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.
Posted By: marikod 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.