In case you're not familiar, proposition 13 dates back to about 1980, and basically limits the amount by which the assessed value of home may increase every year. It starts with the value of the home when you buy it, and the rate of increase is something like 2%. (I could probably look that up, but this is my blog, so I'm just going to wing it) On its face, that doesn't seem bad or good- it's only when you look at the application of the rule that you can see where a problem might arise.
On a very basic level, it limits a revenue stream for the state. Some people might see that as good (what the state doesn't have it can't waste). I don't agree with that, but I don't see it as particularly nefarious.
Where it starts to piss me off is when you consider how the rule might play out. First of all, look at who it actually helps- it helps someone who has owned his house for long enough that the assessors' opinion of its worth is something greater than the original value plus 2% per year. Who doesn't it help? People who are renting, people who have recently purchased a new home, and people whose homes have dropped in value to something below what they paid for them. So, if you just finished school and are just starting out in the working world, it's not working for you. Just retired and want to downsize? Not working for you. Do you have a mansion in Bel Aire that has been in the family for decades? You win! Your property tax bill is half what it might otherwise be.
If that weren't bad enough, what really pisses me off is the fact that it was sold as a way to help old people on fixed incomes from losing their homes due to rapidly escalating property taxes. That's an appealing story, but it ignores reality. If the house has increased in value so much that taxes have doubled, the old people living there could always sell the house and have a nice chunk of money. What's more, I would bet that most old people who live on fixed incomes would fall into the group that downsized after the kids moved out, or who rent. Those people aren't helped at all by this. As a matter of fact, if you consider that tax money is used in a way that theoretically helps everyone, everyone who isn't helped by Prop 13 is, in fact, hurt by it. Whether it's because more of the tax burden is shifted to these people to compensate for the money saved by the mansion-squatters, or due to the fact that there's less money to go around to fix roads or fund schools, your neighbor saving tax money doesn't help you.
What's insulting about the whole thing is the fact that this likely only really benefits a few rich, powerful, and intelligent people. CA is in the middle of a budget crisis, but because the people who gain the most from it are opinion-makers (or at least know someone who knows someone), any mention of this in the mainstream or fringe news channels will describe it as the "third rail" and note that prop 13 is untouchable. Sure, Arnold can lay off thousands of workers or drop their pay to minimum wage, but it would be political suicide to allow some hypothetical grandma's property tax bill to increase by more than 2%
You might be wondering how this ties back into TEA Parties. It ties in because this is the type of thing that gets passed when there are a few very intelligent puppet masters and a lot of emotional puppets. People are mad because the country isn't perfect, and they think that it's the government's fault. I wouldn't be surprised to see the TEA Party movement get behind a bill that "limits the size of government" but also happens to hugely favor the financially elite, and disfavor the hard-working masses who can't see the forest for the trees.
No comments:
Post a Comment