Jeffrey Scharf, Everybody's Business: Low property tax and high income tax a bad combination

Sounds so good, but it ain't so. Wealthy people are leaving the state at a much lower rate than poor people, who have no choice. The wealthy people will stay here even if the rates stay the same. Proposition 13 rips off the young people. Large landowners (including corporation) helped to pass it. They should pay their fair share. Older people should be allowed to stay in their places until they pass them on or sell them, at which point the taxes can be brought even by paying the deferred taxes current.
We need to pass a budget.
The wealthy can afford to pay a fair share, they just would rather not. I can't argue with their feelings, but I can argue with their greed.

"Long-time owners pay a pittance compared to neighbors who purchased more recently. "

Not true, long-time owners have not only been payed more over the years they are also the folks who've been working to make our communities desirable places to live. If you like an area enough to move there, thank the folks who built it, made it and have been paying taxes to support it all along!

make that "paying" not "payed".

You failed to mention that even under proposition 13 taxes are increased 2% per year. With the added special fees and bond measures my property tax has doubled over the past 20 years. If you are going to change the rules mid stream again as I face retirement, I may not be able to remain in my home on a fixed income.

Just like any responsible individual, the government simply cannot spend a penny more than what is available from their income. Since government has been borrowing to spend as they please, it is destined to fail, as it should!

If you don't have it don't spend it. It's hardly the citizens fault that the politicians can't balance a budget. We pay dearly to live in SC only to get continually worked over by the local political elite.

More density in housing has NEVER been known to cover the additional costs of healthcare and public safety when the population increases. The new permit and tax money may look sweet up front, but the back end cost for increasing density never pencils out...look at NY, SF, LA. By our city logic, these areas should be the least expensive not the most...

SC healthcare and public safety costs have sky-rocketed due to the added population during the insane infill boom of the last 10-years. Poor planning and terrible local leadership are to blame, not those of us who pay taxes whether for 50 years at a Prop 13 rate or newly at inflated speculation rates...you shouldn't buy a home that you can't afford taxes on.

Why did the city not only allow this parcel to be rezoned for higher density, adding costs to the city and citizens tab to pay for the new residents, but also GAVE away, for free, an established public easement through the parcel to the coast? At least they should charge developers for privatizing public lands!!

Basic Math wrote:

If you don't have it don't spend it. It's hardly the citizens fault that the politicians can't balance a budget. We pay dearly to live in SC only to get continually worked over by the local political elite.

More density in housing has NEVER been known to cover the additional costs of healthcare and public safety when the population increases. The new permit and tax money may look sweet up front, but the back end cost for increasing density never pencils out...look at NY, SF, LA. By our city logic, these areas should be the least expensive not the most...

SC healthcare and public safety costs have sky-rocketed due to the added population during the insane infill boom of the last 10-years. Poor planning and terrible local leadership are to blame, not those of us who pay taxes whether for 50 years at a Prop 13 rate or newly at inflated speculation rates...you shouldn't buy a home that you can't afford taxes on.

Exactly! Taxes are an issue, but the real problem is too much spending and very poor value for the money tax-payers are forced to fork out.

===
The best solution is much smaller and fewer government programs and, accordingly, smaller taxes and government fees. Let individuals and families make up the difference by paying directly for services with as little government as possible.

The Founders were correct, the best government is the least government.

Government programs that sponsor low income and "free services" like education for poor families have brought us more poor kids and higher density as, if you don't have to pay the full cost for your children, poorer people have more & you get more density and more traffic and more smog and more taxes and less quality of life, for everyone. Let everyone pay their own way - sure families can have a couple of children but won't likely have five or six when they have to pay the hospital bill, the cost of busing their kids to school, the grade school tuition, lunch, etc.(For you Liberals: Maybe, just subsidize the first two kids, nothing more, something like that would be far better than the Indebting that we are experiencing now.)

It is only fair that people and families pay their own way directly. Government services have an extra cost of implementation over the free market of probably 20% and higher.

Bringing in the government including high taxes (for some) and subsidies for others might seem good in the short run but it is a disaster in the long run as we are all finding out first hand. It is time to turn this ship around.

Why is it that they need to raise property taxes and taxes the democrats always think that this is the answer to everything. I pay my fair share of taxes and I pay a lot. We have bad leadership, and we need to get these people out. I am not saying a republican is the answer either. Our lawmakers need to take a pay cut, NOW!!!

The economy always moves from boom to bust and back again. Always has, always will. This time it happened two-fold: one in the housing market (there's Prop 13!) and one in the stock market when the finance sector (and soon everyone else) paid for its excessive exuberance in supporting those wild housing valuations. Since things move in percentages, California saw wilder swings up and down than almost anywhere else in the country.
Prop 13 gave our drunken sailors-cum-elected-officials an opportunity to be responsible. They could have said, "This boom isn't sustainable. It'll break eventually, as it always does." And they could have used revenues beyond the 2% increases guaranteed to them by Prop 13 to pay down debt. Instead they spent like drunken sailors.
Now, time for the hangover. Instead of coming out of this with no debt, and modest services, they have to cut back overly generous benefits in the public sector and we listen while people wince. The pain was a given when the legislators choose to act like drunken sailors.
There's no need to fix Prop 13. It's the drunken sailors who have to learn to be responsible.

While I agree that Proposition 13 needs changing, I wonder about the facts Mr. Scharf is using to support some of his other claims. Studies show that people are indeed leaving California. But more are low-income workers who can no longer find jobs as unemployment rises.

I also wonder about the constant claim of higher income taxes. Certainly we're higher than states like Washington that has none. But, when I lived in Oregon for a year, I filed my tax return in California because the rates were lower here.

As for spending, California has one of the largest populations in the nation. If you look at spending per person, it is not as high. If you look at it per pupil, it is one of the lowest in the country. So, again, I have to ask why Mr. Sharf is repeating these dubious claims.

For my part, I would be content to pay $15 a year more for my car if we can keep parks open. They contribute a lot to our local economy. I would gladly pay a few cents more at the store if we could reopen the libraries. Or charge oil companies as Texas and Alaska do so we could keep teachers and firefighters on the job. And, yes, I do think it's time we looked at a balanced approach to property taxes. San Francisco tax assessor Phil Ching makes a good case for a "split roll" solution that has different schedules for residential and commercial properties.

Finally, Mr. Sharf misses the point that nearly 40% of the annual California budget goes to bond payments that finance spending from a variety of propositions over the years. In other words, we the voters passed spending bills without any means to pay for them. If he really wants to rein in out-of-control spending, that system must also be changed. This is another idea I heartily endorse.

Left unmentioned in assigning guilt for current deficits is this fact reported by Adam Summers - a policy analyst with the Reason Foundation: The California state government's public employee pension fund contributions soared from $321 million in fiscal year 2000-2001 to over $7 billion last year. That's the elephant in the living room that neither party wishes to confront, because the elephant packs a lot of votes and campaign contributions.

Joan wrote:

Why is it that they need to raise property taxes and taxes the democrats always think that this is the answer to everything. I pay my fair share of taxes and I pay a lot. We have bad leadership, and we need to get these people out. I am not saying a republican is the answer either. Our lawmakers need to take a pay cut, NOW!!!

but I thought the santa cruz city manager is doing such a great job !

Basic Math wrote:

If you don't have it don't spend it. It's hardly the citizens fault that the politicians can't balance a budget. We pay dearly to live in SC only to get continually worked over by the local political elite.
More density in housing has NEVER been known to cover the additional costs of healthcare and public safety when the population increases. The new permit and tax money may look sweet up front, but the back end cost for increasing density never pencils out...look at NY, SF, LA. By our city logic, these areas should be the least expensive not the most...
SC healthcare and public safety costs have sky-rocketed due to the added population during the insane infill boom of the last 10-years. Poor planning and terrible local leadership are to blame, not those of us who pay taxes whether for 50 years at a Prop 13 rate or newly at inflated speculation rates...you shouldn't buy a home that you can't afford taxes on.

Some parts of the country can't GIVE away otherwise nice enough homes because of the property tax attachment costs involved.

Sentinel reports recently $1M paid out in retirement for County annually, while serving only 250,000 people countywide. Thats $4 for each man, woman, and child in the area - just for pension retirement of less than 1% population.

Meantime, County Agency personnel in variety of divisions are overemployed, idle, under trained, compounded with a great deal of dissy work ethic that simply, isn't sustainable.

County or City government jobs resemble some kind of welfare to work for the wealthy program. More money for most government agencies and specific department divisions is like, more crack for a crank addict.

No more.

this system is way over due for change, it's both unfair and dysfunctional. Taxation should be a fair and equal burden on all residents. Everyone in this state should contribute toward the cost of running government. That includes schools, police, fire, education, parks, social services etc. There is way too much inequity in the current system of raising tax revenue. Way too many people and businesses hiding in shelters and paying very little if nothing while their neighbors can be paying THOUSANDS more. In CA with sky high property prices we should not be taxed on the VALUE of our HOME. If we do, it's very simple... half the property tax rate and apply it equally to all property (with an exemption for seniors or whatever)... another idea could be to assess a fixed "community tax" on each dwelling .. this tax would remain constant regardless of property price fluctuations... we could have a prop 13 type cap on how much this tax could rise every year... the point is everyone who lives in CA would contribute equally toward the cost of running this state.
we have a big problem though ... corrupt politicians who've taken "donations" or should we say bribes, from special interest groups. Isn't the Gov himself a large property owner? wonder how many homes he has that he's paying pennies on the dollar compared with his neighbor...

The solution to the budget crisis is NOT more taxes. California might have comparatively low property taxes, but California has among the highest overall taxes in the country.

It is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem.

No matter what the tax rate is, if politicians cannot rein in spending, there will never be enough.

Leave Proposition 13 alone. Our taxes - overall - are high enough.

Anyone who believes Prop. 13 should be overturned - I invite you to pay what you believe is your fair share of taxes to the government body of your choice - the state general fund, the local school, the city. I guarantee you, it will not be turned down.

For almost 30 years many of us have been subsidizing property owners who get the same services we do. That's not fair.
If property taxes, income taxes, and sales tax can't pay for basic services, something needs to be done about the tax rates. We shouldn't be continually asked to approve additional "taxes" to support police, library, and other basic services.

I tried to tell people 30 years ago not to vote for prop 13 but not one of my friends listened to me. It was a bad deal for the schools and and it was a bad deal for California.

Changing Prop 13 to increase the property taxes on non-homeowner properties will only make the cost of living for those on lower income individuals and families increase as landowners are not fools and will pass these increase costs directly to their tenants. This includes both apartments and small businesses.

Everytime you turn around one governmental agency or another is sticking their fingers in your pocket either for a big slug of money or a few pennies here and there.

How many government agencies sole existence is for revenue collections?

If anything is ever done, which I doubt, simplification should be at the top of the list.

Yes, Prop 13 is contributing to the problem. A recent article said that that most states' income is 1/3 prop. tax, 1/3 sales tax, 1/3 income tax. In California, it's nearly 55% income tax and 40% of that comes from those in the highest tax bracket.

Keep in mind that CA's budget process is the most difficult in the nation. We require a 2/3 majority in the legislature to pass the budget (one of only 3 states that requires it); we also have a huge amount of our budget hard-coded (thanks to past ballots props) so there is very little room to move. This too is unique to CA. Our problems are caused by a combination of factors, and we need a solution that addresses more than one thing.

Quit complaining about Prop. 13, unless you plan also to lower income tax rates and sales tax rates to also make them comparable to other states.

State spending has TRIPLED since 1990.

It is not a revenue problem - there will never be enough until spending is reined in.