enacted a 0.25 percentage point increase in each of the state's income tax brackets. A tax credit for dependents was reduced from $309 to $98. For information on taxes for military personnel, click here.
Income Brackets: ** Lowest - $7,300; Highest - $46,767
Number of Brackets: 6
Tax Credits: Single - $99; Married - $198; Dependents - $309; 65 years of age or older - $99
Standard Deduction: Single - $3,637; Married filing jointly - $7,274
Medical/Dental Deduction: Same as Federal taxes
Federal Income Tax Deduction: None
Retirement Income Taxes: Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits are exempt. There is a 2.5% tax on early distributions and qualified pensions. All private, local, state and federal pensions are fully taxed.
Retired Military Pay: Follows federal tax rules.
Military Disability Retired Pay: Retirees who entered the military before Sept. 24, 1975, and members receiving disability retirements based on combat injuries or who could receive disability payments from the VA are covered by laws giving disability broad exemption from federal income tax. Most military retired pay based on service-related disabilities also is free from federal income tax, but there is no guarantee of total protection.
VA Disability Dependency and Indemnity Compensation: VA benefits are not taxable because they generally are for disabilities and are not subject to federal or state taxes.
Military SBP/SSBP/RCSBP/RSFPP: Generally subject to state taxes for those states with income tax. Check with state department of revenue office.

Property Taxes
Property is assessed at 100% of full cash value. The maximum amount of tax on real estate is limited to 1% of the full cash value. Under the homestead program, the first $7,000 of the full value of a homeowner's dwelling is exempt. The Franchise Tax Board's Homeowner Assistance program, which provided property tax relief to persons who were blind, disabled, or at least 62 years old, and met certain minimum annual income thresholds, has been halted. The state budgets approved for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 fiscal years deleted funding for this Homeowner and Renter Assistance Program that once provided cash reimbursement of a portion of the property taxes that residents paid on their home. For more information, call the Franchise Tax Board at 1-800-852-5711, or visit.

The California constitution provides a $7,000 reduction in the taxable value for a qualifying owner-occupied home. The home must have been the principal place of residence of the owner on the lien date, January 1st. To claim the exemption, the homeowner must make a one-time filing of a simple form with the county assessor where the property is located. The claim form, BOE-266, Claim for Homeowners' Property Tax Exemption, is available from the county assessor.

Inheritance and Estate Taxes
There is no inheritance tax. However, there is a limited California estate tax related to federal estate tax collection.

For further information, visit the California Franchise Tax Board or the California State Board of Equalization.
* Does not include 1 cent local option.

[Throd]

142. I am a Californian who will not vote for any tax increases.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

148. According to some here that makes you a racist 1%er

According to the public votes on this issue, it makes you a typical Californian.

What you did not say is why...are you willing to share that with us?

[U4ikLefty]

150. Project much?

Prop 13 (and Prop 4) were horrible for my state.

You are wrong about the impact on the state & you know it.

Don't bother responding, I will leave it up to interested DUers to research your BULLSHIT.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

152. Another hit and run poster with nothing to back them up

Prop 13 and 4 certainly forced a restructure of the public funding structure. What was horrible was the reaction of pols to Prop 13 which in turn produced Prop 4. Subsequent to that our California pols have not done what was required to protect public infrastructure and services. Its not just about raising more revenue, especially right after it happened, there was more than enough. It was about building a sustainable financial infrastructure and the pols failed us.

[Ken Burch]

157. It's not as though service levels and low tuition COULD have been maintained after 4 and 13

without some sort of increased revenues from somewhere. How the hell do you do that without raising SOMEBODY'S taxes?

The difference could never have been made up through increased service fees alone.

And, if you're against property taxes rising, wouldn't you have to be for an increase in the state income tax, with greater progressivity to the tax rate, to make up for what was lost? How could the revenue structure have been made sustainable WITHOUT that?

[mainer]

173. At what point does increasing taxes have a negative effect?

California has some of the highest income and sales taxes in the country. I don't live there, and after checking the numbers, I don't think I would ever move there. Even though I love the state, and visit whenever I can.

It's easy to say "Oh, just raise more revenue," but it appears the state can't go much higher than a 10% state income tax. Raising it much higher would affect its competitiveness as an attractive place to move one's business. What it has going for it now is climate, liberal values, and lifestyle. That keeps it attractive ... for the moment. But if you keep on pushing up those taxes, you start to make other states look better and better.

[Ken Burch]

175. The real drain on revenue has been the megaprisons and California's fascist drug laws.

It would have cost far less to legalize drugs after Prop. 13 and 4, to refuse to build the megaprisons(concentration camps for minor drug offenders that never had any real reason to exist) and use the savings to keep tuition down and keep school districts and social services properly funded.

But no, that wouldn't have been "tough". And our politicians always have to look "tough"...because too many voters make a pointless fetish out of "toughness"-when, in most cases, "toughness" is just blind irrational resistance to reality.

And, in response to your question, at what point do the larger costs of keeping taxes down become unaffordable?

Look at the long-term damage to the state that the destruction of the UC system has caused...that the destruction of the public school system has caused...that the abandonment of any real effort to fight poverty has caused...how is THAT cost more affordable than higher taxes on the rich?

And what kind of future is California(like any other state that plays this stupid game)going to have if it gets into the race to the bottom on taxes, wages, and cuts in the programs that preserve the state's humanity?

There are worse things than higher taxes...in fact, at the moment, almost everything that's happening in California and the rest of the country is worse. There's no upside to making "low taxes" more important than everything else in life. That decision always makes life worse for all of us in the end.

[mainer]

176. So readjustment of spending priorities might be enough

rather than an automatic "just raise taxes" solution to everything.

[Ken Burch]

177. In the Eighties, perhaps.

Almost certainly too late for that now.

There's not enough revenue to readjust anymore. And the money wasted on the Drug Jihad can never be recovered. It's just lost forever.

[Ken Burch]

149. Then you're against your state doing anything progressive.

Progressive policies require a revenue stream, and are completely incompatible with austerity budgets. When you're cutting programs, everything has to be right-wing.

[yurbud]

179. I hope to god it works. The republican minority uses 2/3 req to hold state hostage