When, back in 1978-1980, inflation and Social Security checks increased by 11% a year, and property taxes were capped at 2% a year - this has nothing to do with limiting property taxes so they are affordable.  This has entirely to do with shifting the tax burden away from long-term homeowners.

My guess is those that want Prop13 repealed are those that don’t remember how bad it was prior to Prop 13.

There were two big problems

1.     Anytime the state or county wanted more money, they would just raise taxes. Nobody had any say. If they decided to fund some pet project, they would just up the tax rate or (usually) the assessed value. The county assessor would value the house greater, sometimes far greater, than it was worth. Complaints were unheeded.

2.     There was so much corruption,. Many assessors were on the take. You bribe the guy and maybe your house isn’t assessed so much

When Howard Jarvis (et al) put together their Prop 13, it won easily. People were tired of being the piggybank for politicians.

Today, the property taxes are fairly predictable. When you buy a house, you know how much you are going to pay in property tax. You know it will only increase, at most 2% per year. This stability is needed, especially for people on fixed incomes. Inflation etc do not apply equally. But to have property taxes double and triple in a few years forced a lot of people out of their homes.

In 1978, we told Sacramento, stop overspending. They were told how much revenue they were going to get. Thirty three years later, they are finally getting the message but they are trying to blame Prop 13. It is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. There were plenty of high dollar sales recently yet they didn’t take the extra revenue and save it for a rainy day. THEY SPENT IT. They will spend whatever they have and still want more! Now they are out of money and are trying to insinuate it is Prop 13’s fault. Nope

---

DowntownVentura wrote:

 

Today, the property taxes are fairly predictable. When you buy a house, you know how much you are going to pay in property tax. You know it will only increase, at most 2% per year. This stability is needed, especially for people on fixed incomes. Inflation etc do not apply equally. But to have property taxes double and triple in a few years forced a lot of people out of their homes.

 

---

Herein lies the problem - very few people (if any) are on truly fixed incomes.  Most people who are on "fixed incomes" are those living off of pensions, such as social security.  Social Security is not completely fixed, it can go up each year with a cost of living adjustment tied to inflation.

My suggestion would be that the maximum property taxes can increase be changed from 2% to whatever the social security cola is in a given year.  If the goal is to help those who live month to month on Social Security income - this would in effect accomplish that by raising their taxes by no more than the government raises their income.  Since the social security cola is typically above 2%, restricting it to 2% means their incomes grow faster than property taxes rise - this was especially true in 1978 - 1980 when social security cola was 11% per year!

If you restrict property tax increases for current owners to be less than social security cola, you're not making it neutral to them, you're actually helping them at the expense of other taxpayers and future homeowners.

---

Bruin99 wrote:

---

DowntownVentura wrote:

 

Today, the property taxes are fairly predictable. When you buy a house, you know how much you are going to pay in property tax. You know it will only increase, at most 2% per year. This stability is needed, especially for people on fixed incomes. Inflation etc do not apply equally. But to have property taxes double and triple in a few years forced a lot of people out of their homes.

 

---

Herein lies the problem - very few people (if any) are on truly fixed incomes.  Most people who are on "fixed incomes" are those living off of pensions, such as social security.  Social Security is not completely fixed, it can go up each year with a cost of living adjustment tied to inflation.

 

My suggestion would be that the maximum property taxes can increase be changed from 2% to whatever the social security cola is in a given year.  If the goal is to help those who live month to month on Social Security income - this would in effect accomplish that by raising their taxes by no more than the government raises their income.  Since the social security cola is typically above 2%, restricting it to 2% means their incomes grow faster than property taxes rise - this was especially true in 1978 - 1980 when social security cola was 11% per year!

 

If you restrict property tax increases for current owners to be less than social security cola, you're not making it neutral to them, you're actually helping them at the expense of other taxpayers and future homeowners.

---

I am glad that nobody in Sacramento will be listening to your suggestions. I have a suggestion...stop spending so much money in Sacramento then you won't have to search for sombody to screw with higher taxes.

---

TrabucoDom wrote:

I am glad that nobody in Sacramento will be listening to your suggestions. I have a suggestion...stop spending so much money in Sacramento then you won't have to search for sombody to screw with higher taxes.

---

It should be quite apparent to everyone in the state that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Money is the root of all evil - nothing sums it up better. Our country is run by a few politicians who couldn't give a crap about anything but their own agendas - after all, no matter what, they still get their big fat salaries and pensions, so why should they care if the rest of the country falls apart around them? They're still getting PAID! The public school system is a joke, college has become completely unaffordable, there are no jobs, health care benefits are a joke (most of us are one step away from financial ruin should we become sick or injured and require major care or hospitalization) and so on and so forth - but no matter what the politicians get paid and that pay never goes away and never goes down - and that right there ladies and gentleman is the only thing they actually care about!

So where can we move that there is no money?  Or politicians. 

Seems that compared to many places in the world, I think we have it pretty good. 

I agree Adam - it's still frustrating to watch what our country has become though.

---

GEAH wrote:

 

It should be quite apparent to everyone in the state that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
...

---

I've heard this millions of times from Republicans on TV and radio so I'm not exactly shocked to hear it but I've never had an opportunity to ask:

What does it mean? From a mathematical perspective "deficit = spending - revenue" so I assume that's not what you mean. Are you simply expressing your opinion that we are spending too much on social (or other) programs? If it's your opinion, how is it apparent to everyone else?