Religion and Politics, subjects taboo for cocktail fodder. You might consider adding Prop 13 to the list. The mention of it can fan the emotional flames.
I have written about Prop 13 before. David Lazarus of the LA Times has written about this subject. This is one of those polarizing issues, similar to buying a house with a swimming pool. Either you love it or there is no way you will consider it. There is no in between, no middle of the road. People are either quick to defend or quick to admonish. This is a Hatfield and McCoy issue and nobody seems willing to compromise.
With California staring into the abyss and seeing its reflection beginning to resemble insolvency, there is still no agreement on a State budget. Recent proposals seem to have a combination of higher taxes, spending cuts and a dose of creative accounting. Still no agreement, no budget.
Let me begin by saying I am not a proponent of tax increases. I believe people or more specifically wage earners, should be entitled to keep what they earn. I don’t intend to harp on our elected representatives and their positions. That’s better left up to the political bloggers and the radio talk show hosts. While I do not favor tax increases, I disavow tax unfairness much more.
Therein lies the fundamental issue of Proposition 13, its unfairness to property owners. When Prop 13 was passed it set up a protected class of property owners in the state of California. In effect, it set up a real estate caste system. If you owned property when it was passed you were a member of the protected class. Anyone who acquired property after its passage was entitled to the same benefits; however the benefits were based upon a likely increasing value and therefore a higher tax.
I can understand two families in the same neighborhood living side by side. The children of family “A” attend public school, while the children of family “B” attend private school. Taxes from both properties go to pay for the public schools, although the children of family “B” receive no benefit. To make matters worse, family “B”, who moved into the neighborhood in 2006, could easily be paying as much as ten times the amount of property taxes as family “A” who purchased their home in 1978. If the purpose of taxation is to provide for the common good, we should not be using an antiquated system of doling out discounts to a privileged few while the unfortunate rest of us carry the burden of what proves to be a disastrous shortfall.
So as our folks in Sacramento begin to brainstorm on ways to increase revenue which include a doubling of the car license plates, an additional 1% sales tax, a surcharge on the state income tax and a 12 cent increase in the gasoline tax, you just have to ask yourself. “Would all of this really be necessary, if we had fairness in the manner in which our property taxes were collected?”
While Prop 13, seemed a good idea at the time, I don’t think anyone foresaw the unintended consequences that would result over time.
About Doug Willis
What You Have To Say