🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <linleyCsv3uw.7D8@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) writes:
>In ye olden post J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) spake...
>>linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) writes:
>>>In ye olden post J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) spake...
>>>>example:  my parents and me in 1992:
>>>>
>>>>                                   ME                     MOM AND DAD
>>>>
>>>>Square feet of home owned         740                       ~1600
>>>>[...]
>>>>Market value, 1992             $110,000                    $240,000
>>>>[...]
>>>>Annual property tax, 1992        $1,200                       $600 (est)
>>>
>>>What was the purchase price of each?
>
>[Still waiting for an answer]
>
>>Why does that matter?  The property tax is a *recurring* tax on *property*.
>
>It matters because the market value of property is complete _out_of_the_
>_homeowner's_control_. Consequently, the homeowner should be protected
>against any subsequent real estate price gouging/fixing that would otherwise
>jeopardize the stability of all homeowners (gee will I still be able to live
>here and work here next year, or will I have to bail out and sell and find a
>new job elsewhere to make way for the rich?). This is why the tax must be
>tied to the purchase price, just as your income tax (another recurring tax)
>is based on your income (_your_ purchase price for a years worth of work).

I really hesitate to get into this argument, I don't know that much about
it, but I believe that CA is the only state which taxes property this way.
Is that totally off the wall?  Every other state I've lived in regularly
reassesses property value to determine taxation.  I don't mean this as a
flame, I'd just like some additional input on the "fairness" of Prop 13,
specifically if anyone knows about other states' tax laws.
>Or would you prefer if some third party later decides the work you did at
>your job after you retire was worth 10 times more than you were paid and
>taxed you accoringly? Rediculous, eh? Well, so is the anti-prop-13 argument.
>Of course, said example is not a perfect analogy with property tax, but it
>does illustrate the illogic of taxing something already purchased based on
>it's current worth. Nothing else is taxed quite like property. It is uniquely
>taxed, and as such requires special regulation of that tax, i.e. prop 13.
>
>>[Now came the inflammitory portion of the post]
>>"investing in themselves" or something like that.  I claim that they have
>>"invested" $4.5 trillion (on the federal level) of their children's and
>>grandchildren's money for their own homes, cars, and retirements.  And it will
>>be the young people--who today deal with no jobs, impossible housing costs and
>>little hope--who will have to pay the bill for something they only barely
>>benefitted from.
>
>[counter inflammitory portion of post]
>And yet we're all still here and life still goes on and all those new houses
>and condos are still being sold as fast as they can build them, no doubt
>bought by people without jobs and without cars and no hope who got crappy
>educations because their schools sucked. Quick! Run for the hills!
>
>-- 
>Bruce James Robert Linley  ----  linley@netcom.com  ----  Amateur radio: KE6EQZ
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "Another visitor. Stay a while.... Stay FOREVER!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-


-- 
Janet Tilander
Chevron Overseas Petroleum
San Ramon, CA