4 ms·

> Why is Prop 13 welfare? When I talk to my dad about Proposition 13, the one thing he remembers about the ads is that it was supposed to keep widows and singl

by yonran 4y ago

> Why is Prop 13 welfare? When I talk to my dad about Proposition 13, the one thing he remembers about the ads is that it was supposed to keep widows and single moms from losing their house. In other words, he thinks of it as an entitlement program to help poor residents. But as the article points out, it is a subsidy not for the poor; it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property). > This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: > https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/ I agree with you that it is unfortunate that politicians such as AOC conflate economic development incentives with welfare. That has nothing to do with Proposition 13, which is not an incentive program. In fact, the incentives that Proposition 13 does contain (to avoid developing or selling which trigger reassessment) perversely exacerbate the housing scarcity that it was supposed to alleviate. > Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state? Your final question seems to imply that opponents of Proposition 13 are a special interest who are ok with corruption. I disagree. I think an impartial observer can analyze the state’s largest entitlement program and complain about the obvious regressive aspects of it.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property). Just because the rich also benefit from X doesn't make X bad. The rich are not automatically evil. The loss in tax revenue due to prop 13 is roughly $17bn per year. (https://web.archive.org/web/20120920093924/http://hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta https://web.archive.org/web/20120920093924/http://hjta.org/a...) California lost a similar amount just to EDD fraud $31bn (probably every year). https://abc7news.com/california-edd-unemployment-fraud-ca-scam-insurance/10011810/ https://abc7news.com/california-edd-unemployment-fraud-ca-sc... Worker's comp fraud comes out to a few billions http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-overview/25-wc-conv/ http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-o... Why did the writer ignore that? Let us fix fraud and corruption before raising taxes. Would you pour water into a leaky bucket before fixing it when there is a water crisis? > the state’s largest entitlement program The state's largest entitlement program is fraud and corruption by public officials. I will happily pay more taxes if there is 100% visibility and near zero waste (or at least honest attempts towards zero waste).
- yonran 4y ago
  > The loss in tax revenue due to prop 13 is roughly $17bn per year. I’m not sure where you got your number. I presume that you took the HJTA cumulative tax break from that link ($528 billion) and divided it by 31 years (1978 to 2009)? If so, this is most likely an underestimate because the tax break increases over time for properties that do not change hands. Moreover, HJTA does not explain how they calculated their cumulative tax break number, and it is an old article from 13 years ago. Your estimate is far lower than the original article’s estimate based on the Census ACS, which is “$68 billion per year, or $5,200 per household”. > California lost a similar amount just to EDD fraud $31bn (probably every year). I agree that this was terrible, though I think that was a one-time event due to the relaxed unemployment application process due to COVID-19. > Let us fix fraud and corruption before raising taxes. Let’s do both. Property taxes (particularly the land portion) are not only for raising money. They also reduce inequality, reduce the incentive to speculate on underused land, make it easier for new generations to enter the market, and reduce cyclical price swings (see Henry George, Progress and Poverty).

by yonran 4y ago

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

> it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property). Just because the rich also benefit from X doesn't make X bad. The rich are not automatically evil. The loss in tax revenue due to prop 13 is roughly $17bn per year. (https://web.archive.org/web/20120920093924/http://hjta.org/about-hjta/history-hjta https://web.archive.org/web/20120920093924/http://hjta.org/a...) California lost a similar amount just to EDD fraud $31bn (probably every year). https://abc7news.com/california-edd-unemployment-fraud-ca-scam-insurance/10011810/ https://abc7news.com/california-edd-unemployment-fraud-ca-sc... Worker's comp fraud comes out to a few billions http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-overview/25-wc-conv/ http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0300-fraud/0100-fraud-division-o... Why did the writer ignore that? Let us fix fraud and corruption before raising taxes. Would you pour water into a leaky bucket before fixing it when there is a water crisis? > the state’s largest entitlement program The state's largest entitlement program is fraud and corruption by public officials. I will happily pay more taxes if there is 100% visibility and near zero waste (or at least honest attempts towards zero waste).

yonran 4y ago
> The loss in tax revenue due to prop 13 is roughly $17bn per year. I’m not sure where you got your number. I presume that you took the HJTA cumulative tax break from that link ($528 billion) and divided it by 31 years (1978 to 2009)? If so, this is most likely an underestimate because the tax break increases over time for properties that do not change hands. Moreover, HJTA does not explain how they calculated their cumulative tax break number, and it is an old article from 13 years ago. Your estimate is far lower than the original article’s estimate based on the Census ACS, which is “$68 billion per year, or $5,200 per household”. > California lost a similar amount just to EDD fraud $31bn (probably every year). I agree that this was terrible, though I think that was a one-time event due to the relaxed unemployment application process due to COVID-19. > Let us fix fraud and corruption before raising taxes. Let’s do both. Property taxes (particularly the land portion) are not only for raising money. They also reduce inequality, reduce the incentive to speculate on underused land, make it easier for new generations to enter the market, and reduce cyclical price swings (see Henry George, Progress and Poverty).