Prop 13....that limits property taxes or increases thereof?

Alex will inevitably provide a much more intelligent and complete answer, but ...

Effectively yes. Unfortunately, it also created a bit of an unfair taxation method for future generations as the is now disparate taxation among similar neighbors.

It needs to be repealed or significantly updated, but has far too much popular appeal to be changed.

It's not generally known, but Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, who spearheaded Proposition 13, also invented Almond Roca and had significant stakes in cookie dough and wrapping paper companies.

As for me, I would prefer to get paid over the next year, so I'll be voting yes on some or all.

Yes. It also created a requirement that any new tax or tax increase be approved by a 2/3 supermajority.

Combine that with an easy proposition process by which the voters can mandate spending* and disaster results eventually. Classic case of voters wanting government to provide a lot of services but not to have any taxes.


* And that mandate frequently actually creates rules that a $1 increase in Program A requires a $5 (to make up a number) increase in the total budget. For example, because of previous propositions the education budget must be a certain percentage of the total budget. Let's say 30%.

So you have a budget of $100. $30 goes to education. You want to approve a new freeway project that will add $20 to the non-education budget? Instead of a new budget of $120 you actually have to increase education spending by about $8.5 so that it remains 30% of the total budget. So because you wanted to spend $20 more you had to actually spend $28.50 more. Stupidities abound.

To which I reiterate a long-held belief of mine (for which I often get ripped on for): while people (individuals) are generally fairly smart, the masses are often stupid.

Can't find current numbers, but in 2006 only 36% of the state budget was discretionary (meaning the rest of the budget was required by statute or contract). Half of that discretionary money went to the UC and CSU system.

The current state shortfall is also about 50% of the discretionary budget. So if that shortfall is going to be overcome it would appear that the easiest way to achieve that would be shut down public higher education in this state.

Basically Prop 13 says that if you don't sell your property, the most that the value, for taxing purposes, of your property can raise in 1 year is by 2%. So if you bought your house for $100,000 in 1978, and it's now worth $700,000 on the market, your property tax is going to be 1% of ~$180,000 instead of $700,000.

There are two main arguments for why this is stupid. 1) It discourages sale of property. 2) My biggest gripe with Prop 13 is the fact that the largest properties, the ones that should be generating the most property tax revenue, are owned by large established corporations - least likely to sell. So while homeowners are fairly regularly resetting their tax basis by selling their home, companies that have giant tracts of land that they've owned since forever are still paying taxes based on 1970s property values. It's a massive deficit that means new homeowners are carrying the major burden of funding the state with property taxes.

The point of (that part of) Prop 13 was to avoid huge sudden raises in property tax to homeowners. Why it's also applied to commercial property is beyond me.

Then I hope you lose your job along with my friends who will be losing their jobs when those spending cuts cut the programs they work for.

Because the logic of the idea, that people were being forced to sell and move away because they could no longer afford the property tax on their home applies just as well to businesses being forced to relocate because of increases on their property taxes (and when a big business does it they're likely to move out of state taking a lot of other revenues as well and when a small business does it they may very well just close shop altogether).

I'm not strongly opposed to the driving idea beyond the tax rollback and cap, though I think it was done in too brute-force a way. By far the most damaging part, in my view, is the 2/3 super majority.

Saying "you can't have these taxes, and you also can't have any other taxes, but everything else is going to make it incredibly easy to spend" is just a bad combination. Especially since state Republicans are no more anti-spending than state Democrats, they just don't agree on which things to spend money on and the general public is also allowed to directly spend money.