Reply
Super Contributor
madhaus
Posts: 334
Registered: ‎07-25-2011
0

Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

http://www.burbed.com/2011/10/23/prop-13-insidious-budget-cancer-or-fiscal-terrorist-threat/

 

Includes less-than-respectful response to less-than-impressive Prop 13 post on The SF Real Estate Blog (readership: 3, me and Bill Quick's mom and sister).  If you didn't read the Bloomberg piece on Prop 13 last week, you should, and here's why.

Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,021
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

[ Edited ]

The biggest consumers of the property tax revenue are the younger families with kids(for schools) moving in to new neighborhoods and paying the highest taxes. The older people, that never move, can keep their property taxes low. It is all about political power-- older established residents vote in high numbers, younger people vote irregularity and have no say in a community they haven't moved into,yet.

 

As far as commercial property tax rates --higher property tax means higher rents. That means the poorest people will be affected the most if apartment rents go up. There are no perfectly fair taxes. The only thing we know for sure is that the State government will continue to spend more than they have. Controlling taxes is the only way to control government spending. Government expenditures have grown at twice the national CPI rate. The people that supported Prop. 13 wanted to force the state to control its spending--Jerry Brown learned that over 30 years ago.

Super Contributor
madhaus
Posts: 334
Registered: ‎07-25-2011

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?


elt1 wrote:

The biggest consumers of the property tax revenue are the younger families with kids(for schools) moving in to new neighborhoods and paying the highest taxes. The older people, that never move, can keep their property taxes low. It is all about political power-- older established residents vote in high numbers, younger people vote irregularity and have no say in a community they haven't moved into,yet.

 

As far as commercial property tax rates --higher property tax means higher rents. That means the poorest people will be affected the most if apartment rents go up. There are no perfectly fair taxes. The only thing we know for sure is that the State government will continue to spend more than they have. Controlling taxes is the only way to control government spending. Government expenditures have grown at twice the national CPI rate. The people that supported Prop. 13 wanted to force the state to control its spending--Jerry Brown learned that over 30 years ago.


Ok, I'll put you down for "We don't need to pay more for schools than Alabama does."

Silver Super Contributor
Marcus76
Posts: 1,121
Registered: ‎08-04-2010

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

Will someone please address the real issue? Local spending has doubled over the last 10 years. That's far more than inflation. The number of students hasn't doubled. Teacher pay hasn't doubled. Why has spending doubled? Hint: look at the number of administrative staff and their salaries. These people are selling out the future of children to fatten their own wallets. They are increasing classroom sizes and cutting classroom budgets while increasing their pay and number of positions.

Imagine where spending would go if revenue wasn't limited. Of course everyone loves to blame long-term home owners and not the blatant mismanagement of tax revenue.

The numbers I've seen show California is one of the top spenders in dollars per student. Our schools are some of the worst. Something clearly needs to change.
Silver Trusted Contributor
Real_Estate
Posts: 940
Registered: ‎11-20-2010
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

This appears to be an ever-recurring debate ....

 

Your points are valid.  It would be helpful if you could summarize the top-line statistics.  Key numbers are:

 

Absolute spending - today vs. 10 years ago

 

Per capita student spending - today vs. 10 years ago

 

Per capita spending, ranking vs. other states - today vs. 10 years ago

Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,021
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

Madhaus-

 

I was not stating a position just the reality. Most of property tax goes for schools and younger home buyers get more benefits than seniors, from property tax, and pay higher taxes.

 

The problem with property tax funding of schools is that in a down economy the funding goes down. In the chart you showed California followed the national trends until our property values tanked in the last 5 years.

 

California is a high-tech state it should be looking at ways to teach at lower costs through technology not trying to over spend backward states teaching like they did 50 years ago. BTW, I think Alabama maybe a bad example for your argument. Huntsville has some of the smartest people in the country. California has probably the highest number of non-English speaking students of any state in the country. The federal government should pay it's fair share for the education of undocumented students.

Silver Contributor
OptimizedPrime
Posts: 452
Registered: ‎01-19-2010
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

Bad:

Out-of-control government spending, government-run boondoggles like our public schools.

 

Worse:

A tax system that corrupts investment and unfairly punishes a particular group of people who can least afford it.

 

Yes, spending is out of control, but people like their social safety net, and until you convince them to drop it, we're stuck with it.

 

Given that, we might as well not be doubly punished by a form of taxation that is bad for everybody (except rich old people) like Prop 13.

 

 

OP

 

Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,021
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?

The key to cutting spending costs is innovation. The whole way of teaching needs to be revamped. Maybe social networking can used as a teaching tool instead of just a gossip forum. Maybe use wikipedia as a model to increase student knowledge. Kids already know more than their teachers. The whole concept of top down learning where the teacher imparts knowledge to ignorant students is obsolete. They are not listening, just texting each other. Maybe schools themselves are obsolete.

 

Throwing more money at schools and mandating a lot of politically correct BS curricula is not working.

Super Contributor
madhaus
Posts: 334
Registered: ‎07-25-2011

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?


Marcus76 wrote:
Will someone please address the real issue? Local spending has doubled over the last 10 years. That's far more than inflation. The number of students hasn't doubled. Teacher pay hasn't doubled. Why has spending doubled? Hint: look at the number of administrative staff and their salaries. These people are selling out the future of children to fatten their own wallets. They are increasing classroom sizes and cutting classroom budgets while increasing their pay and number of positions.

Imagine where spending would go if revenue wasn't limited. Of course everyone loves to blame long-term home owners and not the blatant mismanagement of tax revenue.

The numbers I've seen show California is one of the top spenders in dollars per student. Our schools are some of the worst. Something clearly needs to change.

 

The numbers you've seen? I write a thousand word article with links up the wazoo, that in turn references a 2600 word piece I described as seminal, which has even more facts on these topics such as, oh per-student spending compared by state, and you respond by an allusion with no source to vague, mysterious "numbers you've seen"?

 

Are you fracking kidding me?

Super Contributor
SCGUY
Posts: 317
Registered: ‎04-11-2011
0

Re: Prop 13: Insidious Budget Cancer or Fiscal Terrorist Threat?


Marcus76 wrote:
Will someone please address the real issue? Local spending has doubled over the last 10 years. That's far more than inflation. The number of students hasn't doubled. Teacher pay hasn't doubled. Why has spending doubled? Hint: look at the number of administrative staff and their salaries. These people are selling out the future of children to fatten their own wallets. They are increasing classroom sizes and cutting classroom budgets while increasing their pay and number of positions.

Imagine where spending would go if revenue wasn't limited. Of course everyone loves to blame long-term home owners and not the blatant mismanagement of tax revenue.

The numbers I've seen show California is one of the top spenders in dollars per student. Our schools are some of the worst. Something clearly needs to change.


What data suggests staff numbers have increased and their salaries have increased at an unreasonable rate?  At our public school the non-teaching staff is at half of what it was seven years ago.  District staff has been reduced in similar fashion through normal attrition without back filling.  A family member volunteers on district personel commission and salaries have been stagnant for years and positions have been consolidated.