[quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
The fundamental problem in your thinking, Adam, is an empirical one.

What places have better public cash flow?

Its in places like Temecula where the property taxes are sometimes above 2%. Some of the higher rates in CA there (second highest county in CA).

Or in places like Texas where everybody pays like 3% property taxes. It is the 3rd highest percentage state in the US. CA is 33rd (probably farther down when cost of living is considered).

The irony that these are Tea Party strongholds (and that these policies are seldom questioned by tax firebrands) is generally lost on most.

However, Texas’s new California-size deficit points to the problem with trying to balance purely by cutting. So does the backpedaling on the 100B promise.

As far as the OP’s original question:

Using a continuous re-assessment taxation program like the rest of the nation or going to a higher rate would likely cause values to be be noticeably stifled and look more like Texas or AZ.

So, probably our properties would be a good bit cheaper, our schools would probably be better funded, and many of these overpaying citizens would then be crowing about how NY should drop their income taxes and be like us.

Bear in mind, we, in CA, pay a substantially lower percentage of our net worth in taxes than do residents of most other states.