16 ms·

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities being incentivized to encourage resident "turnover" because new residents would be subject to current level property taxes. Another issue is cities having to rely more on sales taxes which discourages building residential housing and encourages building of commercial properties. Also when a recession hits then the cities are hit even harder because they aren't able to collect those sales taxes. We found that Bay Area schools are begging for money constantly and theorized that very low property tax income is a big part of that too. I mean... I like paying less but something about it feels wrong. Property taxes are a big source of income are they not?

Aloha 4y ago
Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones. The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of realignment and radicalization on the right makes all of this worse.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  - zeruch 4y ago
    They are indeed part of the problem. Once people get it out of their heads that California is a pure "blue" state and has in fact had a complex political history with a lot of moving changes, including many by the GOP, than it rapidly becomes less obviously a red or blue issue, but a very deeply purple one with no one lacking exposure.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    California was the home of Reagan and Nixon, and their legacy on state politics lives on to this day. As mentioned, Prop 13 was a libertarian tax revolt that continues to cause massive structural problems in the state's economy, which only gets papered over by the absolute dominance of the economic productivity of massive innovation. Even California's farmers have innovated far better than many other parts of the country, and grows massive amounts of food without needing the subsidies that so much of the rest of the country depends upon. But that's not what the commenter was complaining about, I think. My understanding is that his complaint is that Republicans made themselves irrelevant and destroyed their chances to provide a counterweight to Democratic efforts. They did commit a spectacular and awful suicide, through things like Prop 187. (However I disagree with the commenter on the Republican Party being able to provide a positive counterweight to Democratic legislation. IMHO their sort of rentier-promoting, winner takes all, style of legislation would kill off the in bio drive industries that drive California's amazing economic engine.)
    - Aloha 4y ago
      I remember the conservatives of that era, and as you note, that era died with Prop 187. The republicans killed their ability to have a place at the table on meaningful discussions about the states future, and as of right now? Being a democrat requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of that was, hey, maybe these policies are bad and we should blame the people who are making the bad policy. No. It's the Republican's fault for not stopping it. That indicates a very skewed world view, and yes, I think requires some introspection. Sure, blame Republicans for specific bad policy that you disagree with, but it's completely beyond the pale to blame them for the Democrat's bad policy making. That's like a mom blaming a father for not stopping her from giving the kids too much candy.
- 88913527 4y ago
  Per-student spending in most California counties is comparable to that of Alabama and Mississippi: https://flowingdata.com/2016/04/21/school-district-spending-per-student/ https://flowingdata.com/2016/04/21/school-district-spending-... Money can't fix everything but spending 33% below the median probably is a sign of underinvestment.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    Particularly in a state where the cost of living is far above other states. I recently visited Wisconsin and felt about 2x as wealthy.
    - tnel77 4y ago
      Whenever I go back to the Midwest to visit family, I always feel very wealthy given just how much cheaper everything is. Leave the coffee shop literally spending half as much and it’s like “holy cow this is great!” Obviously, a person living in the area is usually making less so it’s all relative.
      - Aloha 4y ago
        Less, yes - not that much less. You'll make 40% less in areas with a 50% lower COL
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- zeruch 4y ago
  Terms limits are a red herring. They punish good and bad candidates, and don't actually help the problems with the elected class: campaign funding and competitive districts/gerrymandering. Wanna know what its a "single party state"? Because one of the major parties, up until Pete Wilson, acted like a real party, then became a caricature (the GOP had 40+ percent of the state and registrants for ages, which is how guys like Nixon, Reagan, Deukmajian, Schwartzenegger etc all got elected) but now comprise less than 25% of the state registered voters (although many are now independents with a center-right lean) and the GOP leadership in the state are utterly oblivious clowns who live in rural bubbles like the Northern areas that want to start a neo-fascist Confederate Idiocracy with Eastern Oregon and Southern Idaho, or urban derp-bubbles like West Orange County and Torrey Pines, who just want brown people to tend to their golf courses and think Ayn Rand is one hot bitch. The Democrats in California, a party with near zero internal coherence, and no real stability at all, win because the Koch-knobs and Trumpkins that "lead" the opposition are as inane and insane as they are.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after (the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits), I remember the difference. The current system encourages "make a name for yourself than move on to bigger and better things" and prevents the legislature acting as a base of political power - that gets in the way of long term thinking. To the rest of your comment - I think big tent parties are good, but not ones that require ideological fealty the way current parties do, you can't build a durable majority with left social issues, a weird mashup or left wing and right wing economics and "progressive" requirement that everyone hew to proper "optics". That's a recipe for never fixing any of the actual problems, with the added benefit of giving your base and activists plenty of ideological wars that can never be won.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after After is generally better, at least than in an equal time period before, though I don't attribute it to term limits, which were a bad idea. > the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits The last major structural reform to state government was when it was finally made modestly governable by the repeal of the supermajority budget requirement in 2010, 14 years after term limits applied to the Assembly (a little over two full turnovers forced by term limits), 12 years after they applied to the Senate (one full turnover and halfway through the next.) The last major structural reforms of government administration (which may be more what you are thinking of, though of less practical effect) were a series under Schwarzenegger in 2005 (or so, not sure they all happened that year), still well after term limits.
- foogazi 4y ago
  > Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Are Prop 13 benefits for businesses still in place ? That would be a good start - if the company is sold all its underlying California holdings get re- appraised
  - Aloha 4y ago
    REIT's are a huge work around for Prop 13, the REIT can change hands dozens of times, but the underlying property is never sold.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      Thats what I mean for companies too - the value of the land is part of the company or funds valuation REITs are traded on the value of the underlying asset - unlike a homeowner that does not extract value from their property Properties packaged in tradable shares should be re-appraised annually at least
rcpt 4y ago
Low income seniors are covered by the California Tax Postponement Program. Most states have something similar. Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Try to repeal it, you'll find yourself drummed out of politics. I think someone who spent enough money could repeal it, and it'd help.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
  I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid." Which sounds like a recipe for... grandpa dies, grandma can't pay property taxes so defers it for 10 years. Grandma dies and whoever inherits the home needs to be pay a massive deferment (unaffordable?) or give up the home.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Right. Seems reasonable no? Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.
    - 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
      The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home? It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.
burlesona 4y ago
Prop 13 ensures that once you’ve bought in you feel no more pain from the housing crisis, and thus most Californian voters would have to vote against their own individual self-interest to do anything positive on housing, which just won’t happen. By contrast, in Texas there is no income tax but high property tax, and as prices have shot up recently most homeowners have reason to be worried about it and to vote to take action to increase supply to meet demand. It’ll be interesting to see if that actually happens, now that the theory is being put to the test.
- mertd 4y ago
  I stand to benefit from Prop 13; yet I would vote against Prop 13 without a second thought. It is causing enormous and unjust human suffering. People vote against their self interest all the time, if you convince them that it is for the greater good.
  - 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
    Would voting against Prop 13 result in you having to sell your home/condo? I've wondered this myself and if I'm perfectly honest... I'm not so sure. Voting against my self interest when all it does is affect my bank balance? No problem. But if it forces my kid to change neighborhoods (and therefore schools) while giving up a home I plan to retire in... that's harder.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      It's hard to imagine a situation where property values rise would kick me out of my home, were Prop 13 repealed. If the home is going up massive in value, a 1-2% tax on the value of the home is dwarfed by the increase in property value. Refi or whatever to take care of it. The tax portion of a mortgage isn't that big anyway. And if property values are rising so quickly that I even notice an increase in the property tax, then every single renter is completely screwed by comparison. The only way that property value increases could cause somebody to lose their house is if they are completely financially incompetent, as far as I can see.
  - 4y ago

Aloha 4y ago

Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones. The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of realignment and radicalization on the right makes all of this worse.

claytongulick 4y ago
- zeruch 4y ago
  They are indeed part of the problem. Once people get it out of their heads that California is a pure "blue" state and has in fact had a complex political history with a lot of moving changes, including many by the GOP, than it rapidly becomes less obviously a red or blue issue, but a very deeply purple one with no one lacking exposure.
- epistasis 4y ago
  California was the home of Reagan and Nixon, and their legacy on state politics lives on to this day. As mentioned, Prop 13 was a libertarian tax revolt that continues to cause massive structural problems in the state's economy, which only gets papered over by the absolute dominance of the economic productivity of massive innovation. Even California's farmers have innovated far better than many other parts of the country, and grows massive amounts of food without needing the subsidies that so much of the rest of the country depends upon. But that's not what the commenter was complaining about, I think. My understanding is that his complaint is that Republicans made themselves irrelevant and destroyed their chances to provide a counterweight to Democratic efforts. They did commit a spectacular and awful suicide, through things like Prop 187. (However I disagree with the commenter on the Republican Party being able to provide a positive counterweight to Democratic legislation. IMHO their sort of rentier-promoting, winner takes all, style of legislation would kill off the in bio drive industries that drive California's amazing economic engine.)
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I remember the conservatives of that era, and as you note, that era died with Prop 187. The republicans killed their ability to have a place at the table on meaningful discussions about the states future, and as of right now? Being a democrat requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of that was, hey, maybe these policies are bad and we should blame the people who are making the bad policy. No. It's the Republican's fault for not stopping it. That indicates a very skewed world view, and yes, I think requires some introspection. Sure, blame Republicans for specific bad policy that you disagree with, but it's completely beyond the pale to blame them for the Democrat's bad policy making. That's like a mom blaming a father for not stopping her from giving the kids too much candy.
88913527 4y ago
Per-student spending in most California counties is comparable to that of Alabama and Mississippi: https://flowingdata.com/2016/04/21/school-district-spending-per-student/ https://flowingdata.com/2016/04/21/school-district-spending-... Money can't fix everything but spending 33% below the median probably is a sign of underinvestment.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Particularly in a state where the cost of living is far above other states. I recently visited Wisconsin and felt about 2x as wealthy.
  - tnel77 4y ago
    Whenever I go back to the Midwest to visit family, I always feel very wealthy given just how much cheaper everything is. Leave the coffee shop literally spending half as much and it’s like “holy cow this is great!” Obviously, a person living in the area is usually making less so it’s all relative.
    - Aloha 4y ago
      Less, yes - not that much less. You'll make 40% less in areas with a 50% lower COL
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zeruch 4y ago
Terms limits are a red herring. They punish good and bad candidates, and don't actually help the problems with the elected class: campaign funding and competitive districts/gerrymandering. Wanna know what its a "single party state"? Because one of the major parties, up until Pete Wilson, acted like a real party, then became a caricature (the GOP had 40+ percent of the state and registrants for ages, which is how guys like Nixon, Reagan, Deukmajian, Schwartzenegger etc all got elected) but now comprise less than 25% of the state registered voters (although many are now independents with a center-right lean) and the GOP leadership in the state are utterly oblivious clowns who live in rural bubbles like the Northern areas that want to start a neo-fascist Confederate Idiocracy with Eastern Oregon and Southern Idaho, or urban derp-bubbles like West Orange County and Torrey Pines, who just want brown people to tend to their golf courses and think Ayn Rand is one hot bitch. The Democrats in California, a party with near zero internal coherence, and no real stability at all, win because the Koch-knobs and Trumpkins that "lead" the opposition are as inane and insane as they are.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after (the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits), I remember the difference. The current system encourages "make a name for yourself than move on to bigger and better things" and prevents the legislature acting as a base of political power - that gets in the way of long term thinking. To the rest of your comment - I think big tent parties are good, but not ones that require ideological fealty the way current parties do, you can't build a durable majority with left social issues, a weird mashup or left wing and right wing economics and "progressive" requirement that everyone hew to proper "optics". That's a recipe for never fixing any of the actual problems, with the added benefit of giving your base and activists plenty of ideological wars that can never be won.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after After is generally better, at least than in an equal time period before, though I don't attribute it to term limits, which were a bad idea. > the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits The last major structural reform to state government was when it was finally made modestly governable by the repeal of the supermajority budget requirement in 2010, 14 years after term limits applied to the Assembly (a little over two full turnovers forced by term limits), 12 years after they applied to the Senate (one full turnover and halfway through the next.) The last major structural reforms of government administration (which may be more what you are thinking of, though of less practical effect) were a series under Schwarzenegger in 2005 (or so, not sure they all happened that year), still well after term limits.
foogazi 4y ago
> Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Are Prop 13 benefits for businesses still in place ? That would be a good start - if the company is sold all its underlying California holdings get re- appraised
- Aloha 4y ago
  REIT's are a huge work around for Prop 13, the REIT can change hands dozens of times, but the underlying property is never sold.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    Thats what I mean for companies too - the value of the land is part of the company or funds valuation REITs are traded on the value of the underlying asset - unlike a homeowner that does not extract value from their property Properties packaged in tradable shares should be re-appraised annually at least

rcpt 4y ago

Low income seniors are covered by the California Tax Postponement Program. Most states have something similar. Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary.

Aloha 4y ago
Try to repeal it, you'll find yourself drummed out of politics. I think someone who spent enough money could repeal it, and it'd help.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
0xFACEFEED 4y ago
I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid." Which sounds like a recipe for... grandpa dies, grandma can't pay property taxes so defers it for 10 years. Grandma dies and whoever inherits the home needs to be pay a massive deferment (unaffordable?) or give up the home.
- refurb 4y ago
  Right. Seems reasonable no? Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.
  - 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
    The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home? It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.

burlesona 4y ago

Prop 13 ensures that once you’ve bought in you feel no more pain from the housing crisis, and thus most Californian voters would have to vote against their own individual self-interest to do anything positive on housing, which just won’t happen. By contrast, in Texas there is no income tax but high property tax, and as prices have shot up recently most homeowners have reason to be worried about it and to vote to take action to increase supply to meet demand. It’ll be interesting to see if that actually happens, now that the theory is being put to the test.

mertd 4y ago
I stand to benefit from Prop 13; yet I would vote against Prop 13 without a second thought. It is causing enormous and unjust human suffering. People vote against their self interest all the time, if you convince them that it is for the greater good.
- 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
  Would voting against Prop 13 result in you having to sell your home/condo? I've wondered this myself and if I'm perfectly honest... I'm not so sure. Voting against my self interest when all it does is affect my bank balance? No problem. But if it forces my kid to change neighborhoods (and therefore schools) while giving up a home I plan to retire in... that's harder.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    It's hard to imagine a situation where property values rise would kick me out of my home, were Prop 13 repealed. If the home is going up massive in value, a 1-2% tax on the value of the home is dwarfed by the increase in property value. Refi or whatever to take care of it. The tax portion of a mortgage isn't that big anyway. And if property values are rising so quickly that I even notice an increase in the property tax, then every single renter is completely screwed by comparison. The only way that property value increases could cause somebody to lose their house is if they are completely financially incompetent, as far as I can see.
- 4y ago