CA Constitutional Convention... any thoughts?

[Californio]

Prop 13 assassination has already begun. I have seen the same talking points on many editorial pages. They are using the bad and ugly apartment owners as the profiteers of Prop 13 and the State would not be in a fiscal mess except for Prop 13, pure BS but assassination has begun.

[ilbob]

Prop 13 would go and 2/3rds majority for tax increases would be gone.... Taxes in the state would SKYROCKET.... I wouldnt be surprised to see a 15-25% state income tax rate and another 5% in sales tax.

NO THANKS! I dont care if they have a budget.... Let the state SHUT DOWN.

Amen. A little pain will motivate everyone involved to find a way to cut the budget so CA spends no more than it takes in.

I would bet there is some state law provision for continuation of "essential" services. My question is what the heck is any government doing providing services that are not "essential".

[Bugei]

And the delegates ought to be drafted; no one appointed or 'anointed' by current power brokers.

What do we do if the guy you want to draft would prefer not to be involved? This is going to be a big, long, hard job and the guys you're looking for generally have other things to do with their time.

[gunn]

I think this post has spawned some interesting points that are more diverse from my friends in SF -- who view me as a raving conservative comparatively

Taking one issue: Prop 13.
* It seems that quite a few of you guys, as long time Californians, are against overturning Prop 13 -- presumably because you are long time property owners.

* As a fairly recent arrival (2004), I'm not exactly a fan of this Proposition since it means that my tax burden is significantly higher than yours. To me, that's unfair -- just in the same way i view rent control in SF (both as wealth transfer from the longterm landlords to renters as well as unfair to newer renters who must bid on a more limited pool of apartments).

Q: As a longtime property owner, would you agree that your tax burden is "under market rate"?
Furthermore, if a significant portion of the population was "under market rate" for taxes, would you agree that this means that the newer property owners must pay "over market rate"?

----
Q: Finally, would you guys consider some kind of 'sun-downing' of Prop 13 or elimination of prop 13 for commercial real estate owners or would you use the "slippery slope argument"?

Right now, I believe you can avoid a tax re-assessment by transferring property within families. By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).

--
Now, I figure that most of you folks will disagree with my reasoning but I'm sure we can debate this civilly. I hope you understand my position from my point of view (a relatively new arrival who DOES want to contribute to this state).

-g

[GuyW]

By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).

You realize that when you get old, and are living off your pension or savings, you WILL be taxed out of your home, don't you? Socialists have no limit to their need for your money.

.

[gunn]

[QUOTE=Flopper;2713803]Those are great ideas. I think another good addition would be cutting the state legislators' salary and pensions completely or to a symbolic, very low level, a la New Hampshire ($100 a year). Political service should be very nearly volunteer.

While I dislike these professional legislative clowns as much as the next guy, the one concern I have about not paying them a salary for a "full time job" is that they will need to / try to generate income in other fashions.

Just like Mexican cops who are not paid a 'living wage', they will be forced to take bribes, etc in order to keep feeding their kids.

I don't like paying them for not doing their job (like passing a budget) either but I don't see how you can just pay them for not doing their job.

-g

[gunn]

You realize that when you get old, and are living off your pension or savings, you WILL be taxed out of your home, don't you? Socialists have no limit to their need for your money.

.

I fail to see how the sundowning idea would tax me out of my home. I'm not proposing anything change for existing homeowners. If there is a slow creep up in the tax burden for an elderly couple, it would be the same under the existing prop-13 or my idea. If you cannot afford your home now, you won't be able to afford your home under my idea. Nothing would change for grannie (or me).

Of course, the gameplan would be to save enough money (in both USD and other currencies as a hedge against future regional economic downturns) to insure that my wife and I are provided for in our doddering old age. I may be fairly young (30) but I'm doing that now. I don't believe there is a single person my age who believes they will see a dime of social security. This is an individual responsibility.

Now, back to the topic at hand:
I believe in Texas we had something similar to keep old folks in their home. If you were over a certain age, you could defer taxes on your home until you died. Then, the taxman would come and assess the taxes on the estate. Sure, this might leave your kids with less inheritence, but they would have gotten less anyway if you had to pay the taxes as the bills came in annually.
It is a win-win: old people keep their home and the govt gets its money.

http://www.texastaxback.com/program.htm

My proposal would NOT be to collect 'back taxes' when the homeowner dies (like the Texas plan) but to insure that the property goes back to market rate (and everyone pays a fairer portion of their assets value) in taxes.

-g

[dustoff31]

I think this post has spawned some interesting points that are more diverse from my friends in SF -- who view me as a raving conservative comparatively

Taking one issue: Prop 13.
* It seems that quite a few of you guys, as long time Californians, are against overturning Prop 13 -- presumably because you are long time property owners.

* As a fairly recent arrival (2004), I'm not exactly a fan of this Proposition since it means that my tax burden is significantly higher than yours. To me, that's unfair -- just in the same way i view rent control in SF (both as wealth transfer from the longterm landlords to renters as well as unfair to newer renters who must bid on a more limited pool of apartments).

I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking that taxes have anything whatsoever to do with fairness.

Why do people who pay no income taxes get money returned to them, i.e. EIC?

Why do people with no children have to pay school taxes?

Why do people who haven't called the police in the last five years pay the same as the people who have the police at their house every Friday night?

Q: Finally, would you guys consider some kind of 'sun-downing' of Prop 13 or elimination of prop 13 for commercial real estate owners or would you use the "slippery slope argument"? Right now, I believe you can avoid a tax re-assessment by transferring property within families. By sun-downing, I'm suggesting the this portion be eliminated so that eventually, all property will end back up at the market rate. This way Grandma won't be kicked out of her home due to drastically increased property taxes (I believe this was the classic argument FOR prop 13).

Covered by GuyW in his post.
--

Now, I figure that most of you folks will disagree with my reasoning but I'm sure we can debate this civilly. I hope you understand my position from my point of view (a relatively new arrival who DOES want to contribute to this state).

And you are contributing. Be happy.

[hvengel]

I'm confused, too. It did.
Prop 11 and results Votes were 6,095,033 50.9% Yes 5,897,655 49.1% No

So why did I think it had lost?

Ah, here's the problem. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistricting
Tentative calendar of the process at that link.

Nothing much has happened yet. Dropped out of sight. I apologize for my short attention span and the resulting wrong answer.

The first election this will affect is 2012 since the next redistricting can not happen until after the 2010 census. So we will have the same gerrymandered system until the 2012 election.

[radioman]

let's start with prop 13, I voted for that as the state was out of control. now everyone votes for bonds when they come up, voting for bonds is voting for debt, don't do that. as far a new Constitution go's it would read " underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check that you are wearing underwear.

[Californio]

gunn,

California has suffered because of property inflation and I believe a tax on Inflation, unrealized gain is wrong. My Father has a cost of 20K in his home, in 40 years the value has inflated to 1.5M+-. In the 40 years he paid-off his mortgage and retired. He has never benefited a penny from the inflation but has had to replace wear and tear items in the home. Today due to inflation the property tax on the property would be over 40% of his retirement income, without Prop 13. His fixed income certainly has not inflated like his Real Property.

No tax is fair, it is redistribution of wealth, a wealth tax on unrealized gains is even worse. You buy a stock, you pay tax on the real gains, not the unrealized gains, you only pay tax when you sell the stock. The problem, the Home has been converted or perverted into an investment vehicle instead of a place to live. I believe my 90 year-old Father, Veteran of WWII, has earned the right to die in his own home, period. On his death the government will step-up the basis of his home and tax the heirs, I don't agree with death taxes as well, but the property tax will be adjusted to the new basis.

You mention Rent Control, so what of the Landlord who owns a Rent Control Apartment Building and is constrained by the government, price fixing, and then Prop 13 gets modified so his taxes go up on his unrealized Real Property gain.

The apartment owner winds up getting it from both ends at the same time, oh joy. Would you be happy earning 2.5 to 3% on a risk investment?

The problem is government is so out of control that nothing works. We need to strip the layers of government back and start again the current is unfixable.

I believe in Charity to others with less but I don't think government is the vehicle or solution for that cause. Government really does not want to help anyone, it just wants more and more power.

[navyinrwanda]

On his death the government will step-up the basis of his home and tax the heirs, I don't agree we death taxes as well, but the property tax will be adjusted to the new basis.

Well, maybe.

Proposition 58, effective November 6, 1986, and Proposition 193, effective March 27, 1996, are both constitutional amendments approved by the voters of California which exclude from reassessment transfers of real property between parents and children, and from grandparents to grandchildren, providing that all the parents of the grandchildren who qualify as children of the grandparents are deceased as of the date of transfer.

I don't like of taxes on inflationary gains, nor do I like of estate taxes. But these additions to Prop 13 lend a whole new meaning to the phrase "landed gentry."

[badreligion]

I like the idea of changing our government for the good of all. Honestly though nothing good can come from a constitutional convention. This state of ours is nothing short of confused on everything we do. We as voters decided to vote for a President who is one step from being a socialist, Chickens have rights and same sex couples are less than the rest of us!?!?!?!? I really doubt that we could get any size group to come together and raise a flag of unity that would make anyone happy.


And can someone explain why we pay property tax at all? Seems to me like another way that the government has its hands in my life.

[ilbob]

what CA needs is to cut spending, not raise taxes.

you can fiddle with the property tax system to get a few more bucks out of it, but that is just raising taxes instead of dealing with the real problem which is that many people benefit in some way from the existing system that (mostly) steals at the point of a gun from the productive to give to the unproductive.