4 ms·

Ex-native here. TX isn't anything like what it was before the Bible Belt migrated in and took over the suburbs/electorate. Too bad Texas is too progressive to

Ex-native here. TX isn't anything like what it was before the Bible Belt migrated in and took over the suburbs/electorate. Too bad Texas is too progressive to have a Prop 13 - I can't go back anywhere in TX w/o people whinging about their property taxes or toll road fees.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
Prop 13 is what ruined California. Not only did it institute rent control for property owners with all its associated problems, but it also tied the hands of legislators for funding government programs, directly leading to the initiative-based rigid monstrosity of a state budget California suffers from today.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  Economic growth in California happens in places with a lot of new construction and a robust real estate market, where each real estate transaction resets the assessment price. In some areas of California the prices still haven't recovered to the pre-housing crash levels. You'd only get significant advantage from Prop 13 if you bought during the 80s and held. While there are some places like that (Berkeley?) the state is hardly over-populated by elderly people clinging to their 40+ year old housing.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    You ignored the main detrimental effects of Prop 13 I described in my comment and addressed only the rent control aspect.
    - prostoalex 9y ago
      How did it tie the hands of the legislators?
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        Any new taxes, even revenue neutral ones, or increases in existing taxes require a 2/3 majority vote in both houses, which was essentially impossible until very recently. A consequence is that loss of revenue from one source could not be made up by taxing other sources. Conservatives even tried to argue that Cap and Trade was a new tax and was not allowed by Prop 13: http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal-confirms-california-cap-and-trade-is-not-a-tax/ http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal-confirms-.... The only way to fund new programs was by ballot initiative, which requires a simple majority vote. Ballot initiatives don't pass unless all funds are earmarked for the specified program, even if revenues for the proposed tax or costs of the proposed program change over time. Ballot initiatives that issue bonds are even more likely to pass because they don't require an immediate tax increase. The result of a few decades of Prop 13 is California's ongoing budget problems with high taxes and poor allocation of revenues.
        prostoalex 9y ago
        It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names. It is still circumvented (Mello-Roos, special assessments, bond measures which shift the bond payments to a special tax that acts as a property taxes, but is not called one, versus servicing payments through property taxes revenue) but through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms. The broader goal was to limit the maintenance costs. Areas with no new residential construction and no changes in ownership would experience predictable rise in maintenance expenses. Areas with high growth will have modern-day assessments and be able to operate at higher budgets necessary for higher growth. It's the case with any other industry that has cost-of-living adjustments. Why shouldn't it be the case with public finance?
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        > It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names. No, property taxes are local. Prop 13 tied the hands of the state government. Prop 218 then applied the same shackles to local governments, which ensured that California would see the wave of municipal bankruptcies during the great recession and which prevented local governments from switching to progressive water usage rates during the drought. > through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms. The only feasible route that is allowed is ballot initiative, which is why we're in this mess. Every other state and local government in the country has a representative democracy that allows its representatives to manage state taxes and budget.
  - krrrh 9y ago
    Prop 13 tax rates can also be passed on to family members if they purchase or inherit the house. It’s a great deal for those who can take advantage of it, but it is also unfair and decreases mobility.
- hindsightbias 9y ago
  Property owners voted for Prop 13 and knew what they were getting. Few, if any, would change their vote. I've seen the past and I see Texas' future - they'll either go to an initiative system or income tax. Check back in 10 years.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    > and knew what they were getting The discussion in the sibling thread shows that this isn't the case.
- masonic 9y ago
  Not only did it institute rent control No. Prop 13 did no such thing.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    > for property owners Keep reading. Then look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

lern_too_spel 9y ago

Prop 13 is what ruined California. Not only did it institute rent control for property owners with all its associated problems, but it also tied the hands of legislators for funding government programs, directly leading to the initiative-based rigid monstrosity of a state budget California suffers from today.

prostoalex 9y ago
Economic growth in California happens in places with a lot of new construction and a robust real estate market, where each real estate transaction resets the assessment price. In some areas of California the prices still haven't recovered to the pre-housing crash levels. You'd only get significant advantage from Prop 13 if you bought during the 80s and held. While there are some places like that (Berkeley?) the state is hardly over-populated by elderly people clinging to their 40+ year old housing.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  You ignored the main detrimental effects of Prop 13 I described in my comment and addressed only the rent control aspect.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    How did it tie the hands of the legislators?
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      Any new taxes, even revenue neutral ones, or increases in existing taxes require a 2/3 majority vote in both houses, which was essentially impossible until very recently. A consequence is that loss of revenue from one source could not be made up by taxing other sources. Conservatives even tried to argue that Cap and Trade was a new tax and was not allowed by Prop 13: http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal-confirms-california-cap-and-trade-is-not-a-tax/ http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal-confirms-.... The only way to fund new programs was by ballot initiative, which requires a simple majority vote. Ballot initiatives don't pass unless all funds are earmarked for the specified program, even if revenues for the proposed tax or costs of the proposed program change over time. Ballot initiatives that issue bonds are even more likely to pass because they don't require an immediate tax increase. The result of a few decades of Prop 13 is California's ongoing budget problems with high taxes and poor allocation of revenues.
      - prostoalex 9y ago
        It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names. It is still circumvented (Mello-Roos, special assessments, bond measures which shift the bond payments to a special tax that acts as a property taxes, but is not called one, versus servicing payments through property taxes revenue) but through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms. The broader goal was to limit the maintenance costs. Areas with no new residential construction and no changes in ownership would experience predictable rise in maintenance expenses. Areas with high growth will have modern-day assessments and be able to operate at higher budgets necessary for higher growth. It's the case with any other industry that has cost-of-living adjustments. Why shouldn't it be the case with public finance?
        lern_too_spel 9y ago
        > It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names. No, property taxes are local. Prop 13 tied the hands of the state government. Prop 218 then applied the same shackles to local governments, which ensured that California would see the wave of municipal bankruptcies during the great recession and which prevented local governments from switching to progressive water usage rates during the drought. > through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms. The only feasible route that is allowed is ballot initiative, which is why we're in this mess. Every other state and local government in the country has a representative democracy that allows its representatives to manage state taxes and budget.
- krrrh 9y ago
  Prop 13 tax rates can also be passed on to family members if they purchase or inherit the house. It’s a great deal for those who can take advantage of it, but it is also unfair and decreases mobility.
hindsightbias 9y ago
Property owners voted for Prop 13 and knew what they were getting. Few, if any, would change their vote. I've seen the past and I see Texas' future - they'll either go to an initiative system or income tax. Check back in 10 years.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  > and knew what they were getting The discussion in the sibling thread shows that this isn't the case.
masonic 9y ago
Not only did it institute rent control No. Prop 13 did no such thing.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  > for property owners Keep reading. Then look up "analogy" in the dictionary.