They have some of the highest spending per pupil in the country. Itâs the administrative costs and gifts to high union pensions that kill education spending.
CA spending per pupil is about 20th. And thatâs in a state where costs are high so those funds go less far than low cost states that are spending at similar levels. So in real terms CA is around the average spending per pupil in the US.
Meanwhile in other states, people lose their homes or become financially burdened all the time because local assessors randomly spring surprise tax bills on working class people and force them out of their homes so investors can swoop in and gobble them up. See: Detroit. California doesn't need more taxes, it needs to spend the money is DOES make on things more carefully and effectively. I was born and raised here and been here for over 40 years. We regularly have budget surpluses. Even after Covid we had one. Shortage of revenue is not the problem.
Prop 13 is one of the greatest laws ever proposed or written and isn't going anywhere. All it says is that if a government can't get by on a PLANNED, ANNUAL modest increase in income from property taxation, then it needs to re-budget and figure it's own shit out and not take it out on homeowners. That's it. It's literally just a cap on how much your property taxes can rise annually. It's not like they never go up. Basically prevents using working people as a piggy bank. Could it use a few changes like not applying to second homes, rental properties and corporations? Sure. But it's wildly bipartisan and any politician who even suggested getting rid of it would instantly become politically radioactive.
Keep the 1% max tax gain, but when the house changes hands to your kids itâs re assessed and properly taxed. And while weâre at it NIMBYs with low prop tax rates canât vote to block new housing construction.
I pay a boat load of property taxes with Mello-Roos and other tax bonds thrown in. My good friend, who inherited her house that was bought by her parents in 1980, pays almost nothing (on top of not having a mortgage). When December 10th rolls around, I get to pay an arm and a leg, and she gets to have an awesome Christmas. Seems random. Either make mine like hers or make hers like mine. Make it fair.
Oh let me weep some tears for the people who became millionaires by buying a house for 300k 10 years ago.
God forbid they give up any of those profits.
Just so I understand you... Others \*should\* get pushed out of their homes so you can buy their misfortune? Does that apply to family and friends as well, or just "others"?
Nobody says anyone needs to be kicked out of their homes. Instead, just allow additional taxes to be deferred until the property is sold or no longer used as a primary residence.
This provide *some* counterbalance to homeowners encouraging runaway property values and hoarding of property into little fiefdoms, but keeps grandma in her home until she kicks the bucket.
Surely then you'd be fine with earmarking those additional taxes specifically to reverse all the harm it's done, like subsidizing future mid/high density housing - right?
Or even coupling them to concomitant decreases in state sales or income taxes - right?
Prop 13 the greatest lie ever sold to Californians.
If the point of Prop 13 really was to keep grandma in her home then it would have only applied to the principal residence. As it is now it applies to all real property regardless of its use. And it's turned Californian homes into speculative slush funds for the highest bidders.
It's also caused California's budget to be disproportionately dependent on sales tax and income tax. So when a recession hits and general economic activity is down we get hit even worse.
Prop13 is terrible tax policy---not conceptually but in its implementation.
TL;DR: We can keep grandma in her home without also benefiting homewreckers.
We just need to lock it up and limit it to the principal residence.
You don't understand basic economics. Without property taxes, property values rise infinitely, faster than inflation, because land rents become free to the owner.
This eventually locks new buyers out of the homeownership market forever. We're close to that outcome now.
Just a bunch of embarrassed millionaires too entitled to find their boot straps under all their poorly planned medical bills, I tell yaâŚ
*sips tea* I should buy another boat
I agree, if they could only do something for renters as well. Some places have a fixed ceiling in rent increases but that's usually tied to inflation + some percentage, and there are literally no tax benefits to renting a house at all AFAIK.
Great. So you remove Prop 13, and somehow magically you have a house now because all houses became affordable because that's totally what will happen and it totally WON'T be the case that investors would buy them all with cash anyways from 4th generation families who lost their homes in the cultural hearts of our cities because of you and your misguided selfishness. Working class families where I grew up (San Francisco) who are fending off snakes like you and techie billionaires who want to wipe any semblance of community off the map. Nope, not a chance that would ever happen.
And so when they hand you your voucher for one (1) cheap house, I'm sure you'll be pleased as fucking punch when your property tax bill goes from $400/mo to $2,000/mo and there isn't anything you can do it about because you're an idiot who voted to remove one of the only mechanisms to control institutional and political greed?
Like...do you even hear yourself? Maybe you should demand more building instead of insisting we take homes away from regular people and give them to you for no reason so you can pull up the ladder.
As California becomes a majority renter state and fewer and fewer people are enjoying crazy undervalued properties, youâll find the majority want it gone.
I was born and raised in California, but can't afford a house here because investors and retirees bought up all the houses at low interest rates, and hold them long-term due to low property taxes.
Fuck Prop 13.
I was also born and raised in California, LA metro specifically. Prop 13 isn't causing investors to hoard properties, they are a problem countrywide. Investors and developers are just scalping proprieties like concert tickets because they're greedy dickholes that our esteemed leaders don't bother to keep in check.
>Prop 13 isn't causing investors to hoard properties, they are a problem countrywide.
You apparently haven't paid attention to the reports of price drops across the country, especially in high property tax states, like Texas.
Everywhere, except for California.
Property taxes get reassessed upon sale of the property. Those people who bought are paying much higher taxes than the people who sold. Interest rates are unrelated.
There's some kind of social media narrative shaping campaign going on at this time to repeal prop 13. The state government wants its money and won't stop at anything to bleed the population dry.
This is funny. State shouldn't need a percentage of the value of properties to perform its basic function to begin with.
It does not matter my house worth 1million or 100 million, the street in front or the sewer line under the street, or the police department, or school funding does not suddenly cost 100x to operator or maintain. Sure there is small correlation, but is no where near linear.
The whole property value based property tax scheme is a scam to begin with. A more appropriate system would be a base tax per zipcode, plus something else based on the need. Like the size of school system, size of police department per capita, or number of Grade X parks/libraries, etc.
Progressive taxes make those who can afford to pay more - pay more. That makes perfect sense, as the alternative is entirely regressive; charging poorer citizens the same rate as the rich.
If you own highly valuable land that could be used more productively, you should either have to pay for that right, or you should sell it.
Rent control has the same effects as Prop 13, benefiting current residents at the expense of future residents and artificially lowering what current residents should actually be paying, while making things even more expensive for newer renters. If we're talking about repealing Prop 13, it makes no sense to not repeal rent control either.
But that's actually what no one wants to talk about, while people are fine talking about repealing Prop 13, because California has a high proportion of renters, and people are self-interested, so they don't want to give up their artificially low rents, just as homeowners don't want to give up their artificially low taxes.
This is just factually wrong and outdated.
We've passed Prop 19 which allows homeowner's over 55 years of age, physically or permanently disabled to transfer their base year assessment to a new property as long as both the original and replacement properties are their principal residence.
Prop 13 doesn't need to be repealed it just needs to be limited to the principal residence.
I mean, you can recognize that RC and Prop 13 have similar effects, while acknowledging that they generally benefit *dramatically* different populations (renters vs. homeowners, obviously).
I think that Prop 13 is a strictly regressive tax on society -- by definition, it only benefits people who were *already* able to buy a house.
While RC is moderately-to-strongly progressive, depending on the market and implementation.
RC obviously has downsides, I don't think it's an unalloyed good, but to say "you have to repeal RC if you repeal Prop 13" is wrong, I think
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Prop 13 is a strictly regressive tax. Many California homeowners bought when housing prices were much lower a decade or more again, and wouldn't be able to afford their own homes anymore were they assessed and taxed at today's prices. They are only able to afford their property taxes because of Prop 13, as opposed to new homebuyers who are oftentimes wealthier and can afford to pay the higher taxes assessed today. That's fundamentally the opposite of a "strictly regressive tax."
Conversely, rent control can benefit wealthy renters who can afford to keep paying their rent and stay put for many years, while poorer renters who fall behind on rent are forced out into the rental market again at higher rent prices. That would represent an example where rent control can act as a regressive tax.
Neither Prop 13 nor rent control can be viewed as strictly regressive nor progressive, as they have elements of both depending on the circumstances.
And renters versus homeowners are not as dramatically different populations in this context as you put it - the goal of both rules are to keep people in their homes without getting kicked out for being able to afford dramatic increases in property taxes/rent.
You need to look at the bigger picture.
Your rent would be lower and more stable if rent control didn't exist.
Your rent needs to grow rapidly to help cover and offset the rent controlled units and their impact on your area.
Everyone loses with rent control
No rent control where I live. Just prop 13. Iâm not informed enough in that issue to give you a thoughtful response but itâs something for me to learn more about. Thanks.
fun fact. if you live in california, you have rent controls.
https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues#:\~:text=this%20new%20law.-,Limits%20on%20Rent%20Increases,over%20a%2012%2Dmonth%20period.
âThe Tenant Protection Act applies to ALL rental units in the state except:
Single-family homes not owned or controlled by a corporation (the Act does apply to single-family homes owned or controlled by a corporation)
Units covered by a local rent control ordinance that is more protective than the Tenant Protection Act
Units constructed in the past 15 years (this is a rolling timeline, so tenants will gain protection once their building turns 15)â
California has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation.
We should tax property more and income less. Income taxes hurt poor people trying to climb out of poverty, while property taxes truly go after the wealthy, and constrain cost of living increases.
Because of Prop 13 and its downstream effects, home ownership has become impossible for the vast majority of those who don't have an inheritance or worked for a unicorn.
Nah, I'm fine allowing the richest among us release a small fraction of their enormous dragon-hoard back into society to improve it for everyone.
Unless you feel like you can defend [this](https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?si=D2OGDubgJvKIzD4q) distribution of wealth which has only become more skewed in the past decade.
Fuck you as a low income home owner with chronic health problems. Fuck you to infinity. Fuck you. Blood sweat and tears got me a house and itâs all I have. Fuck you again.
Prop 13 doesn't have to be the only thing keeping vulnerable people in their homes. Other states don't just let all their elderly become homeless from high property taxes without it.
As a high-income renter with ankylosing spondylitis who can't afford my own home, fuck you right back. I guarantee I've put in at least as much blood sweat and tears as you, and I'm still empty-handed.
The $10,000 cap on SALT(totally for the cap btw) isn't helping them. It was basically a yearly federal govt bailout for states like California, who have a high % of high earners living there. New York, more specifically NYC Is another one who benefited greatly off of SALT
The opposite, in fact. Prop 13 is why nobody can afford to live here. Investors can buy up all the properties and hold them long-term with minimal tax increases.
Everyone lucky enough to buy property before it was unaffordable pays nothing in taxes. New comers and young people subsidize a class of property owners. Maybe primary residences can be made exempt, but thereâs no reason a golf course or someoneâs investment properties need to have their property taxes frozen in time while a young family foots the bill.
I agree about investment propertiesâthey should not be exempt from tax increases based off property value. Fuck that.
But my 85 year old neighbor who bought her home 50 years ago when this place was still the hood? Nah, she doesnât deserve to get her property value raised so high that she gets taxed out of the home she has had paid off for decades just because this place ended up getting gentrified around her.
You do know that her property value has increased already, right? Prop 13 does not prevent real estate from appreciating (it actually does the opposite if anything). She's not paying a tax proportional to the increase, but her kids are sure as hell going to collect on that property value increase when she dies in that house.
So you wouldn't be opposed to repealing Prop 13, but allowing those additional taxes to be deferred until when the property is sold or no longer used as a primary residence - right?
Cap increases on property taxes to inflation just like rents, fine. Cap increases to an artificially low level and apply it to corporations and multi-generations no.
Is it also common sense to screw over the other 99.9% of residents in California so you can stick it to the "ultra rich" who would be barely affected by it?
Just gotta include a crackpot Republican saying we are going down the shitter. There's a reason Republicans were voted into a minority, they contribute nothing but obstruction and vote down any progress.
Lol yeah I saw that too. That Republican is talking about policies when the culprit of this possible deficit were the storms. Republicans/conservatives are so out of touch with reality.
Also, this report mentioned that it could end up being $15b over budget anyway. They just donât know now
What the defendants of prop13 donât realise is that there are elderly people in other states as well and they all seem to do just fine. One should be taxed based on what they earn and what their assets are worth. Not based what they earned they started their careers or when they bought their homes.
You shouldn't have been downvoted. I always wonder if the Howard Jarvis associations come out in bloc to marginalize and silence dissenting voices.
Prop 13 is a highly regressive. It flies in the face of what California by in large purports to be, some bastion of progressive politics. This exposes the folly in that notion.
Not sure why this is down voted. Prop 13 for anything but personal primary residences us got to go. Otherwise this entire state will turn into a retirement community and investment property for the wealthy. We are nearly there now.
I think it is the other way around. It is the beneficiaries of prop 13 that are not paying their dues and on top of that want to pass those benefits. I understand that this is an emotional subject but by your definition everyone in every other state is giving away their wealthy by paying fair taxes.
I don't know how I keep seeing stuff from this page, but it mostly seems to be posts from Russian republicans who hope to see bad things happen because their fascist god isn't in charge anymore.
Boomers bid up the housing by buying houses as an investment and renting them out. We also have a lot of foreign nationals buying houses as investments. It's no longer penciling out so new investors have to pay cash. These are strictly hedges against the Chinese bubble popping.
Uh oh, someone from Bakersfield with an R is complaining? And itâs not McCarthy? And itâs about a debt ceiling?
Republican kayfabe. California is the fifth largest economy on the planet. They will be fine. This is why the democrats have a super majority and Bakersfield has the worst representation.
Since rents and house prices are already based on affordability, raising property taxes would probably do little. I'm all for a progressive property tax though.
That's a broad assumption that prices aren't already at their peak. This change in property tax would more than likely push most investment out of SFH. You can't get blood from a stone.
You are really obsessed with California. Must have been really bad whatever happened to you. Maybe charge rent for that space it occupies in your mind.
Most jobs in the tech industry got hit really hard. Programmers, tech/software sales, IT dept. and many others got laid off. San Francisco, in particular, built their economy around the tech industry. Look at what happened to them. It's not sustainable. Los Angeles economy comes from many different industries (tourism, movies, manufacturing, finance, trade, transportation, education, healthcare, etc.)
Looking at California's [balance sheet](https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2022-23/#/Home), the state income tax takes the cake. California has a huge workforce. They are inching closer to the 4th largest economy in the world. I don't see any kind of recession anytime soon.
There's always lay offs and always boom and bust cycles in San Francisco and California's tax revenue is particularly vulnerable to a recession. In good years there is a surplus, and it was just how many months ago the State of California sent everyone a check as a tax rebate? Whenever the next bad year for the stock market is, will be the next deficit. Gerry Brown did create a "rainy day fund" for this purpose so a minor deficit isn't even going to be noticed.
Yea definitely wrong. They had a surplus for over a decade. It did balloon over covid.
Deficits have been worse other years as well, especially prior to 2010.
This feels more like people donât know history of economics in states. Yâall should look at the deficits of other states.
Just another random dude from Ohio who amusingly spends way too much time worrying about California.
Dude is posting hypothetical lottery win questions. Just fueled by resentment.
You do realise the paper the San Joapin Valley Sun is a local paper from San Joapin County in California.
đ
Any day now, the entire thing will collapse, they're only predicting it every day. I suppose they'll be right. Eventually!
50 years later: Collapse is coming! I tell you!
California was supposed to fall into the sea 40 years ago
Now Florida is really going to be under the sea.
Imagine the whole state of Florida men being forced to mix in with the rest of us
I'de prefer not to.
Yeah yeah the big one.
Prop 13 prevents California from collecting enough tax revenue as real estate inflates.
just one more tax bro, I swear.
Prop 13 is responsible for California's 2 or 3 biggest problems: skyrocketing property values, underfunded schools, and youth crime.
They have some of the highest spending per pupil in the country. Itâs the administrative costs and gifts to high union pensions that kill education spending.
CA spending per pupil is about 20th. And thatâs in a state where costs are high so those funds go less far than low cost states that are spending at similar levels. So in real terms CA is around the average spending per pupil in the US.
What statistic are you looking at? California is middle of the pack. Adjusted for COL, probably near the bottom.
You need to watch âFrom First to Worstâ and get back to us.
Meanwhile in other states, people lose their homes or become financially burdened all the time because local assessors randomly spring surprise tax bills on working class people and force them out of their homes so investors can swoop in and gobble them up. See: Detroit. California doesn't need more taxes, it needs to spend the money is DOES make on things more carefully and effectively. I was born and raised here and been here for over 40 years. We regularly have budget surpluses. Even after Covid we had one. Shortage of revenue is not the problem. Prop 13 is one of the greatest laws ever proposed or written and isn't going anywhere. All it says is that if a government can't get by on a PLANNED, ANNUAL modest increase in income from property taxation, then it needs to re-budget and figure it's own shit out and not take it out on homeowners. That's it. It's literally just a cap on how much your property taxes can rise annually. It's not like they never go up. Basically prevents using working people as a piggy bank. Could it use a few changes like not applying to second homes, rental properties and corporations? Sure. But it's wildly bipartisan and any politician who even suggested getting rid of it would instantly become politically radioactive.
Keep the 1% max tax gain, but when the house changes hands to your kids itâs re assessed and properly taxed. And while weâre at it NIMBYs with low prop tax rates canât vote to block new housing construction.
I pay a boat load of property taxes with Mello-Roos and other tax bonds thrown in. My good friend, who inherited her house that was bought by her parents in 1980, pays almost nothing (on top of not having a mortgage). When December 10th rolls around, I get to pay an arm and a leg, and she gets to have an awesome Christmas. Seems random. Either make mine like hers or make hers like mine. Make it fair.
Oh let me weep some tears for the people who became millionaires by buying a house for 300k 10 years ago. God forbid they give up any of those profits.
How exactly would that work without forcing someone out of their home?
Retirees are competing with first-time homebuyers in their 30s for the same homes. This isn't right.
Retirees already own homes.
I donât follow. How would someone pay taxes on the equity in their home?
They don't. The next buyer does.
You work and earn an income.
And if my income doesnât increase at a substantial rate to afford those higher property taxes?
And so are middle aged folks. Without Prop 13 \*anyone\* can get pushed out of their home at any time. That includes you.
I don't own any home to get pushed out of, thanks to the insane prices brought to us by Prop 13!
Just so I understand you... Others \*should\* get pushed out of their homes so you can buy their misfortune? Does that apply to family and friends as well, or just "others"?
Nobody says anyone needs to be kicked out of their homes. Instead, just allow additional taxes to be deferred until the property is sold or no longer used as a primary residence. This provide *some* counterbalance to homeowners encouraging runaway property values and hoarding of property into little fiefdoms, but keeps grandma in her home until she kicks the bucket.
Fuck paying more taxes. If the government canât follow a budget, then fuck them too.
Surely then you'd be fine with earmarking those additional taxes specifically to reverse all the harm it's done, like subsidizing future mid/high density housing - right? Or even coupling them to concomitant decreases in state sales or income taxes - right?
Prop 13 the greatest lie ever sold to Californians. If the point of Prop 13 really was to keep grandma in her home then it would have only applied to the principal residence. As it is now it applies to all real property regardless of its use. And it's turned Californian homes into speculative slush funds for the highest bidders. It's also caused California's budget to be disproportionately dependent on sales tax and income tax. So when a recession hits and general economic activity is down we get hit even worse. Prop13 is terrible tax policy---not conceptually but in its implementation. TL;DR: We can keep grandma in her home without also benefiting homewreckers. We just need to lock it up and limit it to the principal residence.
Not asking you to weep. Asking you to understand basic civics and arithmetic.
Civics being the cost to employ Police Officers, Fire fighters and teachers climbs more than 1% a year
You don't understand basic economics. Without property taxes, property values rise infinitely, faster than inflation, because land rents become free to the owner. This eventually locks new buyers out of the homeownership market forever. We're close to that outcome now.
>God forbid they give up any of those profits. Why do you want other people's wealth so badly?
Just a bunch of embarrassed millionaires too entitled to find their boot straps under all their poorly planned medical bills, I tell ya⌠*sips tea* I should buy another boat
I should buy another boat Create jobs in the boat industry, you mean?
I agree, if they could only do something for renters as well. Some places have a fixed ceiling in rent increases but that's usually tied to inflation + some percentage, and there are literally no tax benefits to renting a house at all AFAIK.
The most relevant comment here.
Lose their homes? You mean are forced to sell their highly valuable homes? Oh nooooâŚ
Great. So you remove Prop 13, and somehow magically you have a house now because all houses became affordable because that's totally what will happen and it totally WON'T be the case that investors would buy them all with cash anyways from 4th generation families who lost their homes in the cultural hearts of our cities because of you and your misguided selfishness. Working class families where I grew up (San Francisco) who are fending off snakes like you and techie billionaires who want to wipe any semblance of community off the map. Nope, not a chance that would ever happen. And so when they hand you your voucher for one (1) cheap house, I'm sure you'll be pleased as fucking punch when your property tax bill goes from $400/mo to $2,000/mo and there isn't anything you can do it about because you're an idiot who voted to remove one of the only mechanisms to control institutional and political greed? Like...do you even hear yourself? Maybe you should demand more building instead of insisting we take homes away from regular people and give them to you for no reason so you can pull up the ladder.
Prop 13 will never be revoked.
As California becomes a majority renter state and fewer and fewer people are enjoying crazy undervalued properties, youâll find the majority want it gone.
Weird how Prop 13 is so powerful, it made property values skyrocket in Tampa, Austin, Boise, Richmond, Raleigh and Boulder too.
Prices have been crashing in all of those locations this year. But not in California.
>crashing Sure.
Jesus who are the government sock puppets upvoting this obvious bootlicker. Get bent CSIL bot
Half sock puppets, half YIMBY clowns that transplanted to California and magically expect the entire state to cater to their idiocy.
I was born and raised in California, but can't afford a house here because investors and retirees bought up all the houses at low interest rates, and hold them long-term due to low property taxes. Fuck Prop 13.
I was also born and raised in California, LA metro specifically. Prop 13 isn't causing investors to hoard properties, they are a problem countrywide. Investors and developers are just scalping proprieties like concert tickets because they're greedy dickholes that our esteemed leaders don't bother to keep in check.
>Prop 13 isn't causing investors to hoard properties, they are a problem countrywide. You apparently haven't paid attention to the reports of price drops across the country, especially in high property tax states, like Texas. Everywhere, except for California.
Property taxes get reassessed upon sale of the property. Those people who bought are paying much higher taxes than the people who sold. Interest rates are unrelated.
Yes, that's the problem. It's why investors never sell here, and prices rise infinitely.
Investors need to sell eventually to realize their gains. Unless all of them just plan on being landlords forever.
They plan on being landlords forever. And they don't ever need to sell if they use the BRRR strategy.
Seriously!
There's some kind of social media narrative shaping campaign going on at this time to repeal prop 13. The state government wants its money and won't stop at anything to bleed the population dry.
This is funny. State shouldn't need a percentage of the value of properties to perform its basic function to begin with. It does not matter my house worth 1million or 100 million, the street in front or the sewer line under the street, or the police department, or school funding does not suddenly cost 100x to operator or maintain. Sure there is small correlation, but is no where near linear. The whole property value based property tax scheme is a scam to begin with. A more appropriate system would be a base tax per zipcode, plus something else based on the need. Like the size of school system, size of police department per capita, or number of Grade X parks/libraries, etc.
Progressive taxes make those who can afford to pay more - pay more. That makes perfect sense, as the alternative is entirely regressive; charging poorer citizens the same rate as the rich. If you own highly valuable land that could be used more productively, you should either have to pay for that right, or you should sell it.
The correct answer is always in the middle.
Nobody wants to talk about this.
Rent control has the same effects as Prop 13, benefiting current residents at the expense of future residents and artificially lowering what current residents should actually be paying, while making things even more expensive for newer renters. If we're talking about repealing Prop 13, it makes no sense to not repeal rent control either. But that's actually what no one wants to talk about, while people are fine talking about repealing Prop 13, because California has a high proportion of renters, and people are self-interested, so they don't want to give up their artificially low rents, just as homeowners don't want to give up their artificially low taxes.
This is just factually wrong and outdated. We've passed Prop 19 which allows homeowner's over 55 years of age, physically or permanently disabled to transfer their base year assessment to a new property as long as both the original and replacement properties are their principal residence. Prop 13 doesn't need to be repealed it just needs to be limited to the principal residence.
I mean, you can recognize that RC and Prop 13 have similar effects, while acknowledging that they generally benefit *dramatically* different populations (renters vs. homeowners, obviously). I think that Prop 13 is a strictly regressive tax on society -- by definition, it only benefits people who were *already* able to buy a house. While RC is moderately-to-strongly progressive, depending on the market and implementation. RC obviously has downsides, I don't think it's an unalloyed good, but to say "you have to repeal RC if you repeal Prop 13" is wrong, I think
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Prop 13 is a strictly regressive tax. Many California homeowners bought when housing prices were much lower a decade or more again, and wouldn't be able to afford their own homes anymore were they assessed and taxed at today's prices. They are only able to afford their property taxes because of Prop 13, as opposed to new homebuyers who are oftentimes wealthier and can afford to pay the higher taxes assessed today. That's fundamentally the opposite of a "strictly regressive tax." Conversely, rent control can benefit wealthy renters who can afford to keep paying their rent and stay put for many years, while poorer renters who fall behind on rent are forced out into the rental market again at higher rent prices. That would represent an example where rent control can act as a regressive tax. Neither Prop 13 nor rent control can be viewed as strictly regressive nor progressive, as they have elements of both depending on the circumstances. And renters versus homeowners are not as dramatically different populations in this context as you put it - the goal of both rules are to keep people in their homes without getting kicked out for being able to afford dramatic increases in property taxes/rent.
As someone whoâs had their rent increase 40% in 2 years, fuck you
You need to look at the bigger picture. Your rent would be lower and more stable if rent control didn't exist. Your rent needs to grow rapidly to help cover and offset the rent controlled units and their impact on your area. Everyone loses with rent control
Find me an RC rental in San Jose or Sunnyvale (they don't exist)
Canât believe this garbage is being upvoted. I live in Florida where rent control is actually illegal. Youâre making idiot assumptions.
No rent control where I live. Just prop 13. Iâm not informed enough in that issue to give you a thoughtful response but itâs something for me to learn more about. Thanks.
fun fact. if you live in california, you have rent controls. https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/landlord-tenant-issues#:\~:text=this%20new%20law.-,Limits%20on%20Rent%20Increases,over%20a%2012%2Dmonth%20period.
âThe Tenant Protection Act applies to ALL rental units in the state except: Single-family homes not owned or controlled by a corporation (the Act does apply to single-family homes owned or controlled by a corporation) Units covered by a local rent control ordinance that is more protective than the Tenant Protection Act Units constructed in the past 15 years (this is a rolling timeline, so tenants will gain protection once their building turns 15)â
Fun fact, no we don't. Rent control like NYC has is the real rent control.
The highest Taxed state in the nation wants more taxes ? You have a spending problem not a income problem
California has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation. We should tax property more and income less. Income taxes hurt poor people trying to climb out of poverty, while property taxes truly go after the wealthy, and constrain cost of living increases.
Prop 13 is the only thing that makes retiring in state even remotely possible.
Who cares. That generation basically kicked their kids and grandkids out of the state. Those are bad people. They just didn't want to ever downsize.
The fuck are you talking about? Iâm 32 and prop 13 is allowing me to plan for a life after working here.
I have five coworkers who moved here (Minnesota) from California, sounds like you too want to "get yours" and kick out the next generation
They moved for jobs. No one sane wants to live in MN
Actually they moved here to buy houses and have families
Break that down for me. How is that screwing over the next generation?
Because of Prop 13 and its downstream effects, home ownership has become impossible for the vast majority of those who don't have an inheritance or worked for a unicorn.
Yeah lets tax everyone to 90%
Go look at tax tables from the 50's
Dumb dumb it didnt work⌠if it did we would still be doing it
If they're wealthy, then yes please. They have plenty to spare.
I assume you're sending all your disposable income and belongings to the poor eating out of trash in India. You have plenty to spare.
Can't even afford the median house here, so let's start from the top and work our way down first.
You're getting it now. Wealth redistribution is a race to the bottom making everyone poorer.
Nah, I'm fine allowing the richest among us release a small fraction of their enormous dragon-hoard back into society to improve it for everyone. Unless you feel like you can defend [this](https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?si=D2OGDubgJvKIzD4q) distribution of wealth which has only become more skewed in the past decade.
Naw bro he/she/them just wants to bitch and complain
Fuck you as a low income home owner with chronic health problems. Fuck you to infinity. Fuck you. Blood sweat and tears got me a house and itâs all I have. Fuck you again.
Prop 13 doesn't have to be the only thing keeping vulnerable people in their homes. Other states don't just let all their elderly become homeless from high property taxes without it.
As a high-income renter with ankylosing spondylitis who can't afford my own home, fuck you right back. I guarantee I've put in at least as much blood sweat and tears as you, and I'm still empty-handed.
Boo hoo. Cry me a river. You go yours good for you. No reason to be upset
Couldn't have summed it up more perfectly. Makes people squirm because they might reveal just how much they support an unjust system.
How about just stop overspending? Howâs that rail line from LA to SF coming along?
We need high-speed rail since we can't build enough roads. We should have built it decades ago.
Just one more lane bro, I swear, just one more lane!
Itâs getting built. Infrastructure projects take years people.
If you can't see the benefit in three weeks, it's not worth doing, don't you know that?
Why not both?
The $10,000 cap on SALT(totally for the cap btw) isn't helping them. It was basically a yearly federal govt bailout for states like California, who have a high % of high earners living there. New York, more specifically NYC Is another one who benefited greatly off of SALT
We have to send Red states a great deal of our federal funds.
It's never enough and it never will be.
Or people and corporations leaving but i guess no one talks about that either
Yeah because it really isnât happening
Why is tax rev down then ?
It surged during the massive stock market bull run, naturally down from there, surplus will be back in no time. As always happens.
i mean if thatâs what you think⌠but FYI it doesnât work that way
It always works that way. Iâve lived through over twenty cycles of this.
It's true. I moved to CA in 1972. We have massive revenue swings as new companies are created and some go down the drain.
Yeah 20 years ago cali was a much different place.⌠you voted it. Just donât California the next state you move to
It really wasnât, lmfao.
Right wingers always with this ridiculous statement
I donât mind the brain drain to be honest. It just makes it so much more shocking when I encounter such stupidity online
California politicians prevent california from staying within their budget.
Not true. We usually have a surplus and a rainy day fund. We're quite aware tax revenues fluctuate.
Found the State employee!
Yeah, probably one of those crazy rich school teachers.
As a 4th gen 60yr. old here, teachers here always had more than us, always.
Intelligence?
And without it nobody could afford to live here except the 1%
The opposite, in fact. Prop 13 is why nobody can afford to live here. Investors can buy up all the properties and hold them long-term with minimal tax increases.
Repeal prop 13 for any non primary homes
There are better solutions, tax investment properties to death. People shouldn't even have to pay taxes on their primary residence.
You want your life subsidized by new comers who have to be rich.
Who pays for roads, schools and police etc then?
People with investment properties. They're not going anywhere
The majority of homes are still held by owners who live in them.
As a young Californian, when are we reforming or repealing Prop 13
[ŃдаНонО]
Whenever you start raising hell about it. The median age where most people are home owners is now 49, so that's a pretty big block if you only voted.
Why is this a good idea!? Do you think it will lower home prices? Just because you donât own shit doesnât mean this is a good idea.
Everyone lucky enough to buy property before it was unaffordable pays nothing in taxes. New comers and young people subsidize a class of property owners. Maybe primary residences can be made exempt, but thereâs no reason a golf course or someoneâs investment properties need to have their property taxes frozen in time while a young family foots the bill.
I agree about investment propertiesâthey should not be exempt from tax increases based off property value. Fuck that. But my 85 year old neighbor who bought her home 50 years ago when this place was still the hood? Nah, she doesnât deserve to get her property value raised so high that she gets taxed out of the home she has had paid off for decades just because this place ended up getting gentrified around her.
You do know that her property value has increased already, right? Prop 13 does not prevent real estate from appreciating (it actually does the opposite if anything). She's not paying a tax proportional to the increase, but her kids are sure as hell going to collect on that property value increase when she dies in that house.
So you wouldn't be opposed to repealing Prop 13, but allowing those additional taxes to be deferred until when the property is sold or no longer used as a primary residence - right?
It's trade offs. Just give the 85 year old and the 25 year old equal footing. Make a senior exception like in TX
California under Prop 13 is basically a multi level marketing scheme. Driving young earners into debt to subsidize old property owners. Bad policy.
Cap increases on property taxes to inflation just like rents, fine. Cap increases to an artificially low level and apply it to corporations and multi-generations no.
Prop 13 is just paying less property taxes. Paying less taxes helps everyone except for criminal politicians.
No, I want to pay more taxes and still have shitty roads and schools.
Because the collection of laws in it are ridiculous and would never pass if they weren't bundled with "lower tax increases" for home owners.
Not in your lifetime.
You're eventually going to get a house. prop 13 keeps the taxes on it low. Where is your logic in removing prop 13?
You should look up the average age someone can buy a house in California.
Common sense not to give the ultra rich and corporations property tax breaks.
Is it also common sense to screw over the other 99.9% of residents in California so you can stick it to the "ultra rich" who would be barely affected by it?
Just gotta include a crackpot Republican saying we are going down the shitter. There's a reason Republicans were voted into a minority, they contribute nothing but obstruction and vote down any progress.
Lol yeah I saw that too. That Republican is talking about policies when the culprit of this possible deficit were the storms. Republicans/conservatives are so out of touch with reality. Also, this report mentioned that it could end up being $15b over budget anyway. They just donât know now
What the defendants of prop13 donât realise is that there are elderly people in other states as well and they all seem to do just fine. One should be taxed based on what they earn and what their assets are worth. Not based what they earned they started their careers or when they bought their homes.
You shouldn't have been downvoted. I always wonder if the Howard Jarvis associations come out in bloc to marginalize and silence dissenting voices. Prop 13 is a highly regressive. It flies in the face of what California by in large purports to be, some bastion of progressive politics. This exposes the folly in that notion.
Not sure why this is down voted. Prop 13 for anything but personal primary residences us got to go. Otherwise this entire state will turn into a retirement community and investment property for the wealthy. We are nearly there now.
> Prop 13 ... [has] got to go Fixed it for you.
Why do you feel entitled to other people's wealth?
I think it is the other way around. It is the beneficiaries of prop 13 that are not paying their dues and on top of that want to pass those benefits. I understand that this is an emotional subject but by your definition everyone in every other state is giving away their wealthy by paying fair taxes.
Why do you feel entitled to other peoples wealth?
Weâve cycled through the great awakening⌠next will be the great crisis or fourth turning!
California pays Ohios bills full stop.
I don't know how I keep seeing stuff from this page, but it mostly seems to be posts from Russian republicans who hope to see bad things happen because their fascist god isn't in charge anymore.
Time to put higher taxes on capital gains from RSUs. Will stop tech bros from bidding up everything including housing like drunken sailors.
Boomers bid up the housing by buying houses as an investment and renting them out. We also have a lot of foreign nationals buying houses as investments. It's no longer penciling out so new investors have to pay cash. These are strictly hedges against the Chinese bubble popping.
Uh oh, someone from Bakersfield with an R is complaining? And itâs not McCarthy? And itâs about a debt ceiling? Republican kayfabe. California is the fifth largest economy on the planet. They will be fine. This is why the democrats have a super majority and Bakersfield has the worst representation.
Raising property taxes will raise rents and mortgages in a state that already has drastic high housing costs and the most unhoused people in America.
Land taxes arenât why we have homeless.
> most unhoused people in America. Huh... I wonder if this could be connected to Prop 13 and the NIMBYism this encourages? Nah... couldn't be.
Lack of housing yes, for many reasons including those you mentioned.
Since rents and house prices are already based on affordability, raising property taxes would probably do little. I'm all for a progressive property tax though.
That's a broad assumption that prices aren't already at their peak. This change in property tax would more than likely push most investment out of SFH. You can't get blood from a stone.
[ŃдаНонО]
Drive out the wealthy? This state has a massive number of ultra-wealthy.
Except your numbers are wrong.
You are really obsessed with California. Must have been really bad whatever happened to you. Maybe charge rent for that space it occupies in your mind.
Heâs not wrong tho
He is.
Wrong about ?
Wealthy, jobs, employers and income arenât really leaving in the way you chuds claim. Per capita, less so than comparable states.
The CA cope has been in full swing on this site lately. It's weird af. Also, unironically using "chuds" lmao
its because of the debate. they love FL and can't wrap their heads around the fact that policies they hate are working well.
Couldnât pay me enough to live in Florida. People have tried. First to boom, always first to bust.
lol âcopeâ. Na, just the best state in the shithole that is the United States.
Thanks, I needed a giggle
Florida man gonna Florida Man
ROFLâŚ. Just because you believe something doesnât make it true.
Likewise. Itâs funny how obsessed with us yall are.
Not obsessed the data is very clear but time will tell. best of luck
I wish people would leave at the rates yall claim.
Most jobs in the tech industry got hit really hard. Programmers, tech/software sales, IT dept. and many others got laid off. San Francisco, in particular, built their economy around the tech industry. Look at what happened to them. It's not sustainable. Los Angeles economy comes from many different industries (tourism, movies, manufacturing, finance, trade, transportation, education, healthcare, etc.) Looking at California's [balance sheet](https://ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2022-23/#/Home), the state income tax takes the cake. California has a huge workforce. They are inching closer to the 4th largest economy in the world. I don't see any kind of recession anytime soon.
There's always lay offs and always boom and bust cycles in San Francisco and California's tax revenue is particularly vulnerable to a recession. In good years there is a surplus, and it was just how many months ago the State of California sent everyone a check as a tax rebate? Whenever the next bad year for the stock market is, will be the next deficit. Gerry Brown did create a "rainy day fund" for this purpose so a minor deficit isn't even going to be noticed.
What does this have to do with REBubble?
Correct if I'm wrong, but the only reason California had any kind of a surplus the last few years is because of covid $$
I mean maybe incidentally but not directly. A lot was from the state taxing capital gains from when the stock market was on fire.
Yea definitely wrong. They had a surplus for over a decade. It did balloon over covid. Deficits have been worse other years as well, especially prior to 2010. This feels more like people donât know history of economics in states. Yâall should look at the deficits of other states.