# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/21 "2016-05-27T18:25:24Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > It also helps you not lose your house because of outrageous property tax increases. The proposition will be safe until enough people do not own houses, and they want the few remaining house owners to pay for everything. How many people lose their house because of outrageous property taxes? Its one thing to freeze the property tax RATE, its another thing to freeze the nominal amount of property taxes paid. If home values double then your equity in that home has at least doubled and if you don’t want to pay property taxes then you can sell your home and buy a cheaper one. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/22 "2016-05-27T18:29:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How many people lose their house because of outrageous property taxes? > > Its one thing to freeze the property tax RATE, its another thing to freeze the nominal amount of property taxes paid. If home values double then your equity in that home has at least doubled and if you don’t want to pay property taxes then you can sell your home and buy a cheaper one. Suuuure, that’s so fair. Sell your family home that you have 30 years of memories in, and move to a area where you have no friends or family- just because speculators have run up the housing market.:dubious::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/23 "2016-05-27T18:32:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, you have a small business, and you own your property. It does OK, but then a bunch of development spring up around you and your property is not worth 5 time what is was when you bought it. Should your taxes go up five times? Should you have to sell and move because of this? Won’t you get more business? Won’t you be able to charge more? Won’t all of your new competitors have to pay 5 times what you do in taxes? Looking briefly, it seems there’s some movement to turn this into 2 tier, businesses get reassessed annually but residences only on ownership change. That makes sense. Since a business can essentially be immortal, doesn’t seem quite fair that you pay the same taxes your great great grandfather did when he started the company. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/24 "2016-05-27T18:34:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Won’t you get more business? Won’t you be able to charge more? Won’t all of your new competitors have to pay 5 times what you do in taxes? > > Looking briefly, it seems there’s some movement to turn this into 2 tier, businesses get reassessed annually but residences only on ownership change. That makes sense. Since a business can essentially be immortal, doesn’t seem quite fair that you pay the same taxes your great great grandfather did when he started the company. Why would you get more business just because speculators have run up the property values and a new shopping center has opened up nearby? Maybe you’ll have less business. Look, I dont mind business getting reassessed, but it’s hardly black and white. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/25 "2016-05-27T18:51:03Z")
I agree it’s not black and white but a locked in tax bill forever is a little hard to defend in any case other than a poor old widow living in the house her husband built. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/26 "2016-05-27T19:08:33Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > “Worth more” is meaningless unless you mean “sell for more”. Say a retired couple, living on Soc Sec , and their home is now _worth_ 10 times what they bought it for. Thus, they’d have to sell it under your plan. :dubious: So? They can sell their home, which is now worth a ton more than they bought it for and that’s a bad thing? They got the benefit of decades of subsidized taxes from the rest of their neighbors which put them into this enviable situation that you’re trying to spin as a bad thing. All because they happened to be born earlier and voted that their neighbors would pay their bills in the future. More, Prop 13 ensures that this lovely retired hypothetical couple can’t sell their house if they wanted to (and downsize to a house where three of the bedrooms aren’t sitting there unused because the kids moved out years ago) because they would have to pay higher taxes on the new smaller house than they do on the larger house; they are locked in by the tax rate. So, they stay put in a house they don’t need or want, and a lovely young family that would love to start their lives in that larger house don’t have the opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/27 "2016-05-27T19:32:52Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > So? They can sell their home, which is now worth a ton more than they bought it for and that’s a bad thing? I’m not fan of Prop 13 but yes: that’s a bad thing. No one should have to sell their home and move because of taxes. For one thing: you now need to \*buy \*a home in the same inflated real estate market (or move to East Jesus). ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/28 "2016-05-27T19:35:21Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The fact that 63% of CA voters, nearly 40 years ago, voted that their future neighbors would subsidize them isn’t particularly compelling or surprising. I would like to see a more current survey, but if there’s been anything done they haven’t polled me. This is like saying 63% of current employees vote to accept a 2 tier wage structure. Not surprisingly, all of them are in Tier 1. Nobody asked the future employees who will fall into Tier 2. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/29 "2016-05-27T19:56:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like I said, prop 13 was the worst option-- except for what legislature offered, which was NOTHING. Ok, so what’s a better option? I ask this earnestly, as I am generally sympathetic to both sides in the freezing property tax debate (I don’t live in California, but Washington has similar laws.) > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > More, Prop 13 ensures that this lovely retired hypothetical couple can’t sell their house if they wanted to (and downsize to a house where three of the bedrooms aren’t sitting there unused because the kids moved out years ago) because they would have to pay higher taxes on the new smaller house than they do on the larger house; they are locked in by the tax rate. Again, I don’t live in California, but my in-laws do, and I seem to recall there was something with them selling their old house and buying their new place (a condo), and getting to tie the condo’s property tax to the old house’s cost basis. If I understood that right, that seems like it would solve the problem you bring up here. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/30 "2016-05-27T20:06:18Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I’m not fan of Prop 13 but yes: that’s a bad thing. No one should have to sell their home and move because of taxes. For one thing: you now need to \*buy \*a home in the same inflated real estate market (or move to East Jesus). These are the same problems facing everyone who hasn’t had their neighbors subsidizing their taxes for the past 40 years as well. ---
**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 27, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/31 "2016-05-27T20:49:59Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I would like to see a more current survey, but if there’s been anything done they haven’t polled me. > > This is like saying 63% of current employees vote to accept a 2 tier wage structure. Not surprisingly, all of them are in Tier 1. Nobody asked the future employees who will fall into Tier 2. No. You are assuming only homeowners voted yes. I was not a home owner then, and I voted yes. Plus, the average time people stay in their homes is something like 7 years. Then you start over as tier 2. ---
**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 27, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/32 "2016-05-27T20:53:26Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > More, Prop 13 ensures that this lovely retired hypothetical couple can’t sell their house if they wanted to (and downsize to a house where three of the bedrooms aren’t sitting there unused because the kids moved out years ago) because they would have to pay higher taxes on the new smaller house than they do on the larger house; they are locked in by the tax rate. So, they stay put in a house they don’t need or want, and a lovely young family that would love to start their lives in that larger house don’t have the opportunity. Not exactly. In several bay area counties you have the option of transferring your basis as do not taunt stated. There are nuances and it doesn’t apply statewide either. And prop taxes aren’t frozen - they are permitted to raise the assessed value up to 2% per year. ---
**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 27, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/33 "2016-05-27T21:00:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not exactly. In several bay area counties you have the option of transferring your basis as do not taunt stated. There are nuances and it doesn’t apply statewide either. > > And prop taxes aren’t frozen - they are permitted to raise the assessed value up to 2% per year. Are you sure it’s not statewide? Also, you are able to sell your house once, at its current tax basis, to a family member. I know quote a few folks who bought the house they grew up in for that reason. A bad as prop 13 is, I don’t see people objecting to Social Security for doing the same thing. At least buying a house is voluntary. ---
**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 27, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/34 "2016-05-27T21:03:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Proposition 13 was a measure put in place by conservatives to prohibit the government of California from paying for anything, so they could run the state into the ground and in the process prove that liberals never pay for anything. Or it could have been put in place as a constraint to ridiculous levels of tax and spend policies. What’s wrong with a state or city government living within it’s means like normal humans must? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/35 "2016-05-27T21:05:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not exactly. In several bay area counties you have the option of transferring your basis as do not taunt stated. There are nuances and it doesn’t apply statewide either. > > And prop taxes aren’t frozen - they are permitted to raise the assessed value up to 2% per year. “Several” being the key word. This is a fairly niche occurrence allowed in a minority of counties in CA, with enough restrictions built in that isn’t going to apply to most situations. And, as long as the 2% rate increases are below the market value, their neighbors are still subsidizing them (and at an increasingly obscene rate every year). ---
**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 27, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/36 "2016-05-27T21:06:17Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > If their taxes are going up so enormously that they couldn’t factor it into their plans, it’s because their house has become so much more valuable in the interim. Having a hard time feeling bad for them. They got theirs, so screw everyone else? > > The fact that 63% of CA voters, nearly 40 years ago, voted that their future neighbors would subsidize them isn’t particularly compelling or surprising. But you have no problem when the state enacts the tax and spend policies of of taking from property owners and income generators to subsidize a different subset of the population? It seems like you are just upset that the wrong people are benefiting from their own work and decision making. ---
**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 27, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/37 "2016-05-27T21:14:10Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > And, as long as the 2% rate increases are below the market value, their neighbors are still subsidizing them (and at an increasingly obscene rate every year). Explain how this subsidy works? I don’t think it’s a subsidy so you’ll also have to clarify how you are using that word. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/38 "2016-05-27T21:23:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In several bay area counties you have the option of transferring your basis as do not taunt stated. There are nuances and it doesn’t apply statewide either. FWIW, the example I was referring to was an inter-county move between two SoCal counties. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/39 "2016-05-27T21:31:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Explain how this subsidy works? I don’t think it’s a subsidy so you’ll also have to clarify how you are using that word. The road on my block of ten people with identical houses has a huge pothole that needs filling. This costs money. Everyone on the block uses the road in one way or another. Either they drive on it, the mail trucks that deliver to their house drives on it, the ambulance, police and fire trucks that ensure their safety drive on it. The cost of maintaining streets comes from property taxes. We all need that pothole filled, person A bought his house 10 years after person B-J and therefore his property taxes are five times higher than theirs. He ends up paying five houses worth to fill that pothole, while the other nine people on the block pay 0.55 houses worth to fill that pothole. Person A has subsidized persons B through J. > [@octopus](#): > > But you have no problem when the state enacts the tax and spend policies of of taking from property owners and income generators to subsidize a different subset of the population? It seems like you are just upset that the wrong people are benefiting from their own work and decision making. If you want to start a thread on different tax systems and how they are unfair, go ahead and do so. I’ve said nothing about other tax systems in this thread, so you have no idea what I do or don’t have a problem with. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798/40 "2016-05-27T21:35:21Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The road on my block of ten people with identical houses has a huge pothole that needs filling. This costs money. Everyone on the block uses the road in one way or another. Either they drive on it, the mail trucks that deliver to their house drives on it, the ambulance, police and fire trucks that ensure their safety drive on it. The cost of maintaining streets comes from property taxes. We all need that pothole filled, person A bought his house 10 years after person B-J and therefore his property taxes are five times higher than theirs. He ends up paying five houses worth to fill that pothole, while the other nine people on the block pay 0.55 houses worth to fill that pothole. Person A has subsidized persons B through J. > . But you see, when person A decided to buy his house, he could see exactly how much his taxes would be, and bought his house accordingly. _It was his informed decision._ Owners B-J had no idea their property would be worth five times as much in 10 years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-prop-13-california-campaign-sign-huh/755798.md?page=3)