Californians cling to easily dispelled tax myths

[DEDixon 39]

I take it Prop 13 is a deal similar to the "Save Our Homes" scheme here in Florida where your tax cannot increase more than 3% or somesuch annually regardless of what the property value does. The scheme in FL was amended recently to make the tax savings portable since too many people essentially got stuck in their homes. So, you had people that no longer needed a 4 or 5 bedroom home after the children moved out that had no way of being able to afford a smaller house - the tax would've killed them. Likewise, people that bought a smaller home and needed to expand couldn't do that either. That's on top of potential first time home-buyers not being able to make it since they'd be picking up a tax burden that adds 30% to the mortgage bill. Stifles the real estate market quite a bit.

Property taxes ought to be kept affordable across the board. Save Our Homes and Prop 13 and any other such deals are pure BS, they are necessarily unfair and typically the result of state governments unloading funding burdens on counties and cities and / or counties and cities failing to exercise fiscal constraint. There is just no justification for two homeowners carrying a different tax burden on the same property based solely on when they happened to have purchased that property.

Look up the name, Howard Jarvis, if you ever are interested on what really was the motivation behind Prop 13. It was pitched to Californians as saving old widows from paying high property taxes but the real beneficiaries of Prop 13 weren't old widows. The ballot initiatives here in Cali are just so bloody stupid. We have petitioners standing outside of grocery stores asking everyone walking by if they want to put criminals behind bars for good or some other 'feel good' proposal, but the details of the initiative are most often deliberately convoluted and deceptive. Meanwhile, our state spends hundreds of millions of dollars on special elections. There's a lot this state could do to help get us out of this mess.

*************************

but the real beneficiaries of Prop 13 weren't old widows. There you go spinning it again. That is 100% false so please, at least be honest. The real beneficiaries WERE old widows.... WERE!!!! There WERE other beneficiaries too.... me and I'm not old widow.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Prop 13 issue is a red herring. The assesor can increase the assesed value of your home 2% a year, and for the full value of any improvements. For many property owners, the amount paid in Melo Bonds and Direct Charges (changes made in the law to avoid Prop 13 limitations) far exceeds the base tax.

[scandal 951]

The Prop 13 issue is a red herring. The assesor can increase the assesed value of your home 2% a year, and for the full value of any improvements. For many property owners, the amount paid in Melo Bonds and Direct Charges (changes made in the law to avoid Prop 13 limitations) far exceeds the base tax.

Mello Roos only applies in areas deemed as new developments, as I understand it. When we were househunting in the Bay area, Mello Roos existed in places like Tracy and Manteca, but not in the "established" areas in Santa Clara, Alamada or San Mateo counties. Most Californians do not live in areas subject to Mello Roos.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Prop 13 issue is a red herring. The assesor can increase the assesed value of your home 2% a year, and for the full value of any improvements. For many property owners, the amount paid in Melo Bonds and Direct Charges (changes made in the law to avoid Prop 13 limitations) far exceeds the base tax.

Mello Roos only applies in areas deemed as new developments, as I understand it. When we were househunting in the Bay area, Mello Roos existed in places like Tracy and Manteca, but not in the "established" areas in Santa Clara, Alamada or San Mateo counties. Most Californians do not live in areas subject to Mello Roos.

They can create a tax district by a simple majority, and then fund that operation by a two-thirds vote. There is no restriction on the type of district you can create. Where I live is subject to about seven of those districts, the most annoying is a liberal slush fund for a so-called hospital district. So far, the district has been unwilling to submit to an independent audit, yet they are collecting a parcel tax and a bond payment from the land owners within the district. Is that Mello Roos?

http://www.mello-roos.com/pdf/mrpdf.pdf

Edited May 25, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[scandal 951]

The Prop 13 issue is a red herring. The assesor can increase the assesed value of your home 2% a year, and for the full value of any improvements. For many property owners, the amount paid in Melo Bonds and Direct Charges (changes made in the law to avoid Prop 13 limitations) far exceeds the base tax.

Mello Roos only applies in areas deemed as new developments, as I understand it. When we were househunting in the Bay area, Mello Roos existed in places like Tracy and Manteca, but not in the "established" areas in Santa Clara, Alamada or San Mateo counties. Most Californians do not live in areas subject to Mello Roos.

They can create a tax district by a simple majority, and then fund that operation by a two-thirds vote. There is no restriction on the type of district you can create. Where I live is subject to about seven of those districts, the most annoying is a liberal slush fund for a so-called hospital district. So far, the district has been unwilling to submit to an independent audit, yet they are collecting a parcel tax and a bond payment from the land owners within the district. Is that Mello Roos?

http://www.mello-roos.com/pdf/mrpdf.pdf

I defer to you Bill. I'm really not caught up on it these days, having left the state 5 years ago.

I do recall feeling that Sacramento politics is hopeless, and the initiative process in California is out of control. California seems to have the worst of both worlds - ineffective representational government, and activist participatory democracy that lets single-issue agendas (Indian gambling casinos, prison guard unions, etc.) get the upper hand. It's a real pity. I hope CA can get its act together one of these days.

I note that IL is no better. In fact, it may be worse. In the 6 months I've been living here we've had Blago and the Roland Burris appointment to the senate. The legislature in Springfield did a lot of chest-thumping about passing reforms to end the widespread corruption in Illinois politics in the wake of Blago's arrest in December. But since then they've backed away, and refuse to implement the reforms recommended in the panel they set up. The Chicago Tribune has been covering it actively and it's simply scandalous. California government may be incompetent, but in Illinois it's outright corrupt through and through.

[dalegg 143]

One thing that is interesting is how the majority of ALL Californians agree on taxes. Those propositions didn't just fail in Orange County- they failed in every last county of the State. You'd have thought that in the more liberal counties up North at least the people would have been on board with higher taxes, but nope. Not even San Francisco!

2/3 of the State rejected higher taxes. That is a message right there, and by the way if California Republicans are smart its a message they can cash in on at the polls. If it hadn't been for a minority of Republicans in the State Congress, these taxes would have been levied on the voters without their consent months ago, and that is the message they can use to gain more support in future elections. Although the voters here are likely to blame the entire State's problems on Arnold who says he's a Republican and reason that the answer must be to vote in a Democrat Governor. We are afterall the State that votes Democrat, but rejects liberalism. I wonder exactly what type of "Change" the voters were actually looking for in November!

[DEDixon 39]

One thing that is interesting is how the majority of ALL Californians agree on taxes. Those propositions didn't just fail in Orange County- they failed in every last county of the State. You'd have thought that in the more liberal counties up North at least the people would have been on board with higher taxes, but nope. Not even San Francisco!

2/3 of the State rejected higher taxes. That is a message right there, and by the way if California Republicans are smart its a message they can cash in on at the polls. If it hadn't been for a minority of Republicans in the State Congress, these taxes would have been levied on the voters without their consent months ago, and that is the message they can use to gain more support in future elections. Although the voters here are likely to blame the entire State's problems on Arnold who says he's a Republican and reason that the answer must be to vote in a Democrat Governor. We are afterall the State that votes Democrat, but rejects liberalism. I wonder exactly what type of "Change" the voters were actually looking for in November!

Meg Whitman ..... governor?

I really can't see the majority going to the likes of Jerry Brown and Gavin Newson. They are more of the same for sure.... more of the same to an extreme. I can't see how these types can say they'd be any different that the DEMS that caused our mess (when I say DEMS, I mean not only the pols in Sac, but all the related DEM special interest).

[DEDixon 39]

I lived in CA from 1999-2004. I don't follow state issues there now as I used to when I lived there.

I do agree that Prop 13 is totally messed up and should be repealed.

Even more fair, so California does not force retirees out is to have absolutely no property tax. Increase the sales tax, increase hotel tax, rental car tax to make up for it.... increase tax on luxury items too (airplanes, boat, super expensive RVs).

I'd also agree to a mega-property tax on houses over a certain value... say 3 million so to discourage McMansions <-- make it an anti-green tax.

I've traveled to a lot of foreign countries, researched retirement in many places, the one thing many of these places don't have (the entire country) is property tax or if they have it, it is very low, so low that most can pay it from a day's wages.

Another thought about no property tax.... it could be sold as a way to increase home ownership, they are always trying to find a way to do this.

Edited May 26, 2009 by DEDixon

[Texanadian 10]

One more thought on the increase in sales tax and no property tax... let the counties set their own sales taxes so they compete with each other.

Although on the East coast, sales tax is set at the state level, since in the mid-atlantic region a bunch of small states are close to each other, states are reluctant to raise the sales tax too much (there are different rates, however). For example, my parents live in Maryland, but are 6 miles from Virginia, 7 miles from W.Va, 1 hour from PA, 2.5 hours from Delaware so if Maryland raises sales tax too much, people will shop in other states especially for big item purchases.

Delaware is actually a "no sales tax" state - this really messes with Maryland in a big way. Lots of people from Baltimore go to Delaware to buy high dollar items (they did, maybe not so much now, gas cost more so I'm not sure they do this as much as they did). Baltimore is 1 hour, 10 minutes from Delaware.

The trouble comes when high tax states want to tax the purchases that their residents make in low/no tax states. Check this out:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...es_taxes_in_nh/

This happens on the WA/OR border. People in Vancouver WA shop over the state line in Portland OR (no OR sales tax). However since WA has no state income tax, you can live in Vancouver WA and pay no income tax or sales taxes (if you shop over the line).

Washington is ultra sneaky about it. If your home state (or province) has a sales tax less than 5%, you don't have to pay Washington sales tax. This means that people from Oregon (no sales tax) and people from Alberta (no provincial sales tax) can go shopping in WA and not pay a penny in sales tax. But people from British Columbia like myself have to pay the full sales tax in Washington state (around 8.5%) simply because BC has a 7% provincial sales tax. Now that I live in Texas, I would still have to pay WA sales taxes because Texas has a 6.25% sales tax. People from Delaware or New Hampshire could shop in WA tax free as well.

As for the sales tax vs property tax debate. I would rather get rid of state income taxes and state sales taxes (like New Hampshire) and just have the single property tax. Why? High income and sales taxes hurt the economy. Discouraging saving and spending. Low property taxes encourage people to build a larger house (non-green) than they need. The emphasis is always on the poor senior. Right.....The senior who's kids have moved away, their mortgage is paid off, and chances are they live in a small house anyways. Never mind the young couple with crummy paying jobs, a mortgage, and young kids to raise. High property taxes should encourage people to build a normal sized house. Seems like today it's almost impossible to buy a new house that's under 2500 sq ft and 3000 sq ft doesn't seem large at all anymore. Then people turn around and complain it's too expensive to heat/cool their mansion sized homes.

[natty bumppo 297]

Californians.. stupid or what

[Texanadian 10]

One thing that is interesting is how the majority of ALL Californians agree on taxes. Those propositions didn't just fail in Orange County- they failed in every last county of the State. You'd have thought that in the more liberal counties up North at least the people would have been on board with higher taxes, but nope. Not even San Francisco!

2/3 of the State rejected higher taxes. That is a message right there, and by the way if California Republicans are smart its a message they can cash in on at the polls. If it hadn't been for a minority of Republicans in the State Congress, these taxes would have been levied on the voters without their consent months ago, and that is the message they can use to gain more support in future elections. Although the voters here are likely to blame the entire State's problems on Arnold who says he's a Republican and reason that the answer must be to vote in a Democrat Governor. We are afterall the State that votes Democrat, but rejects liberalism. I wonder exactly what type of "Change" the voters were actually looking for in November!

Yeah, but I heard something like 16% of the eligible voters actually came to vote in California's recent tax election.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Californians.. stupid or what

Living in paradise has it's price.

[natty bumppo 297]

Californians.. stupid or what

Living in paradise has it's price.

Guess they are enamored with Cheeseburgers ... and the song ...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Californians.. stupid or what

Living in paradise has it's price.

Guess they are enamored with Cheeseburgers ... and the song ...

In 'n Out Burger! You know it! FTW!

[scandal 951]

I like In'N'Out, but that pic.......