Posted on 12/13/2005 11:22:29 AM PST by NormsRevenge
A loosely knit band of Silicon Valley's wealthiest is back with a new scheme to increase the burden on property tax payers.
This group is mostly the same billionaire boy's club members that spent $60 million in 2000 on a successful campaign to make it easier to increase property taxes for school bonds, while vigorously defending tax breaks for their own industry. Since then, local districts have successfully passed more than $39 billion in local school bonds, but for these hi-tech industry elites, it's not enough. Now they have filed a new tax hiking initiative that would hit every property owner in the state, although you would never know it from its benign-sounding title.
The Classroom Learning and Accountability Act (CLAA), submitted to the attorney general for official title and summary -- the first step in qualifying for the ballot -- sounds like something everyone would want to support. After all who opposes classroom learning and accountability?
Noticeably absent in the title is any mention that the measure would place a new tax, known as a parcel tax, on every piece of property in the state, regardless of owners' ability to pay. The newlywed buyers of a tract home, a retired couple in a bungalow and a multi-millionaire in a mansion would all be paying the same amount.
Because the CLAA would be approved as a constitutional amendment, it would dismantle the taxpayer protections contained in Proposition 13, which caps property taxes at one percent of assessed values. Although parcel taxes are allowed at the local level under Proposition 13, they now require a two-thirds vote. By going to a statewide election, promoters hope to impose the new statewide tax on property owners with a simple majority vote. Since they have the ability to spend millions on deceptive advertising, this threat to property tax payers is real.
In 2000, their entire campaign to pass Proposition 39, lowering the vote threshold to pass local school bonds, focused on accountability. For example, sponsors promised annual audits of school bond spending, audits that were already required by existing law. Noticeably absent in the campaign to pass Proposition 39, of course, was any acknowledgement that doing away with the two-thirds vote to approve these local bonds would have a devastating impact on ordinary homeowners.
That the CLAA was submitted without fanfare is probably no accident. By keeping it under wraps for as long as possible, backers can limit criticism, then launch a massive PR effort when they get the green light from the attorney general to circulate the measure for the ballot.
However, there may be another reason the financial backers have, up to now, kept a low profile. Rumors abound that the political consultants upon whom they have relied in the past have told them that they would have an uphill fight, notwithstanding the sympathetic title of the proposal. Not only does the proposal reflect bad policy -- more tax revenue is generated in California than ever before in the history of California, so a threshold question is why do we even need another tax -- but the proposal has innumerable political weaknesses as well.
First, California voters have demonstrated that, when it comes to property taxes, they even oppose proposals which would tax businesses higher. By its nature, a statewide property tax that hits every parcel the same flat amount would be characterized -- accurately -- as a declaration of war by the rich against the middle class. A possible television ad against the tax would only have to show the homes of one of the billionaire backers of the proposal compared to a modest home with a tag line that simply notes that their taxes would be the same flat amount. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that parcel taxes are highly regressive.
Second, unlike any other property tax (including those imposed in the wake of Proposition 39) this tax would be a direct levy by the state. Now, all property taxes are local -- with local control. This proposal would, for the first time, constitute an automatic tax on a community even if the proposal lost by 90% of the vote in that community. That, plus the permanent nature of the tax, would be key arguments in any ballot campaign.
It is unclear whether the backers of this proposal have totally thought through the policy and political ramifications of proceeding. If they do decide, however, to qualify the measure and conduct a campaign, we can surely expect the same level of deception we saw with Proposition 39. With a title like "Classroom Learning and Accountability Act" there is no reason to suppose that this new campaign to suck more from property owners will be any less disingenuous. So when that guy with the clip board approaches you in front of the supermarket or post office and asks you to sign in support of "classroom accountability," be sure to ask if it will raise taxes. The honest answer would be "Yes."
----
They're back!?
'They' never left.
Brother in law owns a home that has it's taxes frozen for all this time.
They live in Lake Arrowhead and the house is worth nearly $1,000,000. They pay $1,000 per year in taxes.
Hey, if that's what the voters wanted, then that's what the wanted. However, the level of public services should be commensurate. Cut services until that level of taxation can pay for it. Anybody bitches, tell 'em to pound salt.
Tough to leave that one.
Sounds like they probably qualify for the one time seniors tax exemption for sale of a principal residence as well, too bad the state will suck its share out regardless, and the capital gains tax is still around.
They pay no income tax.
They're in line for every freebe from the state.
They're VERY well off, always have been.
Travelled the world.
And what do they get for that $1,000? Anything? Hope they're not being ripped off as usual by Big Stupid Government.
Guess when a house is sold the tax rate goes to market rate.
The house isn't worth squat until the sell it.
Do you want to buy? ;-)
I'd say that your brother-in-law has owned his home for a long time and deserves the tax break. Considering the racing real estate market in CA, I'd say that he is in the minority and that the more recent buyers are getting jealous.
Still jealous after all these years, eh?
He always lived the good life and we certainly don't begrudge him the benefit of his earnings.
He's a WW 2 vet and served his country well.
They used to belong to the Country Club and truly have lived the good life all these years.
We're ready for retirement and couldn't afford to live there, if we ever wanted to live in California.....NOT.
Our home state is terrible enough and we can't wait to get out of here.
"They're VERY well off, always have been."
Do you resent them for their economic success?
Have they broken laws, or followed laws?
So what is wrong?
So I wonder what the purpose of "Classroom Learning and Accountability Act" is? I've been hearing all these radio commercials spouting how great Pre-School is for society. I'm just waiting for some proposition for free pre-school for all.
Mayor Blooming-idiot complaining about the overcrowding of the schools in NYC. However, he also has 3 and 4 year olds in the public school system.
Heh, when I bought my house, I had a conversation with my elderly neighbor and was suprised to hear that he only paid $800 a year in taxes. I paid $1,900 a year for a practically identical home. I sat on the other side of that conversation a few months ago when the old man sold and my new neighbor moved in. He was shocked to hear that I'm paying $1,900...his levy is $3,800 a year.
Prop 13 is a wonderful thing. Your tax rate for your home is computed when you buy it, and you don't have to worry about tax-n-spend bureaucrats or rising property values costing you a home. Some people are shocked that high-value homes sometimes pay little tax, but it will be recouped in the end. Eventually that house will sell, and it will end up having the highest tax rate on the block.
One of the unintended consequences is that people remain in large homes long after their children have moved out because they can't afford the taxes on a newer smaller home.
Here is a bit of an update on this thing:
Initiatives Pending at the Attorney General's Office as of January 13, 2006
The list below reflects those proposed measures that have been submitted to the Attorney General for preparation of the title and summary that will appear on the initiative petitions. This process takes approximately 60 days; however, if amendments are submitted by the proponent the time period is lengthened. When the official summary is complete, the Attorney General forwards it to the proponent and to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then provides calendar deadlines to the proponent and to the county elections officials.
Attorney General # Due Date to Secretary of State |
Subject | Proponent(s) |
SA2005RF0126 - 01/13/06 |
"The Classroom Learning and Accountablitity Act" (Version 1) | John D. Adkisson |
SA2005RF0127 - 01/13/06 |
"The Classroom Learning and Accountablitity Act" (Version 2) | John D. Adkisson |
SA2005RF0128 - 01/13/06 |
"The Classroom Learning and Accountablitity Act" (Version 3) | John D. Adkisson |
SA2005RF0129 - 01/13/06 |
"The Classroom Learning and Accountablitity Act" (Version 4) | John D. Adkisson |
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.