🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <linleyCt2JAq.9AC@netcom.com>,
Bruce James Robert Linley <linley@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>No one 'gets richer' until they _sell_ the house. Where is the homeowner
>supposed to get the extra maney from to pay the tax increases if he/she
>does not want to move and stays put?

Refinance the house.  Or, in some cases, take advantage of a state
program that allow taxes to be deferred until the house is sold.

>Prop 13 is being 'demonized' as the mother of all school problems. Nevermind
>the population increases, and high-density housing which packs more people
>into each taxable square foot of property.

Property tax is the primary source of income for most school districts.
Prop 13 attacks that funding source directly.  The situation is not
helped by the fact that school budgets are the only government spending
over which voters have complete control, so they wind up taking the
brunt of taxpayer resentment.

>What about the Lottery money that was supposed to help the schools?
>Or has that money simply replaced an equal amount of money previously
>given to schools.

It "replaced" a larger amount previously given to schools.

>What about the UC and Cal State
>schools which are not funded by property tax? They've gotten worse and more
>expensive too. Clearly something other than prop 13 is responsible here.

Schools are not the only service that were previously funded primarily
by property taxes.  The state is spending billions a year to help
cities and counties provide other necessary services: police, courts,
health, firefighting.  Some of this is at the expense of the state
colleges and universities.

>Maybe it's the 550,000 lost jobs (and lost state income tax) caused by all
>the defense cuts? Nah, let's just blame prop 13 for everything, or better yet,
>let's help the schools by kicking people out of their houses. Yeah, that's
>the ticket.

Nah, let's charge newcomers five times as much tax as their neighbors,
to make the tax system fairer for those who have received the windfall
paper profits.

>>About your [deleted] prop 13 defense: if the purchase price is the "correct"
>>price, then why is there a provision in prop 13 that allows you to reduce
>>you tax basis to market value if market value is less than  purchase price?
>
>All geared to protect homeowners, in this case, those homeowners who bought
>in an expensive market and now need a break in these economically difficult
>times.

But the market price is not the correct price for those who bought
when prices were low?  Is the purpose of the tax system to protect
particular fortunate classes or to equitably share the burden of
running the state?

Left unsaid in all this is the fact that the biggest obstacle to
anti-13 tax reform is the huge benefit Prop 13 provides to big
businesses that have long-held real estate.  Homeowners are
willing pawns on this issue, but a big chuink of the benefits (and the
state's budget deficit) go elsewhere.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu