In california, what is prop 13 (with pictures) electricity and magnetism quiz questions

Proposition 13, or “Prop 13” as it is often called, was a landmark proposition placed before California voters in 1978. Despite expectations that the proposition would fail at the polls, the measure went through, adding an amendment to the California Constitution which would prove to be a topic of controversy and heated discussion for decades afterward. In addition to being remarkable within the state of California, Prop 13 also attracted national attention.

In essence, Prop 13 limited property taxes in California to no more than one percent of a home’s assessed value. Furthermore, assessments of property values could not rise by more than two percent per year, unless a property was sold, in which case it could be assessed at a new value. The proposition also added a measure which would require a two thirds majority to increase any taxes in California, thereby making it very difficult for the legislature to pass laws to raise the tax rate, even when the state struggled to balance the budget.

Prop 13 was part of a larger tax revolt which took place across the United States in the 1970s and 1980s as property values began to rise dramatically, thereby causing a corresponding rise in the rate of taxation. Many home-owners revolted, furious at fluctuating and increasingly higher property taxes, especially in areas which were experiencing stratospheric increases in property values.

Advocates of Prop 13 argued that fluctuating property taxes hurt homeowners, especially elderly homeowners on fixed incomes, who might be ill-prepared to deal with a sudden rise in their tax rate. They also suggested that high tax rates in expensive areas essentially subsidized communities with lower tax rates.

One of the immediate effects of the proposition was a dramatic decrease in property tax income, and a corresponding struggle for funding among schools, law enforcement, and other organizations which rely on property taxes for part of their income. In response, some regions started putting parcel tax measures on their ballots to provide funding for local emergency services. Prop 13 also had an impact on the housing market, as people grew inclined to hold on to property longer to take advantage of low assessed values, rather than selling it and buying new property which would receive a higher tax rate.

Several attempts have been made to reform or abolish Prop 13 in California since 1978, but these attempts have ultimately been unsuccessful, even when evidence strongly suggests that the state desperately needs more sources of income. One reason these efforts often fail has to do with concern for elderly homeowners; most California politicians do not want to attract negative attention by potentially creating a situation in which elderly homeowners could be faced to pay higher property taxes.

Why? Because the price of the house has zero relationship to the costs that are imposed by it on the infrastructure of municipal services. The price is completely arbitrary. It doesn’t tell you how many people live in the house, or anything about the services they consume. It is a meaningless number.

So real tax reform needs to eliminate this medieval practice of ad valorem taxation, and instead focus of providing a fair and equitable way to assess taxes – one way would be to establish some baseline level of services to which every similar parcel (iea SFR is similar to all other SFRs, a MFR is similar to other MFRs), is "entitled". Thus all parcels are taxed the same way. This is how, for example, the sewer connection fees are assessed. They don’t care if you have chronic diarrhea or if you make all your bowel movements at the gym and never flush the toilet at your house.

In any case, the fair way is to say "Look, society has a vested interest in providing "free" public school education to citizens, but there has to be some kind of limit on what is reasonable. Is it really reasonable to ask society to pay for schooling 10 kids if you can’t keep your reproductive organs under control?"

In this kind of a scenario, you’d have a baseline. A good baseline for children is two, because two is a socially and globally responsible number of children – it is the "replacement" value – so it helps keep the population steady or better yet to shrink it slowly.

That makes no sense and is certainly not "fair" to childless people or people with one or two kids. Even childless people benefit from a reasonable level of procreation, because those replacement people ensure that services can continue to be delivered as those replacement humans grow up and enter the workforce.