🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <linleyCsnro9.KCA@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) writes:
>In ye olden post broudy@mizar.usc.edu (David S. Broudy) spake...
>>In article <2vka8k$4r@crl.crl.com>
>>dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:

>>> It's because of Prop 13.  Counties can no longer count on property tax 

>Oh please. Prop 13 is a godsend. It's meant to protect fixed-income (usually
>retired) people who who would be otherwise taxed out of their house because
>the house they bought in 1967 increased in value from $20,000 to $200,000.
>This lets people plan their retirement and not have to worry about what kind
>of bill the gov't is going to hand them next year.

>People who whine about prop 13 will be singing a different tune when their
>property value goes up substantially (if they hold onto their home that long).
>BTW, with the recent dipping of property values in CA, people who bought their
>homes in the 80s are paying _more_ in prop tax than they should because of
>prop 13, but the liberal press neglects that little factoid and I suspect that
>you could care less about that. 

Wrong. The "liberal press" has actually pretty broadly reported on how
people who have had property values decline can get their homes
reassessed and get their property taxes lowered. Of course
acknowledging that would ruin your theory. The current property tax
laws have ended up transferring the bulk of the property tax burden to
residential property (commercial property tends to change hands less
frequently than residential). That sure sounds like it's protecting
fixed-income (usually retired) people. There was a book published by
the L.A. Times which actually goes into great detail on the affects of
Prop 13. Of course, it's published by the liberal media and so can be
dismissed out of hand.

>Prop 13 bashers are a bunch of snotty jealous
>impatient whiners who can't stand the fact that they are not instantly
>enjoying the benefits of 20-year homeowners. These people _invested_ in their
>future and are now enjoying the benefits that (waaaaaaa!) you want now or
>spitefully want to deprive them of (the f***-you-too mentality).

How about those of us who disapprove of the 2/3 rule for tax
increases. A plurality of just over 1/3 of those voting (which
translates to an even smaller fraction of potential voters) can
prevent the will of the majority from being affected to provide local
funding for schools, police, parks, etc. Check the abovementioned book
for details on how many tax referenda have passed since Prop 13. I
thought one of the ideas behind democracy was majority rules. Oops, I
guess not.

There was a problem with the property tax system in how it worked
during the rapid increases in real estate values in California during
the 70s. Prop 13 was not the best solution. Your claim of protection
for retirees is spurious. A common action on the part of retirees is
to sell their home and buy a smaller one (which is the reason for the
one-time exemption on capital gains on a home sale for persons over
age 55), freeing up some of the capital in their home. Oops, they're
suddenly paying higher taxes. 

Can you really say that it's right that the person who lives 2 doors
down from me and lives in an identical house, but bought it 10 years
ago is paying less in property tax? I'd imagine that their income is
just as great as mine, maybe more. They likely have more disposable
income because their mortgage payments are lower. We'll ignore the
apartment complex a block away which has an effective property tax
rate in the neighborhood of 1/5 of mine. Good thing they're being
protected, no? We'll also ignore the school that lies between my house
and the apartment complex with the trailers in the playground because
only 60% of the residents of Claremont voted yes on Prop A to raise
taxes to provide additional funding for the local school district.
Because, after all, "Prop 13 is a godsend." 

Certainly wasn't sent by my God.

-dh

--
Don Hosek                                       "The Only Solution is Love"
Quixote Digital Typography                                    -Dorothy Day
Publishers of _Serif: The Magazine of Type and Typography_
909-621-1291                                  Current reading: _Printing 
FAX: 909-625-1342                             Types_ (Updike), _Miriam's
dhosek@quixote.com                            Tambourine_ (Schwartz)