scrubbedexpat099

The Pelosi Glass Comment.

However if the Dems nominate a Billionaire, difficult to see this not being discussed or featured in adverts. Any time the subject comes up in a debate it is bound to be included.

dc koop

Message to all California voters. Vote NO on Prop 13. This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years. For those of you old enough to remember the original Prop 13 (The Jarvis tax initiative) was to stop cities and counties from continually raising property taxes and which was resulting in many seniors losing their homes due to being unable to pay the taxes. This new Prop 13 is under the guise of raising Bonds for schools. Don't be fooled by it !

scrubbedexpat091

I say dump prop 13 so schools and other services can be properly funded. I always find it funny people will complain on one hand about pot holes and poor local services, but then on the other fight tax increases tooth and nail, can't have both high quality roads and services and very low taxes.

They could do something like this so seniors don't lose their homes because they can't afford the tax.

Giantaxe

This is very misleading. This proposition does not repeal the existing prop 13. California recycles proposition numbers and just happens to have got back to 13. The possible impact on property taxes is that it would raise from the current 1.25% to 2% of total property values the amount school districts could borrow. But such local bond measures would still have to pass the vote threshold mandated by the original prop 13. So your comment that "This Proposition is meant to repeal the original Prop 13 and raise property taxes no limit over the next 35 years." is incorrect. It definitely could raise property taxes as it will encourage local bond measures because of that increase in the debt ceiling. I will likely vote yes on this despite the fact that there may be a small hit for SF property owners, Schools in California are vastly underfunded largely because of the original prop 13.

And just to confuse the issue even more, there is a proposition on the ballot for November that will partially repeal the original prop 13 for commercial and industrial property. I will definitely vote yes on that. It's insane how low property taxes are for many businesses are compared to what most individuals are paying. I will definitely be voting for this.

I really wish they had "retired" the number 13:

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/po...4-044476461ab9

scrubbedexpat099

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sts-fundraiser

I suppose I should have seen that coming, begs the question who they would consider a suitable candidate.

vespucci

I suspect that some propositions go the way they do due to people being misled by advertising. There was a good one (in my opinion) recently which would have allowed old people to move more easily (it would have set the property tax at somewhere between the old prop 13 rate and the new rate- at present some old people are stuck as they can't afford to move). The main beneficiaries would've been older people, but it was supported by estate agents as it would have led to more transactions (by older people). Opponents of the proposition presented it as being put forward by realtors for their interests, and I suspect that's why it failed.

dc koop

If you wish you can read the article by Julia Yoder at juliaoder@yahoo,com or on the website of the San Gabriel Valley Examiner. She is a regular writer on a column "Your money -Ask Julia"

I have already voted no on that Prop. Since we first came here we have voted numerous times on Props to add money to school funding. It never seems to end. The whole idea of the California State Lottery was to provide money to schools but it seems like the proverbial hole in the bucket.

Any attempt at eroding the original Prop 13 has to be opposed. The way this new Prop 13 is worded it's been purposely made to mislead. I don't know if you were here in the 1970s but people were being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes, mostly the elderly who were cash rich in property but poor in personal finances. Fortunately we are in the position of not having to worry about that but many seniors are not so lucky. Cities and public agencies in the past were fiscally irresponsible in managing their budgets. Prop 13 reined them in. Since I worked many years for a public agency I have first hand knowledge of that

dc koop

What would you say if you had bought a house in say 1948. Worked hard to pay off a 30 year mortgage, raised kids and then retired at 65, the kids gone, the mortgage paid off but living on a fixed income with perhaps modest supplemental income from Social Security. Then years later your property taxes have skyrocketed. Due to your age and financial circumstances you are unable to take out a loan on the equity and fall behind on the property tax? This happened to many people in the 1970s, Cities and public agencies wasted money out of hand. School Districts are often top heavy with high paid flunkeys who are not employees situated in the first lines of student education. Since Prop 13 passed in the mid 1970s I haven't seen a drop in public services. A public transit system has been underway in the greater LA area for several years, older freeways being upgraded and drivers constantly complain about the inconvenience of stretches of freeway being closed for modernization or overpasses being upgraded against earth quake damage. Government at all levels have learned to better manage budgets. Give them a chance to run riot on taxes again and you'll be singing a different tune

Giantaxe

Provide a link and I'll read it... I can only hope the article is more accurate than what you posted.

Of course it "never ends" because education is vastly underfunded, especially building construction/maintenance.

I disagree. I always describe prop. 13 as a terrible solution to a real problem. But there would have been other ways to stop what you are describing. Heck, someone already provided a link to one approach. Another would be Massachusetts prop 2 1/2, that limits property tax rises without causing the vast inequities that prop 13 does. I've benefited hugely from prop 13; I still think it's terrible public policy.

Steerpike

As Giantaxe says, Prop 13 is an imperfect solution to a very real problem. If prop 13 were to simply go away, with no alternative mechanism put in place, millions of seniors would indeed suffer greatly and many would have to sell their homes. I doubt any politician would risk that. So by all means, propose alternative solutions but you can't ignore the reality that there is a huge issue to resolve.

As an aside, I recently took advantage of the feature that exists to move within the same county and maintain your 'prop 13' tax basis. The same feature also exists between other 'cooperating' counties, but not all counties. So if I have a $1M home with a 'prop 13' protected tax basis of $500k, and sell it, and buy a cheaper home at, say, $800k, I can keep that same $500k tax base on the new home. There's a lot of details and restrictions but it worked for me.

Giantaxe

The proposition mentioned in post #2076 would have allowed this, for those over 55 iirc, to any county in California. It actually makes sense to do this, as it would likely free up housing in expensive places like SF/LA where demand from younger potential homeowners/workers is highest. For example, it would have made it much more likely I moved out of SF, but we're sitting on a low tax base here. I could move to Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda counties and retain the tax base, but not to Contra Costa or Marin. So for now we continue to live in SF. Predictably that proposition got defeated with arguments about how it was merely a "handout to millionaires".

scrubbedexpat091

Which is why I posted the link saying something similiar or better to what we have in BC would need to be put in place to help seniors and others who are on fixed income, and actually would want something better but some sort of protection for those on fixed incomes, not just seniors, but disabled as well for example.

I am not advocating removing prop 13 and leaving no protections for seniors, disabled.

Giantaxe

The problem with prop 13 is that the biggest benefits frequently go to the wealthiest. For example, there are properties on Pac Heights in SF that are worth $10m plus that have a lower tax base than those buying modest houses in the Outer Sunset. And, because inherited property keeps its tax base, the inequities are only going to get larger. How is this good public policy?

scrubbedexpat099

On a more positive note there seems to be a lot of talk of a Bloomberg/Hillary dream ticket.

https://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-...sm-78827077953

Jerseygirl

I can’t see her taking 2nd best. Also didn’t Obama offer VP to her but she preferred SoS?