5 ms·

> they would enact a land-value tax and establish a redistributive policy They can't bring themselves to mention Proposition 13, somehow.

by _jal 8y ago

zenkat 8y ago
Prop 13 isn't really in the control of SF city residents. But damn, California ... time to put that wealth-transfer tax for the old, rich, landed elite to bed already.
- viscanti 8y ago
  They've made millions from the appreciation of their houses, but they are still active in preventing new housing to try to juice their returns even more. It's a problem of how many Americans see their house as their biggest investment (and if you were a granny who bought in California 50 years ago it likely is). So naturally these wealthy landowners who bought property decades ago are going to fight to preserve their investment, but like the article points out, they're actually slowly killing their investment.
epistasis 8y ago
Repeal of Prop 13 would be implicit in any land value tax, so not mentioning it is a severe deficiency of understanding the power of San Francisco to properly govern itself. Prop 13, despite benefitting landlords and commercial property owners more than homeowners, has an unfair reputation of keeping "grannies" in their homes in face of unfair taxation. Mention repeal of Prop 13 for commercial property, and even otherwise sensible people will start saying how heartless it is to ignore the plight of grannies, since this inappropriate connection is so strong in the collective psyche.
perpetualpatzer 8y ago
Sorry, not familiar with CA politics ... is the subtext here that a land-value tax would be impossible without a constitutional amendment? Or that California already enacted a 1% ad valorem tax in the 70s? From what I can tell, Prop 13 seems generally popular[0], but could see an argument that it exacerbates the housing shortage in the Bay Area, so not sure which way you're pointing. [0] https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-january-2019.pdf https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-surve...
- _jal 8y ago
  That is my point, yes. And doing so is essentially impossible. It is popular among property owners, who have a huge interest in defeating any attack on it. (It was also slightly amusing to see a history-free call for more taxation in that particular rag, given tribal affiliations.) It does drive up housing costs. It also distorts commercial transactions weakens, local control, and generally casts a large shadow over, well, any conversation about taxation and anything taxation touches (like real estate) in California.
  - perpetualpatzer 8y ago
    gotcha. Thanks for the reply.
SilasX 8y ago
Yeah, it's an unfair criticism to ask them why they aren't levying a tax they're constitutionally prohibited from. With that said, it's reasonable to expect them to propose reforms to prop 13 that preserve its core intent but cut back on the death spiral it encourages.

> they would enact a land-value tax and establish a redistributive policy They can't bring themselves to mention Proposition 13, somehow.

by _jal 8y ago

> they would enact a land-value tax and establish a redistributive policy They can't bring themselves to mention Proposition 13, somehow.

zenkat 8y ago

Prop 13 isn't really in the control of SF city residents. But damn, California ... time to put that wealth-transfer tax for the old, rich, landed elite to bed already.

viscanti 8y ago
They've made millions from the appreciation of their houses, but they are still active in preventing new housing to try to juice their returns even more. It's a problem of how many Americans see their house as their biggest investment (and if you were a granny who bought in California 50 years ago it likely is). So naturally these wealthy landowners who bought property decades ago are going to fight to preserve their investment, but like the article points out, they're actually slowly killing their investment.

epistasis 8y ago

Repeal of Prop 13 would be implicit in any land value tax, so not mentioning it is a severe deficiency of understanding the power of San Francisco to properly govern itself. Prop 13, despite benefitting landlords and commercial property owners more than homeowners, has an unfair reputation of keeping "grannies" in their homes in face of unfair taxation. Mention repeal of Prop 13 for commercial property, and even otherwise sensible people will start saying how heartless it is to ignore the plight of grannies, since this inappropriate connection is so strong in the collective psyche.

perpetualpatzer 8y ago

Sorry, not familiar with CA politics ... is the subtext here that a land-value tax would be impossible without a constitutional amendment? Or that California already enacted a 1% ad valorem tax in the 70s? From what I can tell, Prop 13 seems generally popular[0], but could see an argument that it exacerbates the housing shortage in the Bay Area, so not sure which way you're pointing. [0] https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-january-2019.pdf https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-surve...

_jal 8y ago
That is my point, yes. And doing so is essentially impossible. It is popular among property owners, who have a huge interest in defeating any attack on it. (It was also slightly amusing to see a history-free call for more taxation in that particular rag, given tribal affiliations.) It does drive up housing costs. It also distorts commercial transactions weakens, local control, and generally casts a large shadow over, well, any conversation about taxation and anything taxation touches (like real estate) in California.
- perpetualpatzer 8y ago
  gotcha. Thanks for the reply.

SilasX 8y ago

Yeah, it's an unfair criticism to ask them why they aren't levying a tax they're constitutionally prohibited from. With that said, it's reasonable to expect them to propose reforms to prop 13 that preserve its core intent but cut back on the death spiral it encourages.