My main point is although some property is undertaxed, when all forms of taxation are considered, CA pays more than other states.
Why should we pay high sales tax, income tax, fines, assessments, penalties, fees, and everything else that is higher than other states, and still have to pay more property tax.
If you look at any graph, and I assume you can google, the rate of government income has far exceeded inflation and population in the last 20 years. They spend more and more.
(Just one exmple, not on state level, but government anyway: LAUSD has one non-teacher for every teacher on the payroll. Other educational institutions go as low as 1 non-teacher for every teacher. That means over half of LAUSD is bloat.)
Fire half of them before asking for more money
" the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times"
(the assertion in your post that I found surprising) to
" the vast majority of houses in CA that I have seen transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times."
Won't argue with you there.
history repeats it's self..
right Mr.Nogood?
New lawsuit alleging torture in Pelican Bay filed this week. But the real problem is California just will not spend the money needed to make their prisons meet the minimum standards of the Constitution. Of course they don't money to spend since they won't raise the property tax.
CA is one of the highest taxed states in the nation. It is true that they don't tax property as much as some states, but the tax income, sales, and a hundred other taxes are much higher.
We also have hundreds of "hidden" taxes. For example parking meters were originally to discourage people from parking for hours in business areas so traffic would flow. Then they became income producers so it now costs a nickle for three minutes.
That is one of hundreds. Traffic and parking tickets are insanely high. On top of that there is an "assement" added on to the cost of the ticket. If you commit a crime, there are fines, assessments, fees, and a dozen other income producers.
Finally, the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times. The house that I bought is 1983 and sold in 2000 is is currently taxed at the assessed rate of 2000, which is not that much less than its current value.
It is a minority of houses that are taxed at outdated rates.
However, for some reason the left is fixated on the fact that one area of taxation is limited, even though they have money pouring in from every other area.
I will make a deal with you. I will vote to abolish Prop 13 if you agree to limit sales tax in CA to the same as sales tax in Oregon or income tax in Nevada.
New lawsuit alleging torture in Pelican Bay filed this week. But the real problem is California just will not spend the money needed to make their prisons meet the minimum standards of the Constitution. Of course they don't money to spend since they won't raise the property tax.
pay its bills for this year much less pay its legacy costs and costs of needed new prisons. So you can't trade one tax increase at the cost of reducing another tax. You have to live with the higher taxes until you can pay for the things you have already bought.
So you and St. Croix need to stop with the "we are the highest taxed state in the nation" theme song. I get it - but you still can't come close to paying your bills so you have to keep taxes high while you cut spending and grow the economy to have any chance of avoiding fiscal disaster.
As to "the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every year"
a. can you give a link that supports that statement? and
b. I bet if you include commercial properties your number would go way down.
I think you missed my post last month where I pointed out that the Trader Joes building in Menlo Park is still being taxed at the 1979 assessment plus - as St. Croix pointed out - with the increases for inflation permitted by Prop 13. Commercial property owners in California run a lot of scams to keep transfers that would trigger a reassessment from showing on the land records.
No. We can't trade votes and decide the fate of the state. That was not intended to be taken literally.
I did not say the majority change hands every years. I said every seven years.
Yes. there are some properties that haven't changed hands. I am not going to look for data.
If you live in CA you have seen proof for 20 years, everytime you drive down a street and see "for sale" signs. They change to "sold" and next month there is another one on the block.
If you haven't seen it, I don't know where you are.
If you live in CA, ask yourself "How many people do I know who have lived in the same house for 20 years?"
But you ignore my point: We are already one of the highest taxed. Why do we have to be taxed even more. Why can other states afford to function without half the taxes of CA.
No. We don't have to pay more. They can stop waste. And yes, there are billions in waste.
So you and St. Croix need to stop with the "we are the highest taxed state in the nation" theme song. I get it - but you still can't come close to paying your bills so you have to keep taxes high while you cut spending and grow the economy to have any chance of avoiding fiscal disaster.
As to "the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every year"
a. can you give a link that supports that statement? and
b. I bet if you include commercial properties your number would go way down.
I think you missed my post last month where I pointed out that the Trader Joes building in Menlo Park is still being taxed at the 1979 assessment plus - as St. Croix pointed out - with the increases for inflation permitted by Prop 13. Commercial property owners in California run a lot of scams to keep transfers that would trigger a reassessment from showing on the land records.
" the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times"
(the assertion in your post that I found surprising) to
" the vast majority of houses in CA that I have seen transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times."
Won't argue with you there.
My main point is although some property is undertaxed, when all forms of taxation are considered, CA pays more than other states.
Why should we pay high sales tax, income tax, fines, assessments, penalties, fees, and everything else that is higher than other states, and still have to pay more property tax.
If you look at any graph, and I assume you can google, the rate of government income has far exceeded inflation and population in the last 20 years. They spend more and more.
(Just one exmple, not on state level, but government anyway: LAUSD has one non-teacher for every teacher on the payroll. Other educational institutions go as low as 1 non-teacher for every teacher. That means over half of LAUSD is bloat.)
Fire half of them before asking for more money
" the vast majority of houses in CA transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times"
(the assertion in your post that I found surprising) to
" the vast majority of houses in CA that I have seen transfer ownership every 7 years, so they have been re-appraised many times."
Won't argue with you there.
is completely irrelevant to the problem.
You have spent more money than you have. You have bought things and the bill has now come due.
Your deficit, legacy costs, and prison obligations are so huge that no single solution - tax, cut spending, grow the economy - will work. You have to do ALL of the above. But only taxing and cutting spending is directly in your control.
So you have to tax more and cut more than you want, even if you end up paying more taxes than any other state. Now the problem with raising taxes is it may hurt the economy and cause tax payers to flee the state. Except for raising the property tax - nobody is going to leave the state if their property tax bill is increased for the obvious reason that they can't the real property with them.
So property tax is the low hanging fruit that will solve your problem. Just by excepting corporations from Prop 13, you get EIGHT BILLION A YEAR. In two years your 2101 deficit is solved without raising the other taxes.
Come on- admit that this is a GREAT IDEA. I have to convince you and St, Croix first before I can move on to the rest of the population of California, LOL.
The problem is we spent too much money. The solution is to stop.
There will be real pain sooner or later, and it is better to take the medicine sooner. If we just increase taxes, they will not seriously cut spending. Then the tax base will go down and next year it will be worse.
The numbers of people leaving CA is scary, and they are people who make a lot of money. Super millionaires, like DiCaprio and the Hollywood Elite don't care. If they pay extra, they still have over 100 million left. But people who earn over 250K to 1 mil are the ones leaving.
If you keep raising taxes, more of them will leave and in 3 years you will have a 30 billion deficit.
It is true that property taxes are the easy one to get. But you just make housing more expensive in a depressed market. With thousands of foreclosures, to make it harder to sell a house only hurts.
I say an article that had the number of people who left CA stayed, they would have another 3 billion in taxes - one third of the short fall.
True not EVERYONE left for taxes, but a lot did, and almost all left for low tax states. Very few people would move from LA to Dallas, like two of my family did, for the weather.
They will have to cut many things now that hurt. If they keep on the same path, in 5 years, when another 100,000 wage earners have left, they will have to cut 3 times as much.
-- Modified on 6/2/2012 5:49:25 AM
-- Modified on 6/2/2012 5:50:03 AM
-- Modified on 6/2/2012 5:50:34 AM
I live in a development with 199 homes. The number of homes sold each year averages about 20. That's just about 10%. Even during the housing crisis, the homes sold were close to the number 20, or in some cases exceeded. Nevertheless, it would take 10 years for this development to completely turnover. I realize some homes have sold multiple times, others not at all.
So, the cost basis, or to use a property tax term, "assessed value" is basically based on the year 2007. We can then surmise mari that other neighborhoods have "generally" experienced the same turnover.
For some reason, you think the property tax rolls are frozen in time, specifically 1978. You also need to consider that property tax rolls include voter indebtedness (bonds), and other charges that is "generally" 40% to 50% of the average tax bill.
So where you may have some validity to your argument about commercial property, you are probably clueless, and out of touch, as it relates to single family home properties.
P.S. You are trying to take dncphil down your property tax rabbit hole. Don't do that to him. Let's bury this topic right next to Roman Polansky and drones.
walking down the street and seeing "for sale" signs LOL - you have motivated me to try and look this up so we can see if your extrapolation ("We can then surmise mari that other neighborhoods have "generally" experienced the same turnover") is valid as to residential property.
Unless and until I can find facts to rebut your point I'll concede the point to you as to residential property, even though this is far higher turnover than in the community where I live.
But if you are wrong, I gonna to expect you to sign the "Free Roman Polanski Petition" as punishment.
"IN 2003 FINANCIER Warren Buffett announced that he paid property taxes of $14,410 (or 2.9 percent) on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, but paid only $2,264 (or 0.056 percent) on his $4 million California home."
Keep in mind that Warren doesn't pay your income tax, your sales tax or other taxes since he spends most of his time in Omaha.
Talk about low hanging fruit.
There are always exceptions. you should not make rules based on the one in a million.
Yes, Buffet gets a good deal in CA. and he is one of the richest people out of a nation of 300,000,000.
Don't base your policy for everyone one what Buffet has.
I have teacher friends, some of whom HAVE had their houses for a while. Don't make a rule based on Buffet that will take more tax money from teachers
Very often you can see reality and make judgments. If you see "for sale" signs thousand of times, you can make your logical deductions - i.e., houses sell a lot.
I go downtown and see lots of homeless people. I go to Beverly Hills and see very few. Yes. I can tell you most of the houses on my street that have sold just from seeing sales signs.
But God forbid I try to draw a deduction.
Sometimes you see the proof of facts yourself. Like the fact that many houses have sold.