I am equally unsympathetic, but is that statement true? A teacher buys a house in 1982 for $125,000. That house is now worth $800,000, but while her salary has increased according to cost of living (ideally), it has definitely not accounted for the massive increase in property tax that her new values command.
There's a difference of around $500 a month, just in property taxes between her home in 1982 and 2015, and that doesn't even account for the increase in cost of goods and services as the rest of the economy thrives around her.
Just for reference, that situation doesn't apply to California because of [Prop. 13](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%2819...). It restricts the annual increases of property taxes to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year.
I've never paid property taxes in California, but my understanding is that Prop 13: 1) limits increased in assessed value to 2% per year (under the rate of inflation historically); and 2) prevents re-valuation of property except on ownership transfer or new construction.
I am equally unsympathetic, but is that statement true? A teacher buys a house in 1982 for $125,000. That house is now worth $800,000, but while her salary has increased according to cost of living (ideally), it has definitely not accounted for the massive increase in property tax that her new values command.
There's a difference of around $500 a month, just in property taxes between her home in 1982 and 2015, and that doesn't even account for the increase in cost of goods and services as the rest of the economy thrives around her.