California's 40-year-old ban on property tax raises has made the rich a lot richer

It desperately needs to be changed, since Prop 13 was a gross overreaction to the (admittedly awful) existing property tax scheme, and has wreaked untold damage in its wake. I remember attending public school both before and after Prop 13’s passage, and the difference was like Day and Cold, Bleak, Deadly, Never-ending Night. The simple fact is that lots of people with long, long histories of paying very low property taxes are going to have to pay more (not as much as the pre-13 structure would have had it, but still) and very, very few of those homeowners are going to relish the prospect. @gellfex and @Brainspore have the right of this argument; there’s always a way to formulate a more just, equitable, and sustainable scheme that is properly progressive and isn’t gonna toss Great Aunt Mildred Fixed-Income out of her ancestral cottage on her ass.

Getting the votes to pass it will require a fairly simple (though as nearly impossible as I can imagine) trick of convincing the electorate that a properly- and fairly-funded state benefits us all, even the plutocrats. But that convincing is the sticky part. It’s somewhat akin to raising gasoline taxes. Fuel prices went through the roof a while back, and one solution offered by simpleminded politicians was to lower (or eliminate) taxes on gasoline, which simply left more room for fuel cartels to jack up the wholesale price even further, right up to the point beyond which drivers couldn’t afford it at all and actually started driving less by necessity. Since that brinkmanship gave all the power to the cartels (and zero tax revenue to the state), it was a profoundly stupid idea. The smarter thing would have been to jack the taxes up while the price was still reasonable, eliminating room for the cartels to raise wholesale prices further without sales volume diminishing to a trickle. That way at least some of the revenue goes to us, rather than to the oil producers.

Of course, then there’s nothing stopping them from holding the price at an artificially (and unaffordably) high price until we cry Uncle and give in, but I don’t know if the entire oil market could collude quite that much. Hell, I dunno. Probably they could.

Anyway, it’s entirely too easy to paint any issue like this as a simple Evil Tax Hike with Uncle Sam’s groping fist deep in our pockets, and since the vast majority of citizens are all looking out for number one and asking suspiciously “What’s in it for me?” we just keep going around and around while the merry-go-round runs out of grease.

5 Likes

It is even worse than you might realize from the article, because a lot of commercial and industrial property is almost never re-assessed because it is owned by corporations. There is some kind of loophole in the law where (roughly) a single entity has to purchase more than 50 percent of a property in order for it to be re-assessed. As I understand it, if the ownership is split up on paper into many owners, these shares can be bought and sold without the 50 percent trigger ever being hit. (I might be off on the specifics here, but the gist is that a lot of commercial property in California is almost never re-assessed.)

5 Likes

This is an actual problem in Hawaii. Our property tax is rather low (though not limited), but house values have increased so much that many senior citizens have to move from the houses they’ve lived in for 50 years because of the property tax. If you live in a house rather than use it as a commodity, its increase in value is not an advantage to you! This was one of the main points in Prop 13, that the taxable value depends on the purchase price rather than the market value, and it would be useful to have this here, at least for owner-occupants.

6 Likes

Did you not read anything upthread? Why should someone who has used the tremendous power of leverage in the 30 year mortgage to own a property now worth 10x it’s price in the 70’s not have to part with a little bit of that equity to pay their part of keeping their community running? LI taxes are ~2.5%, similar to north Jersey where I am. Property in Nassau has gone up 3.4% in just the last year. Why should they be able to hang onto their steadily increasing equity and pass it on to their heirs while other homeowners have to make up the difference? No one is forced out of their homes unless they’ve already cashed it out.

It’s a zero sum game, if someone doesn’t pay, someone else has to. Freezing taxes is literally asking for a handout, yet I bet many of the loudest advocates are Conservatives.

3 Likes

Well, of course. The number one ingredient in the conservative mindset is “I don’t wanna pay for anything that doesn’t directly and immediately benefit ME.”

6 Likes

I read the whole thing. I’m just pointing out a fact, that if you bought a house for $20000 in 1960 and it is worth $750000 in 2016 you don’t have $730000 in your pocket to add to your social security income for buying groceries. This is a reality for many people on my block, who do not deserve to be shoved out of homes they purchased with their sweat working in the canning plants or cleaning hotel rooms and forced to leave the island where they’ve lived for generations and the community they helped create.

Why should the fact that tech millionaires have decided to move in next door to you mean that suddenly you should be paying more every month in taxes?

What to do about the tax when a house is passed onto heirs is a different conversation.

8 Likes

As someone who works in a county assessor’s office I can say that doing partial transfers of ownerships does NOT exempt you from reassessment.

We will do a partial transfer of ownership reassessment. Even down to 1% change in ownership. We will even assess LLC transfers (both into and out of) if the change ownership is different (even if the name is spelled different).

Got your property in a trust or estate? Great! That protects you from probate court, but doesn’t keep the assessor from assessing the change of ownership that results from a death.

I think this article has a little FUD going on in the attempt to turn citizens against prop 13 (the only way to repeal it is with 2/3 of the state voting against it).

7 Likes

Your $20,000 house probably cost a total of maybe $60K-$80K over the life of the mortgage, including property taxes. You’ve paid nothing but upkeep, renovations, and low-ass property taxes ever since 1990, while the road is still surfaced up to your driveway, the school keeps teaching your kids and grandkids, and the cops and fire departments still keep your place safe. Meanwhile, you’re sleeping in an entirely-paid-for asset that is now worth nearly ten times what you paid for it, simply by virtue of you not burning it down while the ebb and flow of society have somehow driven up the cost of real estate in your neighborhood. One extreme says you shouldn’t pay a nickel more for that privilege; that you’ve long since earned it and should be left alone. Another extreme would be that every property is re-assessed every single year, and you’d have to pay the same confiscatory level that new buyers would have to pay.

Somewhere between those two extremes is where a fair balance would lie. As neighborhoods “gentrify” or otherwise appreciate in value, and as the tax base increases, the infrastructure and social services of that area improve commensurately. Shouldn’t you contribute to that? At least nominally? Shouldn’t there be a formula by which that artificially inflated equity of yours can contribute at least a little bit to the commonweal?

Or am I just too much of a socialist?

6 Likes

So are all property taxes capped, and not just residential?

[quote=“Donald_Petersen, post:48, topic:86764, full:true”]
You’ve paid nothing but upkeep, renovations, and low-ass property taxes ever since 1990[/quote] You think maintenance and upkeep on a 50 year old house is cheap?

Somewhere between those two extremes is where a fair balance would lie. As neighborhoods “gentrify” or otherwise appreciate in value, and as the tax base increases, the infrastructure and social services of that area improve commensurately. Shouldn’t you contribute to that? At least nominally?

Perhaps. Just keep in mind that my kids have grown up and moved away, that I don’t need great roads since I no longer commute to work, that I don’t benefit from much of the gentrification (in fact when the neighborhood IGA changed to a Whole Foods I got priced out of groceries), that I won’t live long enough to benefit from the new infrastructure (and i paid more for the infrastructure that is already here than newcomers to the community) and that I didn’t ask people who earn earn 5 times what I do to move in next door. I absolutely should contribute to my share of social services, as I have for 50 years, but my share of such services shouldn’t be more than that of people in the less-ritzy neighborhood nearby just because of who decided to live across the street from me.

Shouldn’t there be a formula by which that artificially inflated equity of yours can contribute at least a little bit to the commonweal?

How do you propose to tap into that equity, which is only paper wealth as long as I’m living in the house? Shall I take out a reverse mortgage (as many seniors do to cover taxes and home repairs)? When did you start working for Wells Fargo?

Or am I just too much of a socialist?

Or maybe you just hate senior citizens?-)

(PS: Just to be clear, the “I” in the above is fictitious, as I do not live in CA, I haven’t retired, and I pay taxes through my nose. However, despite our lack of Prop 13 we have the same house price inflation problem as California does, because more people want to live here than the housing supply can accommodate and because so people use housing here for speculation, rental income, second housing, etc, and consequently our seniors have a real problem with the property tax. )

7 Likes

I’d propose replacing property tax with a local income tax - but doesn’t CA already have one? If so, increase it?

Easy to say here, from the uber-regressive taxation system of WA.

(also I guess that would mean that the independently wealthy wouldn’t contribute at all)

2 Likes

IIRC there have been a few attempts to overturn Prop 13 but none met with any success.

1 Like

One more time with feeling! (I keep singing the same song but people seem incapable of hearing) A reverse mortgage negates every one of your points. Every year the taxes would get paid out of equity, and maybe even a get a little pocket money should they choose, and when the property is finally sold the bank takes their lending plus their interest. Any argument with this is saying “I want my wealth AND I don’t want to pay taxes.”

How about this instead: your taxes get locked but so does your value, anything over your capitalization belongs to the tax collector when you sell. Why isn’t THAT fair if you don’t want to pay higher taxes? (Do I need to ask?)

3 Likes

Go back to Texas (and be disliked for being from CA) :grin:

So you spend 30 years paying off your house, and now you have to start giving it away again just because people with bigger incomes have been moving into your neighborhood? Do you get your talking points from the Bank of America?

Any argument with this is saying “I want my wealth AND I don’t want to pay taxes.”

No, because it isn’t “wealth” until it is transformed into fungible assets, and artificially making them fungible through despicable, usurous instruments like reverse mortgages is not the solution for anyone not in the banking industry.

8 Likes

I’ll never understand the virtue in paying taxes. How’s about ending the Fed instead so we don’t inflate bubbles in the first place… Then we can circle back to see if we need to revisit the tax issue.

This is a delusion. It is wealth, and that’s why it’s being taxed. In fact, it’s the only “wealth tax” in our country that works, since you can’t offshore your house and still live here. I offered to let you keep your capitalization, the cash you put in, in exchange for fixed taxes, not interested, only want your free lunch?

3 Likes

“t most working families were able to own property back then,”

And now we really see the insdiousness of this and other policies that benefit the wealthy.

If the plebes can purchase houses, it means escape from serfdom. Bad for business (nothing personal, mind)

Yeah, give me that. A house is a place to live, not a bank account. (Said while living in a room in the bay area at 38 years old :wink:)

7 Likes

Oh, I know. He’s the same guy as the “you” in my post: the one who bought a $20K house in 1960.

I couldn’t say, but I know through a decade’s experience how much upkeep and maintenance and renovations on a 107-year-old house can be. :wink:

Sure, I get that. Buying a home isn’t just buying walls, a roof, and a place to stash your stuff. It’s buying a home, with a neighborhood, and services, and friends, and maybe a view, and all of the experiences that you and your family have in that space for all the years you live there. If your responsibility to the schools began and ended during the years your own kids attend, then you might as well send 'em to private school. If your responsibility to the fire and police protection begins and ends when they are actually responding to your calls, then they’d send you a much steeper bill upon completion of (or worse: before commencing) those services. Having good schools in the area even helps the childless, as it gives the unrelated neighborhood children a better education, thus providing them with better opportunities in life than just settling for a life of, say, crime. Fifty years spent in a prosperous neighborhood is worth more, I’d suggest, than the price of paying 50 years of property taxes nailed to a 1960 assessment.

Far, far more.

…to a point. If your assessment really does go back that far, it won’t take too many years for a new homeowner to pass that total up.

Nope, but you (and your estate, if it comes to that) are directly benefiting from such events, if that crackerbox you paid a pittance for all those years ago is suddenly worth many, many times what you paid for it. Does any homeowner actually complain when their property values go up?

You could, if it came to that. If you’re living on a modest fixed income but you’re sitting on a half-million in equity you have several options available to you that aren’t available to those who haven’t yet paid off their house and have much steeper property tax bills. It all takes careful calculation and analysis of one’s specific financial situation. Hell, if it came down to it, those taxes could be assessed and simply not collected until the homeowner sells or dies. There are a lot of possible formulae.

What’s unsustainable is the Prop 13 model.

Nah. I’m gonna be one any day now.

10 Likes