3 ms·

This is the real answer in my opinion. Prop 13 does make some sense (especially in its current form now that the other measure passed that limits prop 13 for ho

This is the real answer in my opinion. Prop 13 does make some sense (especially in its current form now that the other measure passed that limits prop 13 for homeowners over 1 million in value). But for commercial real estate ? That seems totally ridiculous. There is so much tax that could be collected there!

bobthepanda 3y ago
I suspect that given it was rejected in 2020, which was not that long ago, in an election where Prop 19 (the other one you're referring to) passed, the powers that be have divined that revisiting the question now is a little early.
mistrial9 3y ago
California already collects record revenue via State taxes, and has for a long time. Those who run Sacramento dole it out in large quantities. Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades. Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades. California has, like most states, Constitutionally-mandated balanced operating budget (it does have a bit of reserve fund which can be used to avoid immediate cuts when revenue projected in the balanced budget falls short, so it can end up with some deficit from bad projection, but that is pretty limited); it cannot monetize spending since it doesn't issue its own currency, and borrowing (which it can do for capital projects) takes voter approval. Jerry Brown didn't do anything that unusual in balancing budgets, but what he did do is risk political capital to take ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget to the voters, succeed, and thereby end the annual (good times or bad) minority blockade budget crisis that made California effectively ungovernable. (Unfortunately, the supermajority rule for tax increases—which applies to any tax pokicy shift that is includes any increase in any situation—remains, preventing most tax policy shifts in practice.) > Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again. Its not really a mystery—the sources of volatility are well known, the swing (though not the precise magnitude) was predicted, and why the Governor argued for changes that would allow greater transfers to reserves in years of predicted surplus, rather than returning as much projected surplus revenue directly as is currently required.

bobthepanda 3y ago

I suspect that given it was rejected in 2020, which was not that long ago, in an election where Prop 19 (the other one you're referring to) passed, the powers that be have divined that revisiting the question now is a little early.

mistrial9 3y ago

California already collects record revenue via State taxes, and has for a long time. Those who run Sacramento dole it out in large quantities. Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades. Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades. California has, like most states, Constitutionally-mandated balanced operating budget (it does have a bit of reserve fund which can be used to avoid immediate cuts when revenue projected in the balanced budget falls short, so it can end up with some deficit from bad projection, but that is pretty limited); it cannot monetize spending since it doesn't issue its own currency, and borrowing (which it can do for capital projects) takes voter approval. Jerry Brown didn't do anything that unusual in balancing budgets, but what he did do is risk political capital to take ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget to the voters, succeed, and thereby end the annual (good times or bad) minority blockade budget crisis that made California effectively ungovernable. (Unfortunately, the supermajority rule for tax increases—which applies to any tax pokicy shift that is includes any increase in any situation—remains, preventing most tax policy shifts in practice.) > Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again. Its not really a mystery—the sources of volatility are well known, the swing (though not the precise magnitude) was predicted, and why the Governor argued for changes that would allow greater transfers to reserves in years of predicted surplus, rather than returning as much projected surplus revenue directly as is currently required.