4 ms·

No, prop13 was meant to stop businesses and the rich from paying real property taxes (because businesses and trusts generally don't sell the property itself so

by olliej 3y ago

No, prop13 was meant to stop businesses and the rich from paying real property taxes (because businesses and trusts generally don't sell the property itself so never incur actual inflation values). It was sold to people as a way to stop seniors being unable to pay property taxes, and to stop Your Tax Dollars going to people in poorer parts of the state. Of course it's a constitutional amendment so cannot be overridden by any law maker for any reason, yay \o/

mistrial9 3y ago
> was meant to stop businesses and the rich from paying real property taxes like so many public policy, and fiscal policy decisions.. there is not one single answer. Firebrand curses at "the rich" do nothing about the serious and long-lasting effects. The truth is that in the USA, many ordinary people own very valuable assets, their home. While in other developed countries this is not the case. Prop. 13 was very successful at doing exactly what it says on paper - locking very valuable, increasingly valuable assets, on a path of low tax. This made winners and losers. Not all the winners were "the Rich" and therefore it is useful to look more carefully at the fabric of facts.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Well said, this is not a black and white issue. Also prop 13 was a proposition, which means it was the result of a popular vote put directly to the people. The California proposition system is one of the most democratic institutions in the US, as it is basically a form of direct democracy. The people of California voted for prop 13 by a sizable majority. If you believe democracy is a good thing, it's hard to fault this, the people voting to limit their own taxation is basically one of the founding principles of the United States.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Recently it was put on the ballot to roll back prop 13 for commercial properties, but voters didn’t pass it.

by olliej 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago

> was meant to stop businesses and the rich from paying real property taxes like so many public policy, and fiscal policy decisions.. there is not one single answer. Firebrand curses at "the rich" do nothing about the serious and long-lasting effects. The truth is that in the USA, many ordinary people own very valuable assets, their home. While in other developed countries this is not the case. Prop. 13 was very successful at doing exactly what it says on paper - locking very valuable, increasingly valuable assets, on a path of low tax. This made winners and losers. Not all the winners were "the Rich" and therefore it is useful to look more carefully at the fabric of facts.

Dig1t 3y ago
Well said, this is not a black and white issue. Also prop 13 was a proposition, which means it was the result of a popular vote put directly to the people. The California proposition system is one of the most democratic institutions in the US, as it is basically a form of direct democracy. The people of California voted for prop 13 by a sizable majority. If you believe democracy is a good thing, it's hard to fault this, the people voting to limit their own taxation is basically one of the founding principles of the United States.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Recently it was put on the ballot to roll back prop 13 for commercial properties, but voters didn’t pass it.