FXLAX

The California constitution requires 2/3 majority vote to increase taxes. Until that passes or there is a constitutional amendment to change that, which also requires 2/3 vote, it’ll stay. But you are correct in that liberals keep trying. I’ve seen voter propositions put on the ballot to try to change it. Every two years it seems that they are trying to change that law.

CFI Guy

The Dems aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot. There is no support from either party nor their constituents. The people who actually go out and vote are older folks that own their homes. If they raise taxes on commercial properties then you'll see a ton of businesses shut down (less tax revenue), less jobs, and falling real estate values- no one likes that. And businesses that remain will pass on their increased costs to their customers causing inflation.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...-measure-taxes

"Proposition 13 may be practically untouchable. Legislators who must run for reelection in competitive districts fear danger in venturing near it, except to serve as protectors. Presumably their read on the districts they represent is that voters are saying hands off 13.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown understood that as well as anyone. Before he was elected to a third gubernatorial term in 2010, Brown told me: “Messing with 13 is a big fat loser.” And he didn’t."

RamenNoodles

No, I was just giving ShyGuy a hard time because he chooses to live in LA and complain about it when he could just as easily live in WA tax free, or commute from AZ. Obviously there is SOMETHING he likes because he has plenty of options elsewhere.

I have no problem with people that don’t like where they live making a move. I left the south because I didn’t like it. I certainly don’t trash talk the place though. No where else has biscuits like the south.

full of luv

Because I lived on a street with $800K houses +/- $500K depending on when you bought your house. I was in in at $700K and paid about $8000/yr in property tax after all the other "fees" were added to the 1% figure.

Neighbor across the street were in at the top (back in 2005) for $999K and struggled even as dual working yuppies, to pay their mortgage, and over $11K property tax bill. House beside me was owned by original owner from 1996 for $250K and was used as a rental with taxes locked in at less than $4K per year, their tenants rented the house for $3300/month in our neighborhood because of the good reputation and schools. (obviously this landlord was making a mint on a mostly paid off house and minimal taxes, good for them, but subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers).

We all lived within shouting distance of each other, all had kids in the same local elementary school and had the same police/fire etc. We all had houses that were within 100sq ft in size of each other and could have gone on the market almost interchangeably.

How is that system fair that the newer people buying the older houses are paying almost 3x as much property tax for the same services????

Before I get the old argument (but hey I bought my house with cash in 1982 and despite blowing out the budget for years, I don't want/can't afford to pay all the requisite taxes) I'll say do what they do in Oregon, allow seniors on fixed incomes to defer tax increases on their property until their eventual selling of the property. The county gets a tax lien but the seniors can stay without paying the additional property taxes until the house changes hands. Eventually their estate will make the county whole.

When you remove the taxpayer from the equation of what to spend tax money on you get the situation where everything just goes up with out due consideration.

FXLAX

Again, it’s fair because everyone would be treated the same. You tell me how it’s unfair to be treated exactly the same as anyone buying homes next to each other in the same year? The person buying a house today would be taxed the same rate as another person buying a different house today. A person who a house in 2005 was taxed at the same rate as another person that bought a different house in 2005. A person buying a house in 1982 was taxed at the same rate as a person buying a house today.

This isn’t a complicated concept. But I wouldn’t argue against the person buying a house today paying the same dollar amount as the person who bought that same house before.

Omniscient

Seriously a flimsy argument. Yes, everyone is paying the same “rate,” however their homes are assessed at a different value, a value that has nothing to do with the current value of the home, and people are not paying their equal share. Now people not paying their equal share should be on the state flag of California. Perhaps just an image of an open hand, palm facing up, printed on the flag.

Baradium

It seems really complicated for you. If someone buying a house today isn't treated the same as someone who bought it 15 years ago then it isn't fair. And no, not having increases from CURRENT is not "treated the same."

ShyGuy

Oh please. I’m here because my company closed the East coast base and the two options were SF or LA. Commuting to reserve at this place is a good way to never see your kids and end up heading towards divorce. I’m perma reserve right now. I couldn’t hold PDX or SEA until just very recently so we’ll see what happens next in terms of reductions and vacancies.

What’s wrong with complaining about CA? There are some legitimate complaints about California, many of which are well deserved.

full of luv

The person who bought in 1982 and rents out their house, the people who bought even just in 2007 during the last prices crash, can all vote to raise taxes with impunity because for the most part, they won't be affected because it's the newer homeowners who will be left holding and filling the bag.

Every time you buy into the CA market at its inflated (due to demand) prices, you are paying for the poor decisions of the past.

I rented my house out for years after I left, and enjoyed the same property tax savings that I cited before, for a decade before I decided to get out of the market. My tenants used the same school as my neighbors who "foolishly" had to pay 30% more property tax each year.

I understand the premise...... reward the long time residents and punish the newcomers, but with the growth in prices, it sets up a very inequitable situation in most neighborhoods around the state.

rickair7777

Recall that 13 was a proposition, ie a voter revolt against sacramento in the first place.

If Sac changes that unilaterally, I think there's a higher threshold to overturn a proposition compared to normal law. Also the voters might just do prop 13b the following Nov.


I could see that, but it would have to be well over $2M or their dragnet would catch too many of their base voters. There are people in NORCAL and SOCAL living very blue-collar lives in million $ + houses. And the only way many of them get to even stay in their hometown is by inheriting their parent's home.

Prop 13 happened for a reason, and the reason hasn't changed.