That is an excellent ad hominem attack on the source.
You are incorrect, it is capped at a 2% increase per year and of course is reassessed at 1% of the total property value when the property changes hands.
Of course proposition 13 lowers the income from property taxes for the state, that is the point of it. Do you think the state deserves more than a 579% increase in revenue from property taxes since 1980? No other tax has increased as much.
The truth is the California government doesn't know how to spend within its means. Why do you believe we would be in better shape without prop 13? I'm sure we would have simply increased spending and leveraged out the state more. With the devaluation of homes it would have just hit us harder, representing a larger percentage of our income.
It is easy to claim California would have more revenue without prop 13. That is a prima facie argument. What you need to do is prove that taxpayers should have paid more, that California is responsible enough to have handled the money, and that the burden should be borne disproportionately by property owners more than it already is.
> it is capped at a 2% increase per year and of course is reassessed at 1% of the total property value when the property changes hands.
Actually, the rate can be higher. The rate in Santa Clara county is over 1.5%.
Note that folks who bought more than a couple of years ago will see a property tax increase this year because their assessed value is still lower than their market value. Folks who bought recently are getting a huge cut.
The net result is that property tax revenues are fairly stable.
In the past, huge run-ups in property values did not result in lower rates - the local govts got huge revenue increases. When property values crashed, they raised the rates to maintain steady revenues.
You are incorrect, it is capped at a 2% increase per year and of course is reassessed at 1% of the total property value when the property changes hands.
Of course proposition 13 lowers the income from property taxes for the state, that is the point of it. Do you think the state deserves more than a 579% increase in revenue from property taxes since 1980? No other tax has increased as much.
The truth is the California government doesn't know how to spend within its means. Why do you believe we would be in better shape without prop 13? I'm sure we would have simply increased spending and leveraged out the state more. With the devaluation of homes it would have just hit us harder, representing a larger percentage of our income.
It is easy to claim California would have more revenue without prop 13. That is a prima facie argument. What you need to do is prove that taxpayers should have paid more, that California is responsible enough to have handled the money, and that the burden should be borne disproportionately by property owners more than it already is.