Public finance
I attended a Board of Education talk last week in which the speaker was asked what California schools could do to become adequately funded. (The talk covered the topic of what "adequately funded" actually means and how to assess that amount. The speaker's method, of course, was the one he recommended.) He responded, "Repeal Proposition 13." For those of you who don't know, Prop. 13 is the measure passed in 1978 that severely restricted the amount the state could collect in tax revenue from California's property owners by severely capping the growth rate by which the state could raise the tax. The property taxes assessed since then have been kept artificially lower than the national average as a consequence (and probably far lower than they could have become), although the volatility of property tax laws makes this a constantly shifting target to research. (One method of discussing property tax effects is shown here, but the figures are a couple of years old.) While lower property taxes has shown to be a magnificent benefit to the homeowners that were here then and for those who can afford the exorbitant cost of buying a home now, by and large I would argue that most people have lost out because of it. (Wikipedia has a fairly evenhanded discussion of the effects of Prop. 13 here.)
Most states rely heavily on property taxes to fund many of their civic services; I would argue that this is completely appropriate. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy a home owes a duty to their community to give back in proportion, imho. Artificially lower taxes on those homes has simply resulted in Californians buying bigger houses, driving the market ever higher and forcing builders to expand to the very edges of each lot to maximize the value of the house on it. Another unfortunate result of having less income in the state, of course, is that services become harder to fund, especially those that don't have an easily seen benefit to a community. Such as a library.
In California, the lack of a secure fiscal base statewide has forced local governments to try and raise the missing funds through local taxes, but not every community is successful in doing so, creating a patchwork quilt of library quality throughout the state. We are fairly well isolated from other systems here, so we don't get too much crossover, but I know that the patrons from libraries in those systems that lack $ go elsewhere for their wants/needs, placing an even greater strain on "well-funded" libraries' services in other locales. Which in turn reduces the usage of the home library, making it less demonstrably useful, etc. Eventually, underfunded libraries/schools close completely, making permanent the have/have-not disparity among communities. The cynical (or just the rabid free-market supporter) would say, well, that's what those communities deserve, seeing as how they don't want to pay for that service, and in some instances I might agree, merely to point up the systemic problem to everyone.
The problem affects more than just libraries, though (of course), since all public services are suffering from money drought, and I take things like public health very seriously indeed. As much as I might not be able to argue that the lack of a library truly hurts a community successfully to those who don't use one, it should be an easy argument to make that having the mentally or physically ill roam the streets uncared for is a bad thing, let alone having increasing outbreaks of contagious diseases or food-borne illnesses occur. I am simply appalled at the lack of civic responsibility those who want to eliminate government possess, and the rich aren't really to blame (although their stereotypical [?] NIMBY attitude is similarly sickening), since they are only voting in their best financial/economic interests. Those who aren't wealthy but vote as if they are present the real dilemma to our society; not only do they dilute the votes of those who are self-aware in their strata, but they also support the elite's view that they aren't really out of touch with the bulk of Americans. How can people not see that voting down taxes makes things both less livable and more expensive (even in the short run), not less, and that they aren't the beneficiaries of lower taxes overall anyway? Grrrr.
Most states rely heavily on property taxes to fund many of their civic services; I would argue that this is completely appropriate. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy a home owes a duty to their community to give back in proportion, imho. Artificially lower taxes on those homes has simply resulted in Californians buying bigger houses, driving the market ever higher and forcing builders to expand to the very edges of each lot to maximize the value of the house on it. Another unfortunate result of having less income in the state, of course, is that services become harder to fund, especially those that don't have an easily seen benefit to a community. Such as a library.
In California, the lack of a secure fiscal base statewide has forced local governments to try and raise the missing funds through local taxes, but not every community is successful in doing so, creating a patchwork quilt of library quality throughout the state. We are fairly well isolated from other systems here, so we don't get too much crossover, but I know that the patrons from libraries in those systems that lack $ go elsewhere for their wants/needs, placing an even greater strain on "well-funded" libraries' services in other locales. Which in turn reduces the usage of the home library, making it less demonstrably useful, etc. Eventually, underfunded libraries/schools close completely, making permanent the have/have-not disparity among communities. The cynical (or just the rabid free-market supporter) would say, well, that's what those communities deserve, seeing as how they don't want to pay for that service, and in some instances I might agree, merely to point up the systemic problem to everyone.
The problem affects more than just libraries, though (of course), since all public services are suffering from money drought, and I take things like public health very seriously indeed. As much as I might not be able to argue that the lack of a library truly hurts a community successfully to those who don't use one, it should be an easy argument to make that having the mentally or physically ill roam the streets uncared for is a bad thing, let alone having increasing outbreaks of contagious diseases or food-borne illnesses occur. I am simply appalled at the lack of civic responsibility those who want to eliminate government possess, and the rich aren't really to blame (although their stereotypical [?] NIMBY attitude is similarly sickening), since they are only voting in their best financial/economic interests. Those who aren't wealthy but vote as if they are present the real dilemma to our society; not only do they dilute the votes of those who are self-aware in their strata, but they also support the elite's view that they aren't really out of touch with the bulk of Americans. How can people not see that voting down taxes makes things both less livable and more expensive (even in the short run), not less, and that they aren't the beneficiaries of lower taxes overall anyway? Grrrr.
posted by bryduck at 5:09 PM
4 Comments:
Before proposition 13 there were many elderly people who had worked very hard to own their homes, had paid off the mortgages years before and were retired, on fixed incomes. They wanted to live out their days in their home, but because of the ever rising taxes, were forced to sell or lose it. Prop 13 was a blessing to them.
So you make them exempt by creating a progressive property tax based on whatever criteria you want. Why should everyone else subsidize their lives in this manner also? Seniors are able to retire and live on fixed incomes everywhere else in the country; what makes Ca. so special?
Also, raising taxes for all property would lower the purchase price of the properties, since people would then have to take that more into account when buying. Lower value = lower property taxes per house, while still pumping gobs o' dough into the public till.
I'm with you all the way, bryduck. I remember being the 5th grade, when Prop 13 came up on the ballot. My teacher, Mr. Paskow, explained what it was to me out on the playground. It's the first time I recall being "politically outraged" on my own. I was so sad that people didn't want to pay for schools and parks and all that.
I understand anonymous's comment, but I agree with bryduck's reasoning that there are ways not to gouge folks with very little and still benefit our civic lives.
The California voter initiative process has thoroughly effed up the state. More often than not, the "will of the people" is selfish, moneygrubbing, and bigoted, and putting California law to majority-rule vote is disenfranchising to the state's poorest citizens as well as its minority voters.
As a homeowner, here's my own voter initiative: Raise my property taxes at a fair and incremental rate, and since I'm volunteering to have my own taxes raised, let me decide which programs my increase will fund. My property tax bill could come with a cool checklist of underfunded state programs that I would complete and return with my taxes. That's the only way I can make sure my increase funds better schools, health care, and libraries instead of more f*cking prisons to warehouse more f*cking third-strike (another voter initiative) offenders.
Post a Comment
<< Home