Jump to content

Talk:1978 California Proposition 13/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Counter Argument to the "aftermath"

This section makes no sense. Please use complete sentences to support the idea instead of pasting in sentence fragments and numbers. --Luciuskwok 03:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was unintelligible. I took a look to see if I could fix it but it was beyond my comprehension. I've removed it for the time being. Is there a notable critic who has made the same point more cogently? -Willmcw 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Eminent Domain

The part "to attract large retail development" is a biased assement. Though the Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that localities can invoke emminent domain to attract retail development and private industry, this is not its mere definition. Localities can also invoke eminent domain to build schools, fire stations, hospitals, and things that truly serve a "public purpose". I'm deleting this portion of the sentance because it is a biased assement.

I take it whoever wrote the above did so before Kelo v. New London, but even at that time it was still wrong. Eminent domain is used quite often to attract sales tax generators, like when Oxnard ED-ed a "blighted" strip mall in 2004 so a developer could put in a newer, shinier one. The redevelopment process has also been (ab)used for the purpose of sales tax generation.--Slightlyslack 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC) [edit: s/"New Hampshire"/"New London"]


"Proposition 13 has been widely regarded as the most visible catalyst that launched the modern conservative movement - dedicated to lowering taxes, decreasing the size of government, and increasing states' rights - into the national spotlight. Many historians believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt's revolutionary form of government dedicated to preventing the Great Depression and providing opportunities for all Americans to succeed lost its idealism and faded. The newly launched conservative movement, in turn, was considered to have helped to catapult former California Governor Ronald Reagan into the U.S. presidency and the Republicans into control of both houses of Congress and of a majority of state governments."

Jeez... are ya a little pissed off there. I don't think it is warranted to say that a minor property tax law in a foriegn country like California is responsible for launching republicans into public office across the country.

This article reaks of POV!

--Wraybm1

You're confusing San Francisco with California. ;-) California isn't as liberal as you think. Proposition 13 isn't as minor a tax law as you believe, but not many other states give their citizens the ability to change the constitution as easily as California, so they won't feel any benefits of the law itself. The popularity of cutting taxes, however, could have been supported by either Republicans or Democrats. The Democrats continue their old "Great Society" initiatives, while Republicans took advantage of the revolt against ever-increasing taxations to begin another sea-change in relationship between society and government, hence "Contract with America".
What I would like is to revert control of property tax back to the district. You may not live in California. The summary of my reasoning is: Different districts have different property values. Each district can best decide how to set its tax to pay for K-12 education.
That means if you have 1,000 homeowners with $1 million homes, and 1,000 children need, let's say, $4,000 for education, you actually could tax less than 1%. The opposite is true, though: If you live in poor areas, you will have to pay higher taxes to fund education. Conclusion: Reverting to pre-Proposition 13 likely amounts to regressive taxation. Still, the California government would not be in as dire a fiscal state as it is now.
What the California Supreme Court did was apply the 14th Amendment to the state, when the US Supreme Court ruled that it only applies to national citizenship, that states could not abridge the national rights of all citizens. The state justices probably overstepped their boundary because the US Constitution had no provision for education or property tax.
I agree that this article is somewhat biased against Prop. 13. Whether it reeks (you mispelled it as "reaks") of POV is up to you to discredit. I know the way I say things is mistrustful. ;-)

--lux 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"The late" Howard Jarvis

The late Howard Jarvis died in 1986. If he were alive today, he'd be 102 years old. Maybe it's no longer necessary to call him "the late" Howard Jarvis? Or is there a living Howard Jarvis with whom he might be confused? Jobius 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the tradition is that "late" is used only in the first year after death, so notify those who may not be aware of the death. In ancy case, I agree we can drop it. -Will Beback 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it's no longer necessary to let people know that he is dead.--Lux 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

commerical property

I was doing some research on property tax freeze methods, and came across this. I'm wondering about the part of the article dealing with commercial property. Is it true that for Company A owns real estate pre-1978, and that if Company B buys Company A (stock, not just assets) that as long as Company B continues to own the property that there is no "change in ownership" for Prop 13 purposes? But if Company B had bought the assests of Company A only, that there would be a change of ownership causing the the property to be reassessed.

In general, real property owned by legal entities is reassessed whenever any other legal entity or individual acquires a controlling interest in the entity owning the property. In the example above, where Company B acquired all of the stock of Company A, then all of the real property owned by Company A would undergo a reassessment. A reassessment all of Company A's real property would also occur if Company B owned 49 percent of Company A's stock, and then acquired enough shares such that its ownership interest in Company A exceeded 50 percent.--Leftymn 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposition 13 and transfers from a trust

Can anyone enlighten me on what happens when a property is transferred by distribution from a trust? I presume this constitutes a change of ownership and therefore triggers a reassessment of the property to its current value.

Thanks

George Crall gmcrall@adelphia.net

  • The distribution of real property from a trust results in a change in ownership absent an applicable exclusion. In any case, the law "looks through" the trust to the beneficiaries thereof to determine whether a change in ownership has occurred. Unless the beneficiary is the settlor's spouse or child (in most instances), or the distribution results merely in a change in the method of holding title by the same persons, a change in ownership will generally result.--74.37.64.152 07:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

The "Aftermath" section is still totally devoid of references. An editor in a mood to be annoying could rightfully come in here and put a citation tag on almost every sentence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents of Proposition 13

The article talks all about the background and consequences of this change in the law, but not so much about how the proposition actually changed our constitution and tax system. What did Prop 13 do????

It seems to be all in there, but would be better organized in a simple section entitled something like: "How proposition 13 changed California's taxation system"

This would include, among other things, this paragraph (in "Revolt"):

Under Proposition 13, the real estate tax on a parcel of residential property is limited to 1% of its assessed value, until the property is resold. This "assessed value", however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year. If the property's market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California have appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% over the course of several years) or if inflation exceeds 2% (common), the differential between the owner's taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large. The property may be reassessed under certain conditions, when additions or new construction occur; the assessed value is also subject to reduction if the value of the house declines, say during a real estate slump.

AND, this sentence in the second paragraph:

In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enaduris (talk • contribs) 20:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Why not limit Proposition 13 to primary residences?

I can understand the argument that Prop 13 keeps the elderly from being forced from their homes, even if at the expense of young couples no longer being able to afford a home. What I cannot understand is why Prop 13 is extended to investment properties. Many properties in California were snatched up by investment institutions and individual investors prior to the escalation in home prices. New families who are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a home are forced to pay the tax burden of the more wealthy investors and of large corporations.

I pity my children's generation who live in California. Home ownership will be out of their reach unless they move away from their immediate family to a more normal, equitable State. Many of my friends have children who have already been forced to leave the state. When my children come of age in another 5 years, they too will be forced to leave. Prop 13 is directly disrupting the concept of American families living together as a family unit, with children being able to have frequent exposure to their grandparents.

It's not Prop 13 that's doing that, it's the anti-development policies of local and state government that limits the supply of affordable housing. If we want the kind of pricing for housing that we used to have in California, we have to roll back the kind of zoning restrictions that make it just about impossible to build an apartment building without a decade of hassles and courtroom maneuvers.

I can understand how politicians such as Arnold Schwartzenegger might be afraid of the ramifications of raising taxes on primary residences and seeing some people lose their homes. To meet the younger generation half way and avoid disrupting the American family unit being able to live together in the same state, I propose that properties other than primary residences, be reassessed annually - no elderly losing their homes or other such drama. This will mean an increase in rent for renters, causing some short term turmoil as many renters are forced to leave the state. I suspect it would also eventually lead to a more normalized housing market where my children can afford to live in the same community as their parents. I am interested in hearing other's thoughts on this. Has anyone ever suggested altering Prop 13 to only apply to primary residences?

Let's do something to change the course of California's future so that family units will be able to live in the same state, grandparents will be able to see their grandchildren grow up and grandchildren will benefit from exposure to the knowlege and love of their grandparents. Djohns32 22:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; nor is it a discussion forum. The purpose of this page is to discuss and improve the article, not to discuss the topic. You'll need to find another place to have this conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some cleaning up

I'm taking a course taught by William Fischel, the most prominent proponent of the thesis that Serrano v Priest is the cause of Prop 13, but based on what I've learned, this article needs some neutrality issues addressed. I've just restored a statement of the negative effects of Prop 13 which was removed without comment in June. It's clearly POVed, but this can be remedied through citations and clarifying that these are points of view, not actual empirical facts. The introduction also clearly takes up the POV that Serrano v Priest was the direct cause of Prop 13, which even Fischel would probably say is not accepted as an empirical fact by all. I'll try to work on these issues if I have some time over the next month, but I just thought I'd leave a note here to explain my restoration of the content, and how I intend to help spruce the article up. Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of Proposition 13: POV dispute

Ed Wood's Wig has a point (history of article, January 18, 2009). The first three sections have titles that start with "negative effects". The sections on negative effects has mostly unqualified statements ("Proposition 13 contributes to an inefficient housing market"), whereas the section on positive effects mostly lists what supporters think ("Supporters argue ...").

More generally, the idea of "positive" and "negative" effects is problematic. Suppose we agree that Proposition 13 has resulted in lower state tax revenue and spending; is this a positive or a negative effect? Those who believe state spending should be high will see it as negative, those who believe it should be low will see it as positive. It might be better to drop the value judgments entirely and just change this section to "Effects of Proposition 13". PMcGarrigle (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole section needs a rewrite by a neutral party. Whoever wrote this is clearly hostile to the idea of citizens limiting taxation through ballot initiatives instead of just accepting whatever the legislature wants to inflict on us.

I agree, but from the second half of your comment ("citizens limiting taxation through ballot initiatives instead of just accepting whatever the legislature wants to inflict on us"), it's pretty clear you are not that neutral party.

[New comment, new commenter:] I added a "clarification needed" tag in "negative effects on state tax structure". The sentence is "Assuming that the price of a house is somewhat a determinant of a person’s wealth (and therefore ability to pay) and benefit received, this feature would lead neighbors or business owners who purchased a property at different periods of time to pay a different assessment, without any relationship to ability to pay...". But this is garbled: if the price changes over time, and if the price paid is somewhat a determinant of a person's wealth, then the assessments will indeed be different but this does have (by assumption) a strong relationship to ability to pay. A main point of Prop 13 was to protect the fixed-income retiree who had purchased a property fifty years ago from having to pay the same property tax as the affluent new neighbors who had chosen to pay top dollar for the house next door. The sentence seems to be mixing up price and value (i.e., price paid vs. current market value). PMcGarrigle (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Property taxes primarily affect county governments and school and fire districts in California. Having companies that do not sell their properties, such as a supermarket, department store, manufacturing plant, office buildings, the property taxes they pay have not significantly increased since 1978 and they are paying a much lower percentage as a whole year by year with the difference made up by home owners and renters in the state.

Companies move out of the state to be in areas with lower housing costs, cheaper labor, and often to avoid environmental scrutiny and regulation. All three are factors in major semiconductor fabs relocating to New Mexico, Arizon, and even Bali. Companies are seldom going to publicly reveal their internal decision making processes and the real reason they locate in another area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.82.29 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although there are other factors such as the bursting of the hi-tech bubble in Silicon Valley in late 2000; the fact that the U.S. economy remains depressed; and many jobs have left California due to outsourcing (jobs moved to places such as India) and, according to Republicans, because of anticompetitive legislation such as paid family leave and generous workers compensation benefits. These factors have resulted in lower state income tax revenues. Other factors include runaway spending in some areas, such as correctional officer pay rates negotiated by the powerful Cal. Correctional Peace Officers Assoc. (CCPOA) under which some state prison guards make $100,000 per year. Mbstone 01:18, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article called the proposition enacted by the initiative a "law", which suggested that it was a statute, rather than part of the state constitution. It is fairly clear from the linked text that it is in fact a part of the state constitution. I understand that the CA state constitution is very easy to amend, and as a result many provisions that would be statutes in other states are constitutionalized there. Can statutes also be passed by initiatives in CA? If not, you might want to remove "law or. . ." from the text. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article 13A Section 2(b) provides for annual increases in the "cash value base" for the property tax (adjustment for inflation) up to 2%. 

(b) The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the
inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or
reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for
the area under taxing jurisdiction, or may be reduced to reflect
substantial damage, destruction or other factors causing a decline in
value.

Should this be mentioned? --Commonlisp 03:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to include the historical precedents that led to Proposition 13, such as immigration and Serrano vs. Priest in 1971 and 1976 that led the state to take over government spending in school, rather than have each county handle the money from the property tax. --lux 04:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Serrano and Proposition 13

I looked up the Proposition 13 entry on a whim and was surprised and pleased to find that my theory of Prop 13's origins has become the wikipedia wisdom. That is, I argued in several articles that the Serrano decision, which demanded that school districts either pay the same tax rates for the same school spending level or just equalize spending per pupil. William A. Fischel, “Did Serrano Cause Proposition 13?” National Tax Journal 42 (December 1989): 465-474.; William A. Fischel, “How Serrano Caused Proposition 13.” Journal of Law and Politics 12 (1996): 607-645. In fairness, though, I would point out that there are people who do not agree with this assessment: Kirk Stark, and Jonathan Zasloff, “Tiebout and Tax Revolts: Did Serrano Really Cause Proposition 13?” UCLA Law Review 50 (February 2003): 801-858. I replied to their critique in: William Fischel, “Did John Serrano Vote for Proposition 13? A Reply to Stark and Zasloff,” UCLA Law Review 51:4 (April 2004): 887-932. I am new to Wikipedia, though I have long enjoyed and used its articles in my research, so I am not sure how much of this to add to references and whether I should correct some minor errors (I think) in the article. I am aware that I have a POV about this, but I try to be fairminded. Any comments from veterans?

I added a reference to the Merrow report and discussion of some people who believe that Serrano v. Priest led to Prop 13.

70.137.155.46 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo Request

This article is currently tagged with a request for a photograph to improve the article. I'm stumped as to what such a photograph should be of. Anybody have any [serious] ideas, or should that tag be nixed? Neil916 (Talk) 08:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After some time, nobody has come up with any ideas, so I have removed the photo request tag. Feel free to re-add the tag with a short note here as to what the subject matter of the photo should be. Neil916 (Talk) 08:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Prop 13's Impact on Post 1978 Incorporated Cities

Does anyone know how Prop 13 impacts those cities incorporated after its passage? Are there positive or negative factors impacting local municipalities that have incorporated after 1978?

  • Cities are more reliant on sales tax then previously; sales taxes run around 8.75%, vice 5% pre-Prop 13. Cities are now more concerned with building retail outlets that can draw tax revenue from beyond their borders, such as shopping malls. As sales taxes vary more with economic activity than property taxes did, cities have to impose drastic cuts if retail sales fall, as in a recession.MWS 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
And if property taxes fall, as in a recession, as in 2008 - 2010? Mowster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Generational Justice

I'm intrigued about the "Generational Justice" concept referenced in the Negative effects: On the housing market section. I'd like to see a section included that gives an analysis related to the current impending across-the-board service cuts that California is forced to implement to deal with its $24 billion deficit, and how these cuts (social services, MediCal, etc.) will impact the elderly population that Proposition 13 was designed to help keep in their homes, since it also has contributed to the funding problems for state government. Would someone please take on this task? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.112.56 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To resolve the 'missing citation' reference at the end of this section, I contacted Prof. Timothy T. Taylor at Macalester College in St. Paul, MN. I requested copies of any articles he had written on "generational justice" in the context of Proposition 13. Tim responded by writing that "Wikipedia is in error on this one. I haven't written any such analysis of Prop. 13." I am unable to find another Tim Taylor who could be referenced. I am also unable to find other, similar studies. Unless the author of this study is properly identified, I will delete the reference to any such study. -- Felix.lechner (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Old and New Citations Needed

Based on the Governor's Budget 2009/2010 document at the California state website, the section about Prop.13 titled "Costs of Higher Education Increased" includes an allegation that the Department of Corrections receives greater funding than the Department of Education. From the official document: 

Dpt_Corr Dpt_Educ

2008/9 $10.6 B $56 B 2009/10 8.6 55 2010/11 8.8 53

On a gross basis, that allegation is obviously not true. However, if the intent of the author was to point out that funding on a per-capita, population-served basis [prisoners vs students] was higher for Dpt_Corr, then that may be justified but was not presented with the appropriate figure[s]-of-merit.

All that would be required is average or projected prison and student head-counts for each period. The author of the text appears to have a POV regarding the Prison Guards Union and is using Prop.13 as a means of airing it. Trioculite (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The table format was not preserved when the above edit was posted to the site. You will need to select [edit] in order to see the table values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trioculite (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Economic Inequity and Inefficiency"

The paragraph "Economic Inequity and Inefficiency" starts with a sweeping assertion and then does nothing to back it up except to provide a bare citation, without summarizing the argument. The rest of the paragraph talks about general terminology for analyzing tax policy without saying why such analysis would cast Prop 13 in a negative light.

E.g., and just as one example, take the last sentence: "Lastly, administrative and political feasibility refer to whether a government can implement and enforce a tax policy with reasonable effort and without excessive political resistance." What is the reader supposed to make of this? Proposition 13 is not difficult to administer, certainly less so than the system of constant reassessments that preceded it. Prop 13 also greatly reduced the political resistance to paying property taxes, and not only because tax rates went down: after passage, purchasers were able to predict how much they would have to pay, and in making the purchase they agree to the taxes to be paid.

The whole paragraph is an extended non sequitur and is better deleted. PMcGarrigle (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

    • Both 'negative affects' and 'positive effects' might just as well be deleted as citations are slim, and the negative effects section was clearly written by someone with a strong opposition to Prop. 13. Someone else noted long ago - just state the effects, without making a judgement. If prop 13 caused revenue generation to shift to sales tax, let readers decide if that's a positive or negative effect. Can someone point to a good reference article on a piece of legislation that has a respectable "analysis" section as a model for the re-write of the analysis section of this article?

Mowster (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Biggest Beneficiaries Are Commercial Property Owners, NOT Residential Property Owners"

The previous title was misleading. Very misleading, in fact. I love the emphatic "NOT": proof by emphatic assertion. Many residential owners benefit just as much as commercial property owners or more. The primary issue is when you bought, not whether you're a commercial or residential owner. There's an arguable secondary effect where commercial owners can avoid a reset more easily than residential owners in some circumstances, but there are many other effects and extensions of Prop 13 that benefit residential owners more than commercial owners. PMcGarrigle (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As a Housing Disincentive

One argument that I've heard is that Prop 13 has acted as a disincentive for local governments to approve construction of new housing due to the high cost of the services required for new housing (i.e. police, fire, schools, libraries, parks, etc.) as compared to commercial properties. The article touches on this subject but does not address it directly. AusJeb (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, add it if you've got good source; it would be an interesting angle. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But what local governments tend to do is declare a redevelopment zone to susidize - typically housing - development. The new property taxes go to subsidize/fund the development through the local redevelopment agency, and the local governments have to slap a Mello Roos tax on the property to keep up funding for police, fire, schools etc. to maintain fiscal neutrality. This mello roos is on top of property taxes, and makes the housing even more expensive. I'd really like to see a good, strong, source for what you've heard. Mowster (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think he's referring to the "fiscalization of land use" phenomenon discussed in this report by PPIC. Note what they say at page 12: "Certainly, much of the redevelopment was used to attract commercial activities that would generate substantial sales tax revenues, while new housing was often not encouraged because it generated less sales taxes and produced a smaller tax increment." --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Strauss-Howe on Generations and the 4 Turnings"

In the issue of sociology, Proposition 13 has been brought up in numerious studies on generations and the 4 Turnings of a Society. Strauss-Howe, authors of Generations and The Fourth Turning, is scientificly noted as the benchmark for genertions studies and they bring up about the reactive generation, which they call 13ers, but known as Generation X, as paying for older generations by shifting the cost to younger people and the prime example they use is California's Prop 13. Being one of the most notable examples in Strauss-Howe, and Strauss-Howe being the benchmark in the generational sciences, would it not be prudent to made a note about this in the negative effects? Pwalker1972 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

–§Would it be fair to say that many of the California state government's fiscal problems can be attributed in some part to Prop 13? -- knoodelhed 20:56, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--"it is clearly at the root of the state's fiscal woes" this statement is an opinion, not a fact; and this article should be modified to make that clear. Just b/c someone says something like this in an article in WaPo or whatever doesn't make it a fact, but only an opinion that appeared in print. Many other people have completely different opinions about what is "the root of the state's fiscal woes"; for example, many people who live in other states believe that the root of Ca's fiscal woes is the exponential growth of government spending, which seems to be unstoppable, and beyond the ability of ANY system of taxation to pay for in the long term. After all, though prop 13 allows some to avoid dramatic increases in property taxes, the state still has some of the highest rates of state income taxes and every sort of fee. When there is no limit to spending, chasing every citizens' last dollar to tax is never going to be sufficient. --99.158.46.27 (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation NOT Needed?

If these policies favor remodeling or modifying over buying, the policy would have efficiency implications because it limits individuals' mobility from one community to another and other private economic activity.[citation needed]

"If S, then P" does not normally require a citation since it does not assert that S is true, only that P would follow from S.

True, it is not clear how mobility improves efficiency. That not moving limits mobility is simply a tautology; that limited mobility causes some unspecified implications for efficiency is a non-sequiter to the extent that it is not simply vague. That "other private economic activity" does so is simply vague.

Better still, it should be re-written or deleted.

Mcwbr (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If this means that people who cannot move from one community to another may be forced to commute long distances when they change jobs or when their employer moves, then there certainly are efficiency implications—in transportation. If that is what is meant, it is what should be said. Mcwbr (talk)

NPOV and V

I reverted a series of edits by an IP editor.[1] The basic problem is that they seemed intended to prove a point. Also they were poorly sourced. Most of the material was unsourced, but some was based on an unpublished op-ed column by an anti-tax activist,[2] or on an article that didn't even mention Prop. 13.[3]

I've reverted more material by the same editor.[4] Per WP:OR, we can't go around finding statistics on miscellaneous sources to compile evidence to support or refute a point. With few exceptions, all of the sources should be about Prop. 13, or at least address it directly.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge Disparity in Taxation

Prop 13 has created a huge disparity in taxation that becomes more egregious every year. The median home price in 1975, the base year on which assessed values were based for Prop 13 purposes, was $41,600. Increasing that amount by 2% per year for 32 years (1978-2010) brings the assessed value up to $78,397. Meanwhile, the median home price in California in April of 2010 was $255,000 (down from $484,000 in 2007). Even with the current low prices, those who own the same homes that they owned in 1978, pay on average 69% less in property taxes that those who paid the 2010 median price. In 2007, the year with the highest median price, original 1978 owners paid 84% less in taxes compared to those who paid on an assessed value equal to the median home price.

If you want to validate this disparity with your own data, go to [5] and check out assessed valuations in a neighborhood of your choosing. You are likely to see homes of similar sizes and market values with assessed valuations varying by a factor of 10 or more on the same street.

Prop 13 has created a huge class of property owners getting a really sweet deal, paying significantly less than the average property taxpayer, while California is starving its schools, municipal services, social services, and infrastructure. Prop 13 has shifted the burden of property taxes to new homeowners, many of which are younger families. It's hard to argue against protecting home ownership for the elderly, but, like rent control, Prop 13 has created an untargeted subsidy that goes way beyond protecting the elderly. One unintended consequence is that now the state is cutting the health and social services for the needy, including the elderly.

The disparity is even greater for commercial property which turns over slower and for which there are legal ways of maintaining the 1975 valuation as the basis for assessment even when the property changes hands.

The Supreme Court ruled that the property tax disparity was constitutional since people know the rules when they go into the real estate market; however, this does not make it good law or a fair taxation system. As time goes on, the disparity will continue to grow unless the law is changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.mtnview (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well written, but I disagree completely, and I suspect most Prop 13 supporters would as well. The problem is that you're looking at one small slice of the issue and are making the assumption that there has to be absolute parity within this narrow slice. For any one year of the Social Security program, things also look very skewed: young workers pay money in, retirees take money out. Unfair! Well, not really: those young workers will be retirees one day, and will then benefit. Similarly under Prop 13 there is not much benefit to a homeowner in Year 1, but there is in Years 10, 20, and so on. The fact that a new homeowner is in Year 1 while his neighbor is in Year 10 doesn't mean that there is fundamental unfairness.

Also property taxes go on projects that (at least in theory) have lasting value in the community. Long-Term Resident has been paying towards parks, libraries, schools, for 20 years, and Johnny-Come-Lately moves in and enjoys exactly the same amenities without ever having paid a dime. Unfair! Again, not really.

Also, the argument that Prop 13 is unfair depends on looking at current market value, i.e., unrealized appreciation. All that will be subject to taxation, just later. I.e., what happens if Long-Term-Resident and Johnny-Come-Lately both sell their houses a year later? The price of JCL's house will not have changed much, or even gone down, and he will pay little or no capital gains tax. LTR, on the other hand, has experienced huge appreciation (especially in nominal terms), so will be liable for capital gains tax, at least in the pricier areas of California. Unfair? No, not really.

So in addition to being constitutional, Prop 13 is (in my opinion) not only good, but excellent and fair public policy. PMcGarrigle (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, but I completely disagree with your premises. I do not believe that the Social Security comparison is appropriate since participants are both contributors and recipients. While the payouts may not be fair compared to contributions, it is not a parallel with the Prop 13 taxation system in which paying lower taxes is the main benefit. Furthermore, I do not agree that capital gains taxes are relevant as an offsetting burden. The Long-Term-Resident sells his property pays significant capital gains taxes because of significant capital gains. The LTR walks away with a large sum of money less a modest portion for capital gains taxes. He has also benefited year after year from low property taxes. The Johnny-Come-Lately seller has little or no gain but has paid high taxes the entire time he owned the property. The LTR benefits from low taxes and appreciation while the JCL has high taxes and no appreciation, possibly depreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.150.73 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. This is quite all right with me, because I'm happy with the existing law, so I'm not really trying to convince you. The burden of proof is on those who would like to change the law, and so far (IMHO, and no offense intended) you're not meeting that burden. PMcGarrigle (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. PMcGarrigle (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification in "Positive effects" section

I can't parse the second sentence in this paragraph:

Estimates are that Proposition 13 has saved California taxpaying citizens over $528 billion (value retrieved 5/31/2009). However, other groups, such as the California Taxpayers Association, citing "The Future of Proposition 13 in California," California Policy Seminar, March 1993, University of California, authored by Arthur O’Sullivan, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin, argue that the tax is in fact progressive, and that acquisition-value assessments seem to provide property tax equity.

It seems to be implying that saving taxpayers' money is opposed to progressive taxation, and then the jargon-to-lay vocabulary ratio increases and the point sails right over my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camryl (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Easily fixed by breaking it into two separate paragraphs. Mowster (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding: Other taxes created or increased

There are no citations for this section to support the so-called "negative effect" that Prop 13 is the direct cause for the increase or creation of other taxes. The reference to sales taxes points to State documents that cover sales taxes, but not to any scholarly article that points out a connection between Prop 13 and sales tax increases. (Probably there are no citations, because it would be disingenuous to justify the increase in one tax by pointing out that other taxes have made up the difference. It's also disingenuous to argue that property taxes should be raised higher, and a negative effect of the limitations preventing this is that other taxes have gone higher.) This section should be removed until appropriate citations can be provided. I've tagged it for citation. Mowster (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Background section - Serrano v Priest and Prop 13

I see William Fischel stopped by a few years ago :). That's kind of cool!

In general, I think having Serrano as the primary cause listed in the Background section is ... probably not a consensus opinion. Fischel's argument is interesting, and is cited in some form by many, but the strong form of this argument - that Serrano caused Prop 13 - is not uncontroversial. I find Isaac Martin's "Does School Finance Litigation Cause Taxpayer Revolt? Serrano and Proposition 13" (2006) takes a bit of the oomph out of Fischel's argument; JSTOR link.

(Its audience is also largely economists and tax policy folk; historians and sociologists have their own theses.)

Something listing a variety of contributing causes, and dueling explanations, might be more useful.

My brief sketch would be:

  • Rising property tax assessments through the 1970s
    • property tax modernization and rationalization (AB 80, in response to assessor scandals of the mid-1960s)
    • real estate inflation (and overall price inflation)
  • Political issues
    • inaction on property taxes by governors/legislatures
    • watergate-era mistrust in gov't
  • Expression of grassroots populism (vs. thesis that movement was co-opted by big business)
  • Serrano (it's a unique and important theory)

So I am busy writing about Prop 13, and totally new to Wikipedia. Thought I might throw this criticism out there and see what happens. Maybe I'll look for a way to flag the Serrano section. Nsoe (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Negative Effects on the Housing Market

Re the claims that 66.211.266.29 asks to be disputed or removed, but not tagged for citation: I was not the original tagger but agree with that original tagger that they're a stretch. Most of the claims deal with California real estate being expensive. Well, it is (though a little less so these days), but there are very many reasons for this: great weather, world class cities, natural beauty, industrial innovation & jobs, etc etc. If Oklahoma passes an identical mesaure, will we see the same real estate prices there? Of course not. So why pin it all on Prop 13? We might as well label this section "Negative Effects of Being a Great Place to Live".

And apart from all that, the direct effect of Prop 13 on new homeowners is to limit their property taxes, and without Prop 13 they could have to pay more; it's hard to see how that helps. If I follow it correctly, the argument being made is the indirect one that without Prop 13, long-time owners would have to pay more, and with all these extra tax receipts cities would lower the rate on new owners. A governmental agency that voluntarily lowers tax rates? I'll believe it when I see it. In any case, it is not "obvious" and needs a citation at the very least. These claims were tagged in June 2007 so if they haven't been backed up by now, it's time to remove them. PMcGarrigle (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"The statutory 2% maximum annual increase in assessed value has, on average, under-paced the consumer price index since the adoption of Proposition 13 to date. This leaves governments with reduced purchasing power from its property tax levies." This is wrong. While unsold housing stock only rises 2% per year, when a house sells, it hops back up to full market value. If many houses are being kept off the market and being closely held, that just increases the rate at which other housing appreciates in value. This statement certainly needs a peer reviewed reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.142.105.226 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on Significance and Unavailable References

In the beginning section of the article it states “The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate…” It continues to describe one section of the proposition. I feel like this statement may be disputed and other parts of the proposition could be considered very significant and have portion allocated to other parts of the proposition as section 1 is highlighted.

For example, proposition 13 requires any measure that would raise state revenues must be approved by 2/3 of voters for special or designated services.[1]

This is very significant for local communities that need funding and having 2/3 voter agreeing on a measure can be very difficult to achieve.


I also took the time to look at the references on the page and noticed quite a few things I would like to point out. If anyone would like to help me update the list or if the original editors can find their unavailable links again that would be great.

• Reference Number 2 is 10 years old. This article refers to the least affordable from 10 years ago. Data may have changed.

• Reference 10 is a link to the BOE website on property tax but does not clearly show the statement that was referenced in the article.

• Reference 23 has very similar wording to the section the article it is referring to. • Reference 3 has a link that is dead

• The idea of the taxpayer revolt is interesting and would like to see the article it refers to. • Reference 3 has a link that is dead • Reference 4 has a link that is dead • Reference 11 has a link that is dead • Reference 12 has a link that is dead • Reference 18 has a link that is dead • Reference 19 has a link that is dead • Reference 20 has a link that is dead • Reference 21 has a link that is dead • Reference 22 has a link that is dead • Reference 28 has a link that is dead • Reference 38 has a link that is dead Alr066 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf

Reliability Evaluation

As I was reviewing the section on positive outcomes of proposition 13 I ran into a few concerning issues. First, the document seems to have a bias overtone that under represents the people who are for Proposition 13. In the Property tax equity section, the article provides a claim that the "The Future of Proposition 13 in California," California Policy Seminar, March 1993, University of California, authored by Arthur O’Sullivan, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin, argue that the tax is progressive, and that acquisition-value assessments seem to provide property tax equity.” This a verifiable claim but they do not go on to explain why this source reached this claim. I would suggest to go into further detail about why they think that prop 13 provides property tax equity. This would result in a broad base and unbiased article for the reader to make up their own opinion about the proposition.

In addition, the articles that were referenced were not reliable sources and or were not able to be found. For example, in the Reduction in Taxes Section the author claims “Estimates are that Proposition 13 has reduced taxes paid by California taxpayers by an aggregate $528 Billion (value retrieved 31 May 2009)”. I would like if the author can update this statistic to the recent value or include a reliable source where this statistic can be retrieved.

Another example is found in the Tax Predictability and Community Stability section. It states “Proposition 13 is said to have provided predictability for property owners, and increased community stability” it then references another Wikipedia article. In order to improve reliability, I suggest including the initial article where this statement was derived from. Jdelmer (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

1% is out of line too.

When you consider the effect of low interest rates on realestate costs, the 1% is over inflated. People should be able to live well on their property without inflated or unreasonable costs.

There is no way to justify it, other than a lopsided income tax or a regressive opression on those with a different asset allocation. We tax cigarettes.. But houses? People sort of need them.

If they can't get it from income, they're just stealing your house while youre still in it.

72.94.233.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


I greatly enjoyed this article, it has adequate evidence to support almost all claims discussed. I would interject and state that one topic has been very underrepresented, allowing for erroneous assumptions by casual readers. Under "Negative Consequences," subtopic "on education and public services" I observe very limited references to the demonstratable negative effect Prop. 13 has had in CA. Mentioning the decline of CA public school rankings from 1960 to today is in my point of view simplificating a complex network of causal relationships. What about the effects to non-English language children in their formative years with the absence of adequate curricula and after school programs? The growing disappearance of arts and humanities courses, undermining the very essence of democracy, the creativity of dissent and rhetorical leadership? If thus section is expanded to include the vast array of evidence produced by academics, we can better address the complex externalities of prop. 13 Daniel UCSD (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing Externalities/Quantitative Data/Causation

I greatly enjoyed this article, it has adequate evidence to support almost all claims discussed. I would interject and state that one topic has been very underrepresented, allowing for erroneous assumptions by casual readers. Under "Negative Consequences," subtopic "on education and public services" I observe very limited references to the demonstratable negative effect Prop. 13 has had in CA. Mentioning the decline of CA public school rankings from 1960 to today is in my point of view simplificating a complex network of causal relationships. What about the effects to non-English language children in their formative years with the absence of adequate curricula and after school programs? The growing disappearance of arts and humanities courses, undermining the very essence of democracy, the creativity of dissent and rhetorical leadership? If thus section is expanded to include the vast array of evidence produced by academics, we can better address the complex externalities of prop. 13 To summarize, can we address the missing negative externalities tied between prop 13 and CA public school system more qualitatively? Can we better portray the complex network of causal relationships between prop 13 and public schools and services? What are the long term effects of prop 13 to the growing minority demographics academic-wise? Daniel UCSD (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Article probably needs semi-protection

This article is a heavily vandalized mess, but I don't have the time or energy to clean it up myself. For example, the name of the plaintiff in the relevant case was Nordlinger, not Hahn. That's just one of dozens of obvious errors. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Interest in a sheet that documents all the property tax classes and assessment ratios and assessment caps across the world?

Is there interest in a sheet that documents all the property tax classes and assessment ratios and assessment caps across the world?

I've started one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryozzo/S7000A

But I do not know if it already exists and if not, I do not know all the values for California, etc. However, I do know New York City tax history and would love to collaborate on a data project.

Ryozzo (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Why a Criticism section?

Property belongs to the people. Not to the government. Any form of taxation on land and property means that they 'do not' belong to the owner any more. The insidious and duplicitious property tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.22.187 (talk) 08:56, March 23, 2010

Sorry, your personal religious beliefs are not relevant here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.155.99 (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is rife with POV (in other words "religion"... Mowster (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much opposition to taxes in general, do the like having fire departments, libraries, police, military,.... --Trekman10 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not opposition to taxes -- it's opposition to paying $20K/yr in property taxes, another $20K/yr in extra state income and sales taxes (compared to most states) and getting mediocre schools in return for all that money. California is not a good place to raise a family, because of Prop 13 and other policies like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.35 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

With higher property taxes, we could have lower sales and incomes taxes. People who don't own property would pay less in taxes on their earnings, and wealthy real estate investors and property management companies would bear a greater share of paying for the infrastructure and government services that they directly benefit from. 

Myrrhia (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I think the neutrality of this article should be disputed, as large sections of it have been rewritten in the style of a persuasive essay. The citations are also inappropriate, listing book titles to make the aforementioned persuasive points. Particularly bad are the negative impacts and benefits sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:680:21:8990:86C:AF9:EE80 (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. How is "Prop 13 has saved taxpayers $528 million (or whatever the exact figure was)" to be categorized as a "benefit" of Prop 13? That could every bit as easily written as "Prop 13 has reduced government revenue by $528 million" I think calling any effect of the legislation "positive", "negative", or a "benefit" is not keeping in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.163.165 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Having a neutral "Impacts" section might be appropriate, as might some form of an "arguments for" and "arguments against" section. But declaring that certain impact is definitively positive or negative seems inappropriate. 67.164.74.167 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on California Proposition 13 (1978). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Proposition 13 (1978). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Proposition 13 (1978). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Debate tag / cleanup of analysis

The Analysis section currently fails to be encyclopedic and give an overall summary of the bills effects; it's more or less a list of arguments in favor and against. Most points are poorly cited at best, with many relying on single sources, and many relying only on partisan advocacy groups. I'd hope someone might be interested in doing a major rewrite of this section, integrating the consensus views from unbiased sources, without unduly editorializing on which are positive or negative. Ctbeiser (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing "Aftermath in California"

I like the overall article on Proposition 13. However, I think the section entitled "Aftermath in California" needs a tad more focus and clarity.

Focus: I think the aftermath needs to be clearly divided into a cost-benefit analysis. Who has benefited from nearly 30 years of Prop 13, and how have they benefited? Similarly, and separately, who has been hurt or damaged by Prop 13, and how have they been hurt or damaged? The subject of the hidden costs of Prop 13 is a subject which advocates of Prop 13 hate discussing. But, in the interest of fairness, discussing the obvious and hidden costs of Prop 13 must be done. Wikipedia is not a tool for conservatives, nor is it a tool for liberals or progressives. A fair and balanced article demands a cost-benefit analysis.

Clarity: There are two major crises brewing in California: a chronic shortage of affordable housing, and a chronic budget deficit. I believe both problems are a direct result of Prop 13, and I believe many reputable economists would agree with this judgement. The issue of clarity arises in the explanation of how Prop 13 has caused both of these problems. The chronic budget deficit is the easier of the two to clearly explain with reference to Prop 13, and I won't comment on this topic. But, the chronic shortage of affordable housing in California is a problem whose root cause is more subtle. Prior to Prop 13, affordable housing was plentiful in California. By shielding homeowners, from the adverse financial effect of rising home values, Prop 13 has empowered or enabled all sorts and forms of slow-growthers and no-growthers within the state: NIMBYists, hypocritical environmentalists, green-belters, etc. These groups have succeeded year after year in limiting the supply of new residential construction within California in the face of a rising population and increasing demand. They can't stop everything, but they stop a lot. How are the slow-growthers empowered post-Prop 13? They can agitate to oppose new construction without the fear of having to pay increased property taxes based on the increased value of their homes. Before Prop 13 passed, if community members agitated against new construction by saying "no, no, no", then the penalty was very simple after their homes were re-assessed: you must "pay, pay, pay" your increased property taxes. So, in effect, Prop 13 has now become a tax disincentive to build the new homes that California needs. Not only that, it has also become a tax incentive to limit new construction because homeowners know that by limiting construction they increase the value of their own home without any major financial penalty. It's supply and demand as taught in Economics 101. A stiff property tax serves in part to pay in full for local and state services which homeowners use, but also in part as a luxury tax against slow-growthers who want to maintain an idyllic neighborhood, and in part as a vice tax against other slow-growthers and speculators who, out of greed, want to make a quick buck on the astronomical appreciation of home values. The bottom line struggle is the one of community land-use rights versus private property owners' rights. In the post-Prop 13 environment, local communities have been given the power to oppose without significant penalty the attempts of private property owners to build new residential construction in conjunction with developers.

So, it's fairly obvious that I'm not a big fan of Prop 13. As a matter of fact, I think Prop 13 is doing severe damage to the great state of California, and should be challenged, once again, all the way to the US Supreme Court. If California wanted to devise the best possible system to financially abuse its children legally, it would be hard pressed to find anything better than 30 years of Prop 13.

Truly, Skybluewind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.177.129 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. :-) We can organize the "Aftermath" if we have some source or reputable commentary for them. Proposition 13--because it was a source of revenue--affected many areas, each of which needs to be investigated: Home Ownership; Economy; Businesses; Government; Education; Health Care; Demographics (senior citizens or children, for instance); Standards of Living; Housing Costs; Transportation (Car Culture, Roads and Highway Development); Suburban Sprawl; Environment; Renovation, Gentrification, Housing redevelopment (of poorer area); and many other things! --Lux 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who "benefits" from it has paid years of the OTHER taxes that were raised to compensate for prop 13. A low tax assessment on one's home means long residency in the state and FULL payment of those taxes!!! Before those people are called "freeloaders" a full, comprehensive analysis of TOTAL taxes paid versus someone from a low-tax state who just moved in but is paying the "higher rate" should be done. As far as I know, this analysis does not exist, and so subjective terms like "benefitted" should be avoided. 69Avatar69 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment

It is absolutely outrageous how this webpage misleads the public about the the most significant aspect of Prop 13, which is the 2/3 vote requirement. It is extremely warped to mislead readers and, therefore, it is no wonder that WikiProject Taxation Rates this as B-class, Low-importance page.

The most significant and controversial aspect of Proposition 13 is it's requirement that ALL local government special taxes and state revenue measures be approved by a "super-majority" vote of 2/3 -- rather than a simple majority of 51%. This provision has severely restricted the ability of the state and local governments to raise revenue for parks, police, fire, schools, and other basic government services, and has caused many to call for an amendment to remove the 2/3 requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repealprop13 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Redevelopment Reform

I'd like to see a section added about the relationship of Prop 13 to redevelopment law. The 400+ redevelopment agencies across California would likely be the biggest beneficiaries of changes to Prop 13 as there are over $4 trillion worth of assessed valuation in properties within California redevelopment districts. Relaxing Prop 13 would mean a good portion of the new tax revenues would go to those redevelopment agencies for redevelopment projects, and not to the state nor the schools. (See http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/redevelop_reports_0607redevelop.pdf as a source for the numbers I cited.) This is another point that people can have a negative or positive POV on, but I think it's relevant to the discussion of where and how the increased taxes would be used. 70.137.155.46 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is done. Note that property tax money doesn't go to the State for the general fund. In Alameda County, 41% goes to schools, but other than that, no property tax money goes to the State general fund. Mowster (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to add a section about redevelopment agency corruption, which is the reason they were eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrotPatriot (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Locking the article

In the interest of keeping this article neutral, amidst an upcoming 2020 election around this law, and the money that will spent on BOTH sides, I think it is advisable to lock this article in advance.

69Avatar69 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NO-PREEMPT, this is almost never done without a clear, specific reason. Glancing at the page's history, this doesn't seem like one of the very rare exceptions. Pages should also only be protected for the shortest amount of time necessary to stop active disruption. If you think this has become an active or urgent problem, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection will be the place to go. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. P.S. wow, you really are a power user of wikipedia. looking at all of your work and i am an admirer! maybe this page should be locked just for me. i think i have added what i needed to add. 69Avatar69 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why I removed the Trulia study and the LA times article

The Trulia study used "trulia estimates" (we have no idea what their methodology is; it's a secret) to claim "savings" that proposition 13 provides. Head on over to the "zillow" wikipedia page to learn about the reliability for those estimates. there are myriad cases of that being a really bad way to appraise houses. Given that there was no methodology, that it wasn't published anywhere (it was just "claimed" by a private company), I felt this was not up to Wikipedia's standards, and I removed it. Also, since markets change all the time, it won't "endure" on Wikipedia--if the market goes down, it won't be accurate. for an illustration of how bad zestimates/trulia (same company) can be; read about the story of how mark zuckerberg bought a house for $14 million, Trulia currently says it is worth $7 million, and the couple who sold it (and wanted to transfer the base to a new house and failed) found out the county said it was worth $4 million. What a mess.

summary: removed a poor source

The LA Times article used the LAO report to report on how inherited rentals were making big profits in LA, partly due to the exclusion. It had figures of "property tax losses" to the county. But it didn't even mention that no matter what, that rental income was subject to taxation by the state (which funds anything from schools (LCCF) to other things). Jeff Bridges (featured in the story) said prop 30 raised his taxes, so he is likely in a high tax bracket (this is not a surprise). But the LAtimes doesnt have access to everyone's tax records. The answer to the question of "lost tax revenue" is out there, but we don't know if it's a lot, a little, or if, even with the prop 58 exemption, these rental conversions actually INCREASE net tax revenue to the state. Who knows? The LAO report didn't do this analysis. I think the sentence I just added, that in some cases it incentivizes rentals, is enough. That is all you need to know. The LAO is a very high quality source. The LAtimes, although a major news outlet, has journalists who sometimes appear as activists on this issue. I think a google search on that story will reveal that story author's ideas, and intentions.

Summary: omitted questionable source, but kept the necessary information by referencing the higher-quality source

TekashiNine (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Massive amount of sockpuppetry

This page has been subjected to an enormous amount of sockpuppet editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Henrymancini333. Please make sure to clean up all the edits by these accounts and to not put up with any tendentious editing from new accounts and IP numbers. A tag should probably also be placed at the top of this page warning of these sockpuppets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No opposing viewpoints

This page explains away positions in opposition to Prop 13, and casts a wide net for positions supporting Prop 13, without including any section dedicated to any criticism of Prop 13. For instance, in the section quoted below, this study questioning "the idea" that the origin of Prop 13 was found with wealth white, conservative property owners gets its own section - but, "the idea" itself has no section. This is just one glaring example but the entire page lacks any criticism of the controversial Proposition. Considering that this is a tax issue the people vote on directly, and that there is a monstorusly large, undeniable financial bias beneath the surface, this Prop 13 page must be given close scrutiny. Wikipedia must be trusted to give 2 sides to a debate involving trillions in tax revenue in the 4th biggest economy in the world. I created an account to make this note. I can begin the process of finding good sources for criticism of Prop 13 but figured a post on the Talk page was a good place to start. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or if I am doing something wrong.

A 2020 study by Joshua Mound published in the Journal of Policy History challenged the idea that wealthy property owners' desire to cap their property taxes was the impetus for enacting Proposition 13, instead saying the "tax revolt" was rooted in lower and middle-income Americans' longstanding frustration with unfair and highly regressive tax distributions during the post-World War II decades.

The study said pro-growth Kennedy-Johnson “Growth Liberals” cut federal income taxes in the highest brackets in the 1960s while local officials raised regressive state and local taxes, creating a "pocketbook squeeze" that made voters less likely to approve local levies and bonds, which eventually led to the passage of Proposition 13. The study said the tax revolt was not limited to white voters nor associated with rising conservatism associated with the collapse of the "New Deal order" and the election of Ronald Reagan.[11] Dericrod (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daniel UCSD. Peer reviewers: Daniel UCSD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1978_California_Proposition_13/Archive_1&oldid=1234455855"