# Save Prop. 13? (California campaign sign) Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798 "2016-05-27T09:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/181 "2016-05-31T17:19:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > CA tax assessment is based on the sale price. Other states might intentionally skew the assessment, but that’s not true in CA. > > In Santa Clara County, where I live, a typical 3 BR 2B home of about 1,800 SQ FT on a 6,000 SQ Ft lot sells for about $1M. Where do you think the majority of the cost is? [Zillow](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Clara-County-CA/pmf,pf_pt/land_type/3136_rid/any_days/37.719676,-120.482941,36.656301,-122.927399_rect/8_zm/) shows a number of lots in that size range for rather less than half a million. Planning permission and regulatory compliance probably takes quite a chunk of that difference. ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/182 "2016-05-31T17:20:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think you may have switched the things you were comparing. The majority of a home’s assessed value is generally the dwelling, not the land itself. Though the land is a significant portion. Not that I have any deep insight into the assessor’s methodology, but my current tax statement has ‘Land/Mineral Rights’ as 54% of my assessment, and ‘Improvements’ as 46%. For my previous house in Seattle, it was a 70/30 split with the improvements being the larger part. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/183 "2016-05-31T17:21:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > CA tax assessment is based on the sale price. Other states might intentionally skew the assessment, but that’s not true in CA. > > In Santa Clara County, where I live, a typical 3 BR 2B home of about 1,800 SQ FT on a 6,000 SQ Ft lot sells for about $1M. Where do you think the majority of the cost is? I think it’s in the improvements (dwelling and other structures) generally, but could go either way depending on how hot the real estate market is in a given area. Looking at a few recent sales in Santa Clara County\*, 1759 Jeffery Ct sold in 2015. Prior to that, in 2014 the land was assessed at $99K and the improvements were assessed at $188K, total of $287K. The property sold in Apr-15 for $1M. It was purchased in 1984 for $131K. The new assessed value hasn’t populated yet. 1436 Jefferson St sold in Jun-13. At that point, it had an assessed land value of $37K and improvements of $112K, for a total of $150K. It was purchased in 2003 for $68K so that’s kind of strange - maybe a land purchase? In any event, after the sale in 2013, the new assessed land value is $480K and the improvements are $260K, for a total of approximately $750K. This example matches your understanding. So it looks like some historical examples the land was less than the improvements, and in some recent sales, this gets flipped. I’m more familiar with East Bay real estate and I would say the land is typically less than the improvements. I think this is more neighborhood dependent but that’s the limit of what I’m willing to look up. \*I used Zillow and th [Santa Clara County Asessors Property lookup site.](https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/online-services/property-search/real-property) ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/184 "2016-05-31T17:29:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, your turn for a cite for the bolded part. I don’t have a cite for that, which is why I used a vague “substantially” rather than a precise value. I can certainly show the Consumer Price Index rising more rapidly in California (especially coastal California) than in most places, but the CPI isn’t a particularly good gauge of the cost of government (because governments and individual consumers don’t buy the same basket of goods and services), and I don’t know of any agency calculating inflation on the goods and services that local governments buy. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Then it’s a goo thing I didn’t pretend that! So by what percentage do you think the cost of government increases when property values double? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/185 "2016-05-31T17:47:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The point of property taxes is that just because my house doubled in value, doesn’t mean the government needs 2x the revenue from me, or form anyone else for that matter. Taxes are set by the will of the people, and the people have spoken. Oooooh, why didn’t anyone say earlier that the people had spoken?! Well, if Californians voted for something, end of debate! Because we all know that the people of California are unerring in the outcomes of ballot propositions, from Prop 13 to Prop 22 (which banned same-sex marriage in 2000), not to mention other controversial ones such as Prop 19 (which would have legalized recreational marijuana, but failed in 2010, so you better not argue that pot should be legalized) or Prop 187 (which sought to deny the children of illegal immigrants the ability to go to public school, and passed in 1994 and was the subject of Federal lawsuits). I guess we can’t argue against the will of the people, eh **John Mace**? And if your property doubles in value, and the government doesn’t need twice as much money, they can always decide to cut the tax rate. As many politicians have commented, the vote to cut taxes is the easiest vote any elected official ever takes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/186 "2016-05-31T18:14:28Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > So by what percentage do you think the cost of government increases when property values double? I don’t know. I suspect that it would track population growth and inflation. More people means more taxes, so that should take care of itself +/-. But home price increases have far outstripped inflation in much of the state, which is where the problem lies. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/187 "2016-05-31T18:14:58Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > There absolutely are financial products available that could work in such situations, and there’d likely be others offered if Prop13 hadn’t altered the market. For example, reverse mortgages have been around in since the 1960s, albeit on a limited scale until the 1990s. You borrow against the equity, and you make no payments whatsoever until the property is sold. Mum stays in her house and the taxes get paid, regardless of her income level. > > but on what do you base the notion that the taxes would “likely” be 14/14/15 (generating 43K instead of 16K) or even higher? A reverse mortgages is a good thing for some folks, sure. Not if you wanna leave that house to your kids. Based on the fact that the CA Legislature will spend up to the amount they can get…and a little more. Triple the Property taxes, and they’ll just spend it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/188 "2016-05-31T18:23:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **DrDeth** , you do realize that there are other ways protect poor people from being taxed out of their homes (if that ever actually happens outside of the orphanage in the Blues Brothers movie and many Three Stooges shorts) than to freeze tax payments, right? > **[The other foreclosure crisis: Losing a home over $400 in back taxes](https://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/real_estate/tax-liens/)** > > Outdated state laws that allow local governments to sell tax liens on delinquent properties to investors is sparking a second "foreclosure crisis." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/) [http://www.ptcc.us/stories.htm](http://www.ptcc.us/stories.htm) [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-tax-sales-20141024-story.html](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-tax-sales-20141024-story.html) > **[Illinois property taxes are crushing homeowners](https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/03/31/illinois-property-taxes-are-crushing-homeowners/)** > > Ten years ago, Bonita Hatchett built her dream home in Flossmoor. A lawyer by trade, she moved to the south Chicago suburb to join a diverse community that included black professionals like herself… [http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home\_Buying/We\_are\_being\_taxed\_out\_of\_our\_home\_What\_steps\_can-731414](http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/We_are_being_taxed_out_of_our_home_What_steps_can-731414) > **[Are you being TAXED out of your home???? (San Antonio, Alamo: sales, real...](https://www.city-data.com/forum/san-antonio/173680-you-being-taxed-out-your-home.html)** > > I just wanted to know if this was happing to anyone here on the board .. A friend of mine bought a home about five years ago in Alamo Heights for > **[Elderly losing homes over $400 in back taxes](https://www.nydailynews.com/2012/07/10/elderly-losing-homes-over-400-in-back-taxes/)** > > WASHINGTON — The elderly and other vulnerable homeowners are losing their homes because they owe as little as a few hundred dollars in back taxes, according to a report from a consumer group.… > **[Kalamazoo mother loses home over one missed property tax payment](https://www.fox17online.com/2014/09/15/kalamazoo-mother-loses-home-over-one-missed-property-tax-payment)** > > RICHLAND, Mich. — A mother from Kalamazoo is losing her home after she missed a property tax payment. It has been a rough couple of years for Deborah Calley, who has overcome physical and mental obstacles following a devastating car accident. The... > **[Recovering a Home Lost to Unpaid Real Estate Taxes](https://www.nebraskadebtbankruptcyblog.com/2016/02/recovering-a-home-lost-to-unpaid-real-estate-taxes/)** > > Depriving local governments of tax revenue is like cutting off oxygen to the body--they can't live without it.  Local governments and schools in > **[Exclusive: Fighting New Jersey’s property tax crisis](https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/2015/10/10/new-jersey-property-tax/73683040/)** > > New Jersey’s property tax is the highest in the nation. It is destroying the way we live. Here’s how you can fight back. [http://roachmaughanlaw.com/2014/11/23/woman-lost-property-tax-sale/](http://roachmaughanlaw.com/2014/11/23/woman-lost-property-tax-sale/) \*“(if that ever actually happens outside of the orphanage in the Blues Brothers movie and many Three Stooges shorts) \*” is one of the most uninformed things I have ever seen posted on this MB.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/189 "2016-05-31T18:30:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Except that they (meaning a majority) _do_ want to pay. But Prop 13 won’t let them, because there’s still a 1/3 minority who doesn’t want to pay. > > Seriously, do no conservatives understand the concept of “you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get”? I understand it entirely. I also understand exploiting the rules of the system for personal benefit. If one doesn’t like pure democracy including those who exercise pure democracy to game the system attack the real problem. On a personal level I think every level of government ought to be working for proper balanced budgets with appropriate levels of taxation to pay for now what we benefit from now. With regards to taxation I am sure most are willing to tax the very productive few. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/190 "2016-05-31T19:07:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*“(if that ever actually happens outside of the orphanage in the Blues Brothers movie and many Three Stooges shorts) \*” is one of the most uninformed things I have ever seen posted on this MB.:rolleyes: Oh, lighten up, Francis. I think it’s clear from how silly that comment was phrased that it was meant as a silly comment. But you do ignore the substance of the post: that there are other ways to give poor people a fairer shake than giving both the rich and the poor a tax cut. I know you’re a liberal guy, so I bet you’re rightly skeptical (or opposed) to the idea of a flat tax in which lower incomes may have their taxes cut somewhat, but the rich would have their taxes cut a lot. What I’m saying is that if you want poor people to pay less in property taxes, there are perfectly fine ways to do that other than giving everyone a property tax “cut.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/191 "2016-05-31T19:11:18Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > [Zillow](http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Santa-Clara-County-CA/pmf,pf_pt/land_type/3136_rid/any_days/37.719676,-120.482941,36.656301,-122.927399_rect/8_zm/) shows a number of lots in that size range for rather less than half a million. Planning permission and regulatory compliance probably takes quite a chunk of that difference. Do you notice how there are few, if any houses near those properties? They are all out in the boonies. Not at all typical of where 95% of the people live. I’ve lived in Santa Clara County for 30 years. I know what housing costs are like here. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/192 "2016-05-31T19:13:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A reverse mortgages is a good thing for some folks, sure. Not if you wanna leave that house to your kids. Sure, and you’ll have even more money to leave your kids if you never ever pay any of your own bills and get somebody else to pay everything. How is that good for society in general? “Hey, if I make little or no contribution to the government/society providing me services, I’ll have more to leave my kids” is not a stellar argument against reverse mortgages, sorry. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Based on the fact that the CA Legislature will spend up to the amount they can get…and a little more. > > Triple the Property taxes, and they’ll just spend it. You’re putting the cart before the horse. First, they have to triple the property taxes (or vote in whatever other large tax increases they propose) BEFORE they can get it. What leads you to think they can do so and retain their seats? > [@DrDeth](#): > > \*“(if that ever actually happens outside of the orphanage in the Blues Brothers movie and many Three Stooges shorts) \*” is one of the most uninformed things I have ever seen posted on this MB.:rolleyes: What exactly are you trying to demonstrate with that very long list of links? I didn’t check them all, but many I did, and they mostly were about people who DID NOT pay their taxes (not COULD NOT, but DID NOT). People overlooking a bill, or forgetting to pay, or choosing not to pay, is a quite different situation from losing their home over lack of ability to pay. For example, the Roach Maughan Law link (the last on your list) is about a woman whose late husband had always taken care of the taxes. After he died, she paid the bill after the due date, but did not pay the penalty for being delinquent. She was apparently perfectly able to pay ~$4K annually in taxes, but ended up in a tax sale due to $28.25 in unpaid interest, postage, and costs. That’s a broken system; are you using her as an example of a poor person taxed out of her home? Even the articles (such as the Chicago Tribune) that specifically mention “we’re being taxed out of our home” are people who are currently able to pay very high taxes, but don’t want to or don’t think the taxes are justified–“it’s just not worth it.” That’s a perfectly valid opinion, but it’s not an example of being forced from your home because you do not have the financial resources to pay the tax bill. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/193 "2016-05-31T19:24:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do you notice how there are few, if any houses near those properties? They are all out in the boonies. Not at all typical of where 95% of the people live. > > I’ve lived in Santa Clara County for 30 years. I know what housing costs are like here. OK, do you have any examples of empty residential lots in town that are selling for more than half the value of the surrounding homes? I didn’t find any, but I don’t know the neighborhoods the way you obviously do. I agree with you that housing costs are very very high in Santa Clara County. I disagree with you that more than half the cost of a home is the cost of the underlying land. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/194 "2016-05-31T19:31:21Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > OK, do you have any examples of empty residential lots in town that are selling for more than half the value of the surrounding homes? I didn’t find any, but I don’t know the neighborhoods the way you obviously do. > > I agree with you that housing costs are very very high in Santa Clara County. I disagree with you that more than half the cost of a home is the cost of the underlying land. > [@Bone](#): > > 1436 Jefferson St sold in Jun-13. At that point, it had an assessed land value of $37K and improvements of $112K, for a total of $150K. It was purchased in 2003 for $68K so that’s kind of strange - maybe a land purchase? In any event, after the sale in 2013, the new assessed land value is $480K and the improvements are $260K, for a total of approximately $750K. The cost of housing, and especially the fluctuations in cost of housing isn’t related to government services in a direct way. If in year 1 you pay X dollars for a house and owe 1.1% of X annually, just because the housing market spikes and your house has a higher market value, this doesn’t translate into higher utilization of services. And on top of that, all of the market value increase is unrealized. It doesn’t mean a person has increased their ability to pay. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/195 "2016-05-31T20:36:52Z")
I’m having some problems coming up with houses in immediate vicinity of 1436 Jefferson, though, to compare how its land value comports with comparable properties. For example, 1466 (next property but one) is a substantially larger piece of land and is a commercial building–it looks like a body shop or some sort of car repair. Down in the next block 1344 Jefferson, also transferred and reassessed in 2015, has land worth $122K and improvements worth $282K, even with a larger lot. How certain are you that 1436 Jefferson’s land valuation actually reflects residential rather than commercial values, given its location? (And 1436 Jefferson isn’t an example of an vacant lot in an otherwise residential area, but you already knew that.) > [@Bone](#): > > The cost of housing, and especially the fluctuations in cost of housing isn’t related to government services in a direct way. If in year 1 you pay X dollars for a house and owe 1.1% of X annually, just because the housing market spikes and your house has a higher market value, this doesn’t translate into higher utilization of services. And on top of that, all of the market value increase is unrealized. It doesn’t mean a person has increased their ability to pay. No, I’m not claiming it is **directly** related. However, many government expenses are connected to the cost of land–rights of way for roads and other infrastructure, places for offices and workshops and jails and schools and parking lots, etc. Also, typically local governments spend a lot of money on personnel (nationwide, for example, schools usually spend 80-85% of their money on employee wages/benefits/retirement), and wages have typically risen in times of rising costs of living, with housing costs being being about 25% of the Consumer Price Index. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/196 "2016-05-31T21:08:33Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > How certain are you that 1436 Jefferson’s land valuation actually reflects residential rather than commercial values, given its location? Not at all? As certain as I am that the County Assessor accurately does their job. You can also look at 1845 De La Pena Ave sold in Feb-15 for example. ```auto 2014 2015 Land 22,027 317,224 Improv 29,947 79,019 ``` Or 1934 Murguia Ave sold in Jan-14: ```auto 2014 2015 Land 220,700 546,913 Improv 102,251 294,570 ``` Both of those are in more residential areas. The previous example was near El Camino which is a commercial street. Pricing in parts of the Bay Area create weird scenario that aren’t really comprehensible if you’re not familiar with the markets here. We have places that sell for [$1M that people tear down completely to build fresh](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25283556/bay-area-million-dollar-homes-are-torn-down). > [@](#): > > No, I’m not claiming it is **directly** related. However, many government expenses are connected to the cost of land–rights of way for roads and other infrastructure, places for offices and workshops and jails and schools and parking lots, etc. Also, typically local governments spend a lot of money on personnel (nationwide, for example, schools usually spend 80-85% of their money on employee wages/benefits/retirement), and wages have typically risen in times of rising costs of living, with housing costs being being about 25% of the Consumer Price Index. The housing market fluctuates much more and potentially quicker than the costs of government. And even still, what it boils down to is that a person is not able to use unrealized gains to cover increases in property taxes. People would be forced to sell their homes and that is a bad thing. Prop 13 is a popular target, but what about [Prop 98](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_98,_Mandatory_Education_Spending_(1988))? Rather than a ceiling on assessment increases, it set a ceiling on education spending. It mandated that spending on education must be 40% of the state budget, can only go up, and can never go down. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/197 "2016-05-31T21:27:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Prop 13 is a popular target, but what about [Prop 98](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_98,_Mandatory_Education_Spending_(1988))? Rather than a ceiling on assessment increases, it set a ceiling on education spending. It mandated that spending on education must be 40% of the state budget, can only go up, and can never go down. And of course I messed this up. I meant that Prop 98 sets a **floor** on education spending. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/198 "2016-05-31T21:30:32Z")
If the cost of government isn’t rising substantially with housing costs and the population change works out for itsself then without prop 13 we should have seen a decrease in property tax percentage. There were 43,021 households in Santa Clara County as of the last census and the 2015 budget was ~$180 million. So each household (assuming they were all valued the same) would owe $4,184/year or assuming an average of one million per house about 0.4% with prop 13 average paid is almost double that at 0.79%. Assuming home values and government services only increase at inflation then your property tax should change year to year. If home values appreciate faster then the tax rate should drop and of course if they’re slower either the rate will go up or services will decline. Fixing the base to a single point in time will just continually pass way higher costs to the newest person on the neighborhood. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/199 "2016-05-31T21:35:21Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > If the cost of government isn’t rising substantially with housing costs and the population change works out for itsself then without prop 13 we should have seen a decrease in property tax percentage. There were 43,021 households in Santa Clara County as of the last census and the 2015 budget was ~$180 million. So each household (assuming they were all valued the same) would owe $4,184/year or assuming an average of one million per house about 0.4% with prop 13 average paid is almost double that at 0.79%. Residential property taxes are not the only source of revenue for the county. Not sure why you would assume that. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/200 "2016-06-01T03:54:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But you do ignore the substance of the post: that there are other ways to give poor people a fairer shake than giving both the rich and the poor a tax cut. > > I know you’re a liberal guy, so I bet you’re rightly skeptical (or opposed) to the idea of a flat tax in which lower incomes may have their taxes cut somewhat, but the rich would have their taxes cut a lot. What I’m saying is that if you want poor people to pay less in property taxes, there are perfectly fine ways to do that other than giving everyone a property tax “cut.” There are. But the California Legislature was unable to come up with any after years. Thus Prop 13. Is it perfect? Hardly. But it’s better than _increase taxes and spend more._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=11)