Housing Bubble, credit bubble, public planning, land use, zoning and transportation in the exurban environment. Specific criticism of smart growth, neotradtional, forms based, new urbanism and other top down planner schemes to increase urban extent and density. Ventura County, California specific examples.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Prop 13
Here it is. Let loose the dogs of war.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Robert,
I take the Hobbesian approach to government and property. That is, government is a creation by the people for their protection, mostly from each other. Property is defined by government.
Thus, government can encroach on our property by taxation, by placing limits on what we can do on our property, etc. In return, we receive certain guaranteed about use and protection of our proerty. To my mind, there are no particular rights associated with ownership of property.
If we are to accept taxation as necessary for the maintenance of society, then we can go to the next question - what is the best way of going about it. I think it should bring out a maximum of social goods.
From this perspective, I see no difference between a Prop 13 and rent control. Both arbitrarily distributes burdens not according to ability to pay or maximize social benefit, but on date of move in. Furthermore, both discourage people to move as they would in an efficient RE market. Basic Econ 101 theory would show that this tax driven distortion decreases supply, drives up price, and lead to a dead weight loss for society.
If taxes got re-assessed based on whims of the market, then that would cause people to artificially downsize their homes to avoid taxes (pre-Prop 13 reality). You don't tax unrealized capital gains, why should homes be different. In any event, I bet the capital gains exemption on sale of your primary residence offsets this restraint on supply.
Really, what does home value have to do with the stated goals of property taxes... schools, roads etc.? You should assess people based on the number of cars and kids they have. Toll roads and toll schools, there's a modest proposal. Since gas taxes already account for cars, that leaves schools. Maybe we could get zero population growth if we would impose an excise tax based on offspring.
I think I should solicit support for the Incessant Din Taxpayer's Association, with a single issue: imposition of a child tax. Hey, that might solve the affordable housing condition.
Anonymous, don't forget your pay comes from taxpayers.
Here's one of the conundrums of Prop 13. The ability to pay vs. wanting to pay. Prop 13 heavily rewards the people who bought and held their properties since the 1970's. My parents bought their property in 1970. Today their home is worth about $1 million in santa monica, ca, and that is the price of many of the homes around them as well. They pay $1,200 per year in property taxes. Their neighbor who bought a house two years ago pays close to $9,000. Why should my parents be allowed to pay super low taxes when the next guy has to pay 900% more?
It's an insane system.
And no the schools don't need more money. We're funding schools to the tune of nearly $10k per student per year. That money is going somwhere, and it isn't to teachers, books, or infrastructure.
Good comments so far. There appears to be some amount of familiarity with how Prop 13 actually works and some reasonable meta positions on the general concept of taxation. The only position I disagree with is Astrid's Hobbesian perspective. I believe this country implicitly and explicitly rejects personal and property rights as gifts of the state. A careful read shows that the US Constitution gives the same weight to property rights as it does personal freedoms.
I will post my replies over the course of this morning on the issues of rent control equivalence, arbitrary taxation, school funding, user fees vs taxation, Saints Jarvis and Mann, fair taxes, needs based vs ability to pay, and school performance as related to Prop 13. Stay tuned, keep your long knives sharp and hold on.
Thus, government can encroach on our property by taxation, by placing limits on what we can do on our property, etc. In return, we receive certain guaranteed about use and protection of our proerty. To my mind, there are no particular rights associated with ownership of property.
There are indeed several carefully proscribed instances wherein government may encroach upon private property rights. In addtion to the biggies in the Constitution we've evolved a system of land use and zoning regulation. These are SUPPOSED to be protections not examples of acceptable intervention. Most modern limits on land use address externalities. Traffic, pollution, infringment upon other private quiet enjoyment, etc.
That all said, I think it clear that the Founding Fathers were prescient in their language. If you do no greater harm we are not empowered to stop you from doing whatever you want. This is different from Astrid's (well reasoned) claim that property is not protected.
As I said, we disagree about rights to real property.
I don't reason with the Constitution in mind. I go with realpolitik. The three branches of government has no problem with encroaching on each other's power, on those of the states and on those of its citizens, whenever there were sufficient support for their actions.
If we start from your position that owned property is special and deserving of special privileges, then further argument is pointless. However, I don't think this is the case. I'm looking at the economic efficiency of prop 13. I find the policy very inefficient. Maybe not sufficiently inefficient to cause a revolution, but it forces California to be a more expensive and less desireable place than would be the case otherwise, and in the long run it will encourages a lot of young people to leave.
If you're unwilling to look at the economics and argue on that ground alone, then please note that most people on patrick's site comes from a similar prespective as myself. Trying to argue as if their prespective is not worthy of thought just results in pointless antagonism.
"If we start from your position that owned property is special and deserving of special privileges, then further argument is pointless. However, I don't think this is the case."
You thinking it's not the case is just so precious, and also profoundly ignorant.
Finally, antagonizing the six whiney little entitlement babies who post 100 times per day on Patrick's is never pointless.
EVERY homeowner benefits from Prop 13. Without it prices would plummet. Even phasing it out would disenfranchise millions and allow the single party state legislature to run wild. Prop 13 and the requirement of votes for general tax increases are all that hold this state together. As it is both the letter and the spirit of these laws are routinely violated. Free tuition as required by the State Constitution? Yeah, and "fees" of $17,000 instead. The Mello-Roos exception? Yeah, the security guard at the new development is the only registered voter when the time comes for voting. We are talking about people who charge sales tax on State and Federal excise taxes. People who rob the roads trust funds.
But Robert, where's your "Hobbesian" spirit? Your steely resolve to never let CA become a "less desireable place than would be the case otherwise"? Have you not seen the U-Haul stat.'s that prove prop. 13 "encourages a lot of young people to leave"? Why engage in "pointless antagonism"? Just because we, the smartest generation to ever walk the planet, are entitled to and will receive far better starter housing than you and your bloated kind is no reason for you to act as though our "prespective is not worthy of thought". Just leave the keys on the table and some beer in the fridge for me when the day of reckoning comes.
10 comments:
Robert,
I take the Hobbesian approach to government and property. That is, government is a creation by the people for their protection, mostly from each other. Property is defined by government.
Thus, government can encroach on our property by taxation, by placing limits on what we can do on our property, etc. In return, we receive certain guaranteed about use and protection of our proerty. To my mind, there are no particular rights associated with ownership of property.
If we are to accept taxation as necessary for the maintenance of society, then we can go to the next question - what is the best way of going about it. I think it should bring out a maximum of social goods.
From this perspective, I see no difference between a Prop 13 and rent control. Both arbitrarily distributes burdens not according to ability to pay or maximize social benefit, but on date of move in. Furthermore, both discourage people to move as they would in an efficient RE market. Basic Econ 101 theory would show that this tax driven distortion decreases supply, drives up price, and lead to a dead weight loss for society.
If taxes got re-assessed based on whims of the market, then that would cause people to artificially downsize their homes to avoid taxes (pre-Prop 13 reality). You don't tax unrealized capital gains, why should homes be different. In any event, I bet the capital gains exemption on sale of your primary residence offsets this restraint on supply.
Really, what does home value have to do with the stated goals of property taxes... schools, roads etc.? You should assess people based on the number of cars and kids they have. Toll roads and toll schools, there's a modest proposal. Since gas taxes already account for cars, that leaves schools. Maybe we could get zero population growth if we would impose an excise tax based on offspring.
I think I should solicit support for the Incessant Din Taxpayer's Association, with a single issue: imposition of a child tax. Hey, that might solve the affordable housing condition.
I'm a retired fire fighter who would be forced out of my home by taxation if not for prop. 13, as many thousands were prior to it's passage.
The bureaucrats mining for gold and armchair academicians looking to assert themselves crack me up. Am I worried? Nope. Do the math.
Thank God for the Right Honorable Mssr.s Jarvis and Gann.
Anonymous, don't forget your pay comes from taxpayers.
Here's one of the conundrums of Prop 13. The ability to pay vs. wanting to pay. Prop 13 heavily rewards the people who bought and held their properties since the 1970's. My parents bought their property in 1970. Today their home is worth about $1 million in santa monica, ca, and that is the price of many of the homes around them as well. They pay $1,200 per year in property taxes. Their neighbor who bought a house two years ago pays close to $9,000. Why should my parents be allowed to pay super low taxes when the next guy has to pay 900% more?
It's an insane system.
And no the schools don't need more money. We're funding schools to the tune of nearly $10k per student per year. That money is going somwhere, and it isn't to teachers, books, or infrastructure.
Good comments so far. There appears to be some amount of familiarity with how Prop 13 actually works and some reasonable meta positions on the general concept of taxation. The only position I disagree with is Astrid's Hobbesian perspective. I believe this country implicitly and explicitly rejects personal and property rights as gifts of the state. A careful read shows that the US Constitution gives the same weight to property rights as it does personal freedoms.
I will post my replies over the course of this morning on the issues of rent control equivalence, arbitrary taxation, school funding, user fees vs taxation, Saints Jarvis and Mann, fair taxes, needs based vs ability to pay, and school performance as related to Prop 13. Stay tuned, keep your long knives sharp and hold on.
Thus, government can encroach on our property by taxation, by placing limits on what we can do on our property, etc. In return, we receive certain guaranteed about use and protection of our proerty. To my mind, there are no particular rights associated with ownership of property.
There are indeed several carefully proscribed instances wherein government may encroach upon private property rights. In addtion to the biggies in the Constitution we've evolved a system of land use and zoning regulation. These are SUPPOSED to be protections not examples of acceptable intervention. Most modern limits on land use address externalities. Traffic, pollution, infringment upon other private quiet enjoyment, etc.
That all said, I think it clear that the Founding Fathers were prescient in their language. If you do no greater harm we are not empowered to stop you from doing whatever you want. This is different from Astrid's (well reasoned) claim that property is not protected.
Robert,
As I said, we disagree about rights to real property.
I don't reason with the Constitution in mind. I go with realpolitik. The three branches of government has no problem with encroaching on each other's power, on those of the states and on those of its citizens, whenever there were sufficient support for their actions.
If we start from your position that owned property is special and deserving of special privileges, then further argument is pointless. However, I don't think this is the case. I'm looking at the economic efficiency of prop 13. I find the policy very inefficient. Maybe not sufficiently inefficient to cause a revolution, but it forces California to be a more expensive and less desireable place than would be the case otherwise, and in the long run it will encourages a lot of young people to leave.
If you're unwilling to look at the economics and argue on that ground alone, then please note that most people on patrick's site comes from a similar prespective as myself. Trying to argue as if their prespective is not worthy of thought just results in pointless antagonism.
"I don't reason with the Constitution in mind."
Yet you expect to be taken seriously?
"If we start from your position that owned property is special and deserving of special privileges, then further argument is pointless. However, I don't think this is the case."
You thinking it's not the case is just so precious, and also profoundly ignorant.
Finally, antagonizing the six whiney little entitlement babies who post 100 times per day on Patrick's is never pointless.
EVERY homeowner benefits from Prop 13. Without it prices would plummet. Even phasing it out would disenfranchise millions and allow the single party state legislature to run wild. Prop 13 and the requirement of votes for general tax increases are all that hold this state together. As it is both the letter and the spirit of these laws are routinely violated. Free tuition as required by the State Constitution? Yeah, and "fees" of $17,000 instead. The Mello-Roos exception? Yeah, the security guard at the new development is the only registered voter when the time comes for voting. We are talking about people who charge sales tax on State and Federal excise taxes. People who rob the roads trust funds.
But Robert, where's your "Hobbesian" spirit? Your steely resolve to never let CA become a "less desireable place than would be the case otherwise"? Have you not seen the U-Haul stat.'s that prove prop. 13 "encourages a lot of young people to leave"? Why engage in "pointless antagonism"? Just because we, the smartest generation to ever walk the planet, are entitled to and will receive far better starter housing than you and your bloated kind is no reason for you to act as though our "prespective is not worthy of thought". Just leave the keys on the table and some beer in the fridge for me when the day of reckoning comes.
Post a Comment