6 ms·

The central dysfunction of California governance is Proposition 13, the worst law in the state, if not the world.

by jfb 6y ago

mdorazio 6y ago
Prop 13 is the strongest argument against the entire proposition system. If you give voters direct democracy power, they love to vote in their own self-interest, future problems be damned. I guess it's a system that perfectly matches the "Generation Me" voters that have driven it for decades.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  It works both ways though. When it is a gun safety issue on the ballot (see Washington state ballot measures over the past years) the people are letting the government know that they want fewer guns in society. I suppose it is special interest groups pressuring politicians that prevent them from enacting certain bills popular with the public. Ballot measures seem to be a check on that.
- notJim 6y ago
  I think the real problem with those systems is that it's relatively easy for a well-funded group or person to influence the outcome or outright abuse the system to their own ends. Pay canvassers ridiculous rates per signature to get it on the ballot, then flood the airwaves with ads supporting your preferred position. If your opponents aren't as well-funded, the deck is stacked against them.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    The petitioners can also just wage wars of attrition. There's no cooling-off period, so they can just go to the ballot again and again until their junk finally passes, and they can even add one-way moats to their amendments such that they can pass with bare majorities but require supermajorities to amend.
- jfb 6y ago
  I agree that the proposition system, whatever purpose it may have served to rein in the railroads BITD, is now a horrible destructive anachronism; but I don't think you need to make a moral argument against Prop 13; a purely functional one works just as well. Proposition 13 has crippled all polities below the state level -- the reason that California has budgets determined almost exclusively by constitutional amendment is that local governments have no funding authority to speak of. So what could be localized solutions to problems become statewide, and ill-fitting, and you end up with basically no discretionary financial ability at the state level.
klipt 6y ago
Remember to vote yes on Prop 15 this year to repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties! It's not perfect but it's better than nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15
- ghouse 6y ago
  I'll be voting against it. Prop 15 will make it more difficult to fix Prop 13.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Prop 15 will make it more difficult to fix Prop 13 This "if I don't get what I want, nobody does" political strategy reminds me of the Author's Guild's battle with Google over Book Search [1]. The principle problem of politics is priority. When roadblocks to incrementalism and compromise are thrown up, it's more likely for the problem to be branded as unsolvable for a generation than it is for everyone to come back together to work out a grand solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
  - klipt 6y ago
    Are you sure? Currently commercial owners have incentive to lobby to keep Prop 13, but if 15 passes they'd no longer have skin in the game, which should reduce Prop 13's defence warchest.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I agree, Prop. 15 seems specifically designed to dissipate the momentum behind Prop. 13 reform. I also strenuously disagree with the idea of statically allocating tax revenues to enumerated purposes in constitutional amendments that the legislature can't change.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    I'm curious as to why you think that? I'm a big supporter of Prop 15, and would like to see 13 repealed (despite the many thousands of dollars a year it saves me). How will 15 hurt a further repeal of 13?
ghouse 6y ago
The (presumably) unintended consequences of Prop 13 are numerous, and with the passage of time, are increasing. For example, the supply of houses is suppressed because selling ones house and purchasing a new one comes with an increased tax bill. Need to move for a job? Want a smaller house after the kids have moved out? That comes with a tax penalty.
- Domenic_S 6y ago
  Not always. > Propositions 60/90 amended section 2 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution to allow a person who is over age 55 to sell his or her principal place of residence and transfer its base year value to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value that is purchased or newly constructed within two years of the sale. These propositions are implemented by Revenue and Taxation Code section 69.5. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm
- jmspring 6y ago
  At the time, it was needed, and I think there is an aspect of the caps that is also needed given how much the state desires to tax pretty much everything it can. The business ownership of property aspect of Prop 13 should be addressed. I'd be fine with Prop 13 going by the wayside if there was a way to reign in taxes in CA across the board - won't happen.
- ghouse 6y ago
  And the suppressed supply leads to further price increase. And that feedback loop only further increases the tax penalty for moving. On top of that, when you die, if your children inherit the property, they keep the Prop 13 tax basis (and then the federal government increases the investment basis to the fair market value at the time of death). Best of both worlds! (but horrible public policy)
  - njarboe 6y ago
    Prop 13 is slowly recreating a feudal land-holding aristocracy in California. In feudal Europe the aristocracy did not pay taxes on land in exchange for fighting and providing other knights in times of war(a bit of simplification). Other land holders had to pay tax on land. Give California a few more generations or a period of high inflation/hyper-inflation and the situation in California will be similar without the fight for the King occasionally obligation.
arcticbull 6y ago
I just learned that Prop 13 was actually a constitutional amendment to limit property taxes. I've lost my ability to even. That's such an abuse of the constitution.
- Domenic_S 6y ago
  The US Constitution enumerates the ability to levy taxes; why would related rules be inappropriate for a state constitution?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Constitutions are for big things, like, freedom of speech. Not for a cap on property taxes to make sure the state legislators can't remove them even if it's in the public interest. It's like seeing: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." side by side with "and Steve gets a party hat!"
baggy_trough 6y ago
Outrageous hyperbole.
Xcelerate 6y ago
I really don’t like the idea of recurring property tax in general. Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? What if you are old and have run out of money? At least you’ll still have your house. My suggestion is a large one time tax on property purchased for use as a primary residence (second homes don’t count), and then once all original owners die a new tax can be reapplied if relatives want to keep the property (actually, I’m not totally opposed to having all property go to auction upon death). This would allow people to never have to worry about losing their home during their lifetime while also not creating a dynasty of ownership that prevents new things from being built. Edit: are the downvotes for my idea itself because you don’t like it? Or because of the way I explained it? Would be happy to rephrase.
- nucleardog 6y ago
  > Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Look at what the taxes fund and you'll have your answer why that doesn't really make sense.
  - Xcelerate 6y ago
    > Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. In some places, fire protection is already paid directly to the fire department. Roads and transport should be automobile and gas taxes. Trash collection goes to the trash service.
    - klipt 6y ago
      What about public schools?
    - antisthenes 6y ago
      > Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. At the very least, the argument against doing that is so that you, as a homeowner don't have to manage an additional 10-20 accounts to pay the monthly bill for all those services. It creates an administrative overhead that isn't necessary, and would just siphon more money into the bureaucratic machine rather than fixing issues. That's why taxes are bundled and usually pay for a bunch of things at once, rather than having to pay separately for every little thing. It may sound nice as a libertarian thought experiment, but there's a reason it's almost never done in practice.
legitster 6y ago
On the other hand, Washington State has the opposite problem - nearly all revenue comes from property tax. So in places like Seattle, it can create struggles when driving affordability because anything that lowers property value can hurt the tax base.

The central dysfunction of California governance is Proposition 13, the worst law in the state, if not the world.

by jfb 6y ago

The central dysfunction of California governance is Proposition 13, the worst law in the state, if not the world.

Prop 13 is the strongest argument against the entire proposition system. If you give voters direct democracy power, they love to vote in their own self-interest, future problems be damned. I guess it's a system that perfectly matches the "Generation Me" voters that have driven it for decades.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
It works both ways though. When it is a gun safety issue on the ballot (see Washington state ballot measures over the past years) the people are letting the government know that they want fewer guns in society. I suppose it is special interest groups pressuring politicians that prevent them from enacting certain bills popular with the public. Ballot measures seem to be a check on that.
notJim 6y ago
I think the real problem with those systems is that it's relatively easy for a well-funded group or person to influence the outcome or outright abuse the system to their own ends. Pay canvassers ridiculous rates per signature to get it on the ballot, then flood the airwaves with ads supporting your preferred position. If your opponents aren't as well-funded, the deck is stacked against them.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  The petitioners can also just wage wars of attrition. There's no cooling-off period, so they can just go to the ballot again and again until their junk finally passes, and they can even add one-way moats to their amendments such that they can pass with bare majorities but require supermajorities to amend.
jfb 6y ago
I agree that the proposition system, whatever purpose it may have served to rein in the railroads BITD, is now a horrible destructive anachronism; but I don't think you need to make a moral argument against Prop 13; a purely functional one works just as well. Proposition 13 has crippled all polities below the state level -- the reason that California has budgets determined almost exclusively by constitutional amendment is that local governments have no funding authority to speak of. So what could be localized solutions to problems become statewide, and ill-fitting, and you end up with basically no discretionary financial ability at the state level.

klipt 6y ago

Remember to vote yes on Prop 15 this year to repeal Prop 13 for commercial properties! It's not perfect but it's better than nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_15

ghouse 6y ago
I'll be voting against it. Prop 15 will make it more difficult to fix Prop 13.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Prop 15 will make it more difficult to fix Prop 13 This "if I don't get what I want, nobody does" political strategy reminds me of the Author's Guild's battle with Google over Book Search [1]. The principle problem of politics is priority. When roadblocks to incrementalism and compromise are thrown up, it's more likely for the problem to be branded as unsolvable for a generation than it is for everyone to come back together to work out a grand solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
- klipt 6y ago
  Are you sure? Currently commercial owners have incentive to lobby to keep Prop 13, but if 15 passes they'd no longer have skin in the game, which should reduce Prop 13's defence warchest.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  I agree, Prop. 15 seems specifically designed to dissipate the momentum behind Prop. 13 reform. I also strenuously disagree with the idea of statically allocating tax revenues to enumerated purposes in constitutional amendments that the legislature can't change.
- jedberg 6y ago
  I'm curious as to why you think that? I'm a big supporter of Prop 15, and would like to see 13 repealed (despite the many thousands of dollars a year it saves me). How will 15 hurt a further repeal of 13?

ghouse 6y ago

The (presumably) unintended consequences of Prop 13 are numerous, and with the passage of time, are increasing. For example, the supply of houses is suppressed because selling ones house and purchasing a new one comes with an increased tax bill. Need to move for a job? Want a smaller house after the kids have moved out? That comes with a tax penalty.

Domenic_S 6y ago
Not always. > Propositions 60/90 amended section 2 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution to allow a person who is over age 55 to sell his or her principal place of residence and transfer its base year value to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value that is purchased or newly constructed within two years of the sale. These propositions are implemented by Revenue and Taxation Code section 69.5. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm
jmspring 6y ago
At the time, it was needed, and I think there is an aspect of the caps that is also needed given how much the state desires to tax pretty much everything it can. The business ownership of property aspect of Prop 13 should be addressed. I'd be fine with Prop 13 going by the wayside if there was a way to reign in taxes in CA across the board - won't happen.
ghouse 6y ago
And the suppressed supply leads to further price increase. And that feedback loop only further increases the tax penalty for moving. On top of that, when you die, if your children inherit the property, they keep the Prop 13 tax basis (and then the federal government increases the investment basis to the fair market value at the time of death). Best of both worlds! (but horrible public policy)
- njarboe 6y ago
  Prop 13 is slowly recreating a feudal land-holding aristocracy in California. In feudal Europe the aristocracy did not pay taxes on land in exchange for fighting and providing other knights in times of war(a bit of simplification). Other land holders had to pay tax on land. Give California a few more generations or a period of high inflation/hyper-inflation and the situation in California will be similar without the fight for the King occasionally obligation.

arcticbull 6y ago

I just learned that Prop 13 was actually a constitutional amendment to limit property taxes. I've lost my ability to even. That's such an abuse of the constitution.

Domenic_S 6y ago
The US Constitution enumerates the ability to levy taxes; why would related rules be inappropriate for a state constitution?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Constitutions are for big things, like, freedom of speech. Not for a cap on property taxes to make sure the state legislators can't remove them even if it's in the public interest. It's like seeing: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." side by side with "and Steve gets a party hat!"

baggy_trough 6y ago

Outrageous hyperbole.

Xcelerate 6y ago

I really don’t like the idea of recurring property tax in general. Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? What if you are old and have run out of money? At least you’ll still have your house. My suggestion is a large one time tax on property purchased for use as a primary residence (second homes don’t count), and then once all original owners die a new tax can be reapplied if relatives want to keep the property (actually, I’m not totally opposed to having all property go to auction upon death). This would allow people to never have to worry about losing their home during their lifetime while also not creating a dynasty of ownership that prevents new things from being built. Edit: are the downvotes for my idea itself because you don’t like it? Or because of the way I explained it? Would be happy to rephrase.

nucleardog 6y ago
> Why should you have to continue paying on something indefinitely that you’ve already "paid off"? Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Look at what the taxes fund and you'll have your answer why that doesn't really make sense.
- Xcelerate 6y ago
  > Once you've paid off your property do you stop having a need for fire and police services? roads and transport infrastructure? trash collection? Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. In some places, fire protection is already paid directly to the fire department. Roads and transport should be automobile and gas taxes. Trash collection goes to the trash service.
  - klipt 6y ago
    What about public schools?
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    > Of course not, but those should be shifted to the taxes and fees for corresponding services. At the very least, the argument against doing that is so that you, as a homeowner don't have to manage an additional 10-20 accounts to pay the monthly bill for all those services. It creates an administrative overhead that isn't necessary, and would just siphon more money into the bureaucratic machine rather than fixing issues. That's why taxes are bundled and usually pay for a bunch of things at once, rather than having to pay separately for every little thing. It may sound nice as a libertarian thought experiment, but there's a reason it's almost never done in practice.

legitster 6y ago

On the other hand, Washington State has the opposite problem - nearly all revenue comes from property tax. So in places like Seattle, it can create struggles when driving affordability because anything that lowers property value can hurt the tax base.