Talk:California Proposition 13 (1978)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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"]
[edit] Hahaha
It is quite obvious from looking through the history of this article that user Luxdormiens absolutely hates proposition 13... He/she wrote...
"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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
- 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Prop 13's Impact on Post 1978 Incoporated 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)
[edit] Proposition 13 and transers 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)
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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.
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)
