Obviously, I left out the Originally posted by Stoid before the last two quotes.
Stoid:
I think you need to give it up. For one thing, banks will only give you a loan if you qualify by their income standards. I don’t know what it is now, but it used to be that your mortgage payment (including prop taxes) couldn’t exceed 28% of your monthly income. Many people buy homes that put them right on the edge of qualifying. Anything that raises the price of the home will push out certain buyers. Of course, this doesn’t mean they buy nothing-- usually just a cheaper house. But that still pushes some people out of the housing market.
Even though I’m not a homeowner, I don’t see why residential property should be taxed at all, let alone repeal or diminish Prop. 13. My view is that taxes should be assessed at the time money is earned, or perhaps at the time when it is spent. I don’t think they should be assessed on property that is merely possessed and does not generate income.
There was a time when property owners were generally rich and their property actually generated income. The land generated rents, produce, livestock, and so forth, and taxing that land made sense because it was a reasonable assumption that income was being derived from that land. But how can anyone justify taxing something which generates no income at all, and without any adjustment for how much income the owner of that property has? In California, food isn’t taxed, so why should shelter be?