4 ms·

You have to remember, though, that Proposition 13 has overt racism as part of its history; people like to go on about "tax revolts" and citizens reacting agains

You have to remember, though, that Proposition 13 has overt racism as part of its history; people like to go on about "tax revolts" and citizens reacting against over-taxation, but it was pushed as a centerpiece of reactionary measures after California's courts refused to allow various attempts at maintaining indirect racial segregation of schools, and ordered redistribution of funding between school districts. Proposition 13, by gutting the property tax (which was the primary source of school funding), was the final end-run around courts which increasingly would not allow vastly unequal schools for children of different races. Today, there's no good argument for it. "I moved here a few years earlier than you did" is not a sound basis for different levels of taxation. If you want to protect elderly owner-occupiers from being priced out of their long-time homes, you can accomplish that goal with other measures.

sbuttgereit 8y ago
The original minimum wage laws were born of overt racism. I assume you don't mean to dismantle them with this line of argumentation? Or do you? So far, I have heard that Prop 13 was really about landlords and corporations (different comment in this thread) and now it's about racism. In my neighborhood, disproportionately long term minorities would be effected more under your proposal of dismantling Prop 13 and landlords and corporations don't rent out of charity... they'd raise rents to cover taxes so ultimately renters cover that cost anyway. I wonder what other boogeymen and tropes we're going to trot out to rationalize opposition to Prop 13 rather than get to the heart of the matter. It's very easy to speak out against something and to rally both emotion and self-righteous indignation against someone you oppose... but much harder to convince someone that what you stand for is right. Tell you what; I'll join you in the cry to demolish Prop 13... but only is so far as it means paying for the infrastructural costs that a property tax might be construed to be proper to fund. So we take the operating costs of fire, police, sewer, water, roads... you get the gist, for the year passed and only their existing programs, add an amount the equal to the annual rate of inflation, and the charge me for the coming year my pro rata share of those costs on a square footage basis... which is more reflective of what my household consumes than its market value, arguably you could also put a head count in there, too. If you wanted to expand essential services, do that via automatic existing program expansion/retraction based on changes in population or a vote of the property owners that fund them. If you want to include renters in that vote, fine, but then measures like rent control or other protection of those renters from the financial reality they vote on the property owners is out: no skin in the game, no voice. No? Then tell us really why you want this and really what you stand for.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  No? Then tell us really why you want this and really what you stand for. So if I'm against Proposition 13 I must have some sinister motive I'm unwilling to admit to? I've stated clearly that if your goal is to protect elderly owner-occupiers, there are plenty of ways to do it that aren't Proposition 13. And your proposal is basically the "last year's budget locks in next year's" model that's known to cause all sorts of perverse incentives in organizations that use it, both in the public and the private sector. So that doesn't really seem like a good fit. Plus, it feels motivated by the sort of "I want the services but don't want to pay taxes to get them" mentality that so often causes trouble. And seeing as how increased overhead (in the form of taxes) gets passed on to renters, your assertion that renters don't have "skin in the game" is factually false. Do you actually have anything to offer? Perhaps you should tell us what you really stand for, hm?

sbuttgereit 8y ago

The original minimum wage laws were born of overt racism. I assume you don't mean to dismantle them with this line of argumentation? Or do you? So far, I have heard that Prop 13 was really about landlords and corporations (different comment in this thread) and now it's about racism. In my neighborhood, disproportionately long term minorities would be effected more under your proposal of dismantling Prop 13 and landlords and corporations don't rent out of charity... they'd raise rents to cover taxes so ultimately renters cover that cost anyway. I wonder what other boogeymen and tropes we're going to trot out to rationalize opposition to Prop 13 rather than get to the heart of the matter. It's very easy to speak out against something and to rally both emotion and self-righteous indignation against someone you oppose... but much harder to convince someone that what you stand for is right. Tell you what; I'll join you in the cry to demolish Prop 13... but only is so far as it means paying for the infrastructural costs that a property tax might be construed to be proper to fund. So we take the operating costs of fire, police, sewer, water, roads... you get the gist, for the year passed and only their existing programs, add an amount the equal to the annual rate of inflation, and the charge me for the coming year my pro rata share of those costs on a square footage basis... which is more reflective of what my household consumes than its market value, arguably you could also put a head count in there, too. If you wanted to expand essential services, do that via automatic existing program expansion/retraction based on changes in population or a vote of the property owners that fund them. If you want to include renters in that vote, fine, but then measures like rent control or other protection of those renters from the financial reality they vote on the property owners is out: no skin in the game, no voice. No? Then tell us really why you want this and really what you stand for.

ubernostrum 8y ago
No? Then tell us really why you want this and really what you stand for. So if I'm against Proposition 13 I must have some sinister motive I'm unwilling to admit to? I've stated clearly that if your goal is to protect elderly owner-occupiers, there are plenty of ways to do it that aren't Proposition 13. And your proposal is basically the "last year's budget locks in next year's" model that's known to cause all sorts of perverse incentives in organizations that use it, both in the public and the private sector. So that doesn't really seem like a good fit. Plus, it feels motivated by the sort of "I want the services but don't want to pay taxes to get them" mentality that so often causes trouble. And seeing as how increased overhead (in the form of taxes) gets passed on to renters, your assertion that renters don't have "skin in the game" is factually false. Do you actually have anything to offer? Perhaps you should tell us what you really stand for, hm?