3 ms·
Outright repealing Prop 13 would cause chaos; there are too many voters who benefit from it and it stabilizes things considerably for those who are bought in. B
by KerrAvon 5y ago
Outright repealing Prop 13 would cause chaos; there are too many voters who benefit from it and it stabilizes things considerably for those who are bought in. But you could rebalance things: completely remove the cap if the residence is non-primary, for example.
- nullc 5y agoMany other states (most?) have homestead exceptions that essentially achieve the Prop13 stability but are limited to a single primary domicile. No commercial properties, no investment properties, no vacation properties-- and the ability to preserve the benefit when you move tends to be much more limited (a difference of debatable merit). It's a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to prop13 is market-rate set taxes on people's homes.
- Melatonic 5y agoYea the commercial properties is the real kicker - who the hell thought that was a good idea?
- mywittyname 5y agoIncrease the percentage that taxes can be raised each year, and things will slowly correct. There's no free lunch. Lower property taxes mean higher sales and income taxes to compensate. The reverse is true too; when you go to states with no income tax, usually they have high property and sales taxes. All you're deciding is the distribution of tax payments.
- nullc 5y agoSales tax in Florida (no income tax) is lower than California's. Property tax rates are somewhat higher nominally in florida but homes in California are about 4x more expensive than Florida, so the total amount paid in taxes in Florida is much lower (both in total and relative to median income). I don't think your comment is correct generally-- yes, the difference isn't quite as large as you might guess by looking at the bare rates but no income tax states still have significantly lower tax burdens.