I don’t think it will be broadly repealed. But I can see it being modified.

– eliminating Prop 13 for investment or non owner occupied properties.
– perhaps allow a slightly higher increase per year.
– eliminate the family transfers or senior transfers. (Disclaimer, I benefited from the generational transfer, otherwise my dad would have used the clause that lets seniors transfer their rate to an equal or lesser value property.)

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think it will be broadly repealed. But I can see it being modified.

– eliminating Prop 13 for investment or non owner occupied properties.
– perhaps allow a slightly higher increase per year.
– eliminate the family transfers or senior transfers. (Disclaimer, I benefited from the generational transfer, otherwise my dad would have used the clause that lets seniors transfer their rate to an equal or lesser value property.)[/quote]

Agree with this.

Eliminating or reducing Prop 13 benefits for investors is not nearly as unpopular as many seem to think it is. Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy. The population of those who oppose Prop 13 is constantly growing.

While I like Prop 13 for a single, primary residence ONLY, I do not support tax subsidies for rentier capitalists.

Hopefully, not, but we’ll see. I can see modifications occurring in the future, but I doubt if it will be fully repealed.

I can’t deny that our family and extended family have greatly benefited from that proposition, as have many long-time residents, so I can understand how it could annoy some people.

Well it would probably do a pretty good job squeezing out young people and some individuals who barely can afford home prices and probably put more real estate in the hands of corporations and wealthier individuals that have better economies of scale probably that could probably eat more of the cost.

I love how people think increasing taxes for the very things that younger people could use to build their wealth are systematically being eliminated for them so that it’s *that* much harder for younger people to end up being financially independent…..

Let’s see. Raising property taxes for investment property might make my bottom line less profitable. But it wouldn’t affect my buying/selling decision in as much as I have sufficient resources to absorb the increased costs….. But it would be interesting to see how people just starting out to build their wealth will have one less tool to help them build wealth, as well as all the other tools that are gradually disappearing… But hey, I guess they can always join MyIRA and earn that most likely pathetically low interest rate…

I feel sorry for younger people that don’t have a silver spoon they will be inheriting…Things definitely aren’t looking good for them..

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy.[/quote]Nope. I’m pretty sure I know a lot more young people and those who even know what prop 13 is doesn’t hate it. As for hire taxes, they just attribute it to being in CA and they deal w/ it.[/quote]

By 2012, however, public attitudes appeared to be changing. Opinion polls conducted last year and again this spring by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed that although residents feel Prop. 13 as a whole has been good for the state, a majority now favors modifying some of its parts – in particular, to tax commercial properties at their market value. This is a marked change from 20 years ago, when Prop. 167 – a proposal to permit reappraisal of most business-owned real property after a specified change in ownership – went down by a 3-2 margin.

Even among Republican voters, support for some sort of Prop. 13 reform now hovers around 50 percent. The latest PPIC survey shows a majority of voters also supports allowing localities to raise specific-use taxes with a 55 percent vote. That shift comes in the wake of failed local measures in Los Angeles County and elsewhere last November; designed to fund basic infrastructure, they fell just shy of the two-thirds requirement.

http://www.callawyer.com/Clstory.cfm?eid=929566&wteid=929566_Tinkering_with_a_Tax_Revolt

——-

But a growing number of critics, Bestor among them, are part of a movement to change Proposition 13 in its application to commercial property by “splitting the rolls” and assessing commercial property at its market value on a periodic basis rather than only upon change of ownership.

http://california-in-crisis.news21.com/node/52

——

Split roll assessments will probably be here within the next 10-15 years, IMO. Not sure about investor-owned residential properties, but I’ve yet to hear a good argument for tax subsidies for landlords, especially if they don’t pass along at least part of the savings to the renters. If anyone has a good reason for why these provisions of Prop 13 should stay, I’d love to hear more about it.

The reason Prop 13 passed is because people overwhelmingly felt that people should not be taxed out of their own homes, and I would agree with this. Most voters in California don’t support giving wealthy corporate entities and landowners extra subsidies at the expense of other taxpayers and California residents.[/quote]
How is this in response to my objection to your statement of:
[quote=CA renter]Many young people, in particular, really hate Prop 13 because they (rightly) feel that they are having to pay higher taxes/get fewer benefits to offset the tax losses from those who get the Prop 13 tax subsidy.[/quote]It didn’t say young people really hate Prop 13. When you hate something, you want to abolish it, not modify it. Kind of like the Republican vs the ACA. It’s the Democrats who love the ACA and want to modify it because they know the public sentiment is against the ACA as it stands today.

[quote=SK in CV] The net result was exactly the opposite of what Howard Jarvis claimed he wanted. Property tax revenues skyrocketed as values increased. In the last 30 years, total property taxes collected have increased at a rate 3 times that of total population growth and inflation combined. As measured by Jarvis’ original platform, Prop 13 has been a total failure. It can and should be fixed. I have no idea whether or not it will be.[/quote]

True… but that main impetus for changing Prop 13 is for more revenue, not the same amount or less revenue.

If tax revenues don’t increase, I doubt stakeholders will have any interest in upsetting the applecart.

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=SK in CV] The net result was exactly the opposite of what Howard Jarvis claimed he wanted. Property tax revenues skyrocketed as values increased. In the last 30 years, total property taxes collected have increased at a rate 3 times that of total population growth and inflation combined. As measured by Jarvis’ original platform, Prop 13 has been a total failure. It can and should be fixed. I have no idea whether or not it will be.[/quote]

True… but that main impetus for changing Prop 13 is for more revenue, not the same amount or less revenue.

If tax revenues don’t increase, I doubt stakeholders will have any interest in upsetting the applecart.[/quote]

Agree with Brian on this one. The impetus behind tinkering with or abolishing Prop 13 is to get more revenue by eliminating the tax subsidies for those who don’t need or deserve them.