Who cares what rates were 35 years ago? That’s irrelevant.
Prop 13 is the law now. Nobody is subsidized under prop 13.
You want to increase taxes back to old levels. Maybe it’s a good idea; i’m not even disputing that. But it’s irrelevant to the notion of subsidy.
The problem with many of your arguments is that you want to bring issues that you care about into the fold. That’s admirable in some sense. You are what Obama just called a bunch of people crying foul and keeping power in check. That’s good. But it’s not useful to the business of governance.
Municipalities in trouble cannot count on a partial reappeal of prop 13. They need to sit down and work with what they have.[/quote]
No, the RE investors who are given this tax subsidy are NOT paying market rate taxes. Property taxes are ad valorem taxes, which means that they are determined as a percentage of value. Any discount from this market value is a SUBSIDY to those property owners.
“Definition of ‘Ad Valorem Tax’
A tax based on the assessed value of real estate or personal property. Ad valorem taxes can be property tax or even duty on imported items. Property ad valorem taxes are the major source of revenue for state and municipal governments.
Municipal property ad valorem taxes are also known as ‘property taxes’.”
Continuing to offer these subsidies when we cannot afford them is unethical and plainly stupid. We need to make sure that everyone is paying their fair of the costs for the infrastructure and services that they or their tenants use and/or that maintain or increase the value of their properties. In most cases, these long-term owners have been the biggest beneficiaries of govt services as improvements were made over the years, increasing their capital gains well over and above what others have gained, even though the newer buyers are (usually) the ones paying for all the improvements via higher taxes.
