3 ms·
It is in California State government’s best interest to devise policies that encourage higher fluidity of housing market as a form of increasing the revenue ge
by egberts1 4y ago
It is in California State government’s best interest to devise policies that encourage higher fluidity of housing market as a form of increasing the revenue generating flow into their general funds;
- stoke the housing market,
- encourage foreign ownerships and take over of precious homes
- make people move,
- push senior citizens out of their home
- reset valuation of residential for the primary purpose of higher taxes and thusly more flow into the state general fund.
Fixed tax rate (Prop 13) on residential taxation is that California politicians’ over-perceived limiting factor of increasing revenue flow into their state budget. They only can resort to higher income tax (13.3%) or higher sales tax (10.75%) or more of those other add-on taxes (like the misleading and diminishing triple (sales/excise/use) gasoline tax).
Given that California income tax and sales tax are already crazy high, the biggest political brass ring not-yet-grabbed remaining is this increasing more of the residential taxation; all her politicians are training their eyes on this residential tax as a form of potential increasing tax flow.
And cities/towns knows this too.
So the building of commercial/industrial properties shall and will continue on, unabated, at full-steam ahead; housing, not so much.
Is it a fault of the Golden State politicians? Ye-up! They just do not like governing with handcuffed but limited revenue flow so they go all myopic and actually govern without the long-range foresights of much needed housings, and instead flood their land with commercial/industrial zones.
Don’t blame the Prop 13. It’s no different than other states’ no or lower property tax on residential tracts.
Many senior citizens (and state workers) living on limited Social Security retirement/wage, who own their homes for the long haul are not likely to be evicted by higher residential taxation (protected by Prop. 13) on their home, will rest comfortably until pushed out by even more and inexorably higher and newer state sales/excise/use (sky’s the limit) taxation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California#Sales_tax https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California#Sales...
- egberts1 4y agoUnfortunately, the Prop 13 in 1978 did not then foresee the current abuse by second and multiple (including foreign landlords) homeowners that has artificially created California’s severe housing [and housing ownership] shortage. It will require yet another state proposition on the ballot to be able to revise Prop 13 into limiting this privilege of having the 1% valuation tax cap applied only to just those first homeowners. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_...
- egberts1 4y agoAlso it is kinda myopic but immensely beneficial for local homeowners (with fix residential tax) to encourage more commercial zones thus enjoy increasing general revenues in turns into more general local government services. I should caution that this general assumption of NIMBY plus more commercial zones by local homeowners is deeply flawed notion since it is ultimately Sacramento (capitol of California) that decides HOW the revenue flows from its general fund back into county/local/metro areas. This Golden State state/local revenue flow is the exception when compared to most rest of the nation where most people naturally assume that county tax will flow back directly into the county general fund. So it goes right back to Sacramento politicians who ultimately have to decide which county/metro/town gets richer and poorer. This is the result of Prop 13. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California