No, it doesn't. Assuming that a taxing jurisdiction in California was to raise property tax rates, Prop 13 would apply the rate increase to all taxpayers in the jurisdiction. The lower effective tax rate for people who have owned a property longer under Prop. 13 isn't a limitation in their nominal rate, it is a limitation in their basis value (assessment increases are generally limited to the lower of 2% or the rate of inflation each year.)
But that's all theoretical, in reality, Prop 13 means there won't be any increases to property tax at all, barring repeal or amendment of Prop 13 itself.
While everyone talks about the limitation on tax basis value assessment increases in Prop 13, Prop 13 also sets a very low maximum property tax rate of 1%, and every taxing jurisdiction in the state already has their rate set at this rate, so it is impossible under Prop 13 to raise property taxes rates.
How would this work? Who has the authority to decide where and how home construction happens?
California has passed some laws recently which already take a step in this direction. SB9, for instance, made it so that on some parcels of land local municipalities were not allowed to block existing property owners from building a duplex.
The property owner and the state.
At which point, one of the two things will happen:
(1) Housing price will fall down because there are more on the market.
(2) Or, the houses will be snatched up by people who can pay the price, many of which are young couples working in high-paying industry willing to start a family. It will cause net population increase. Or, even better, they can be replaced by dense residential blocks.
Either way, it sounds like desirable outcome to me.
False condition. California has plenty of water, as evidenced by its wasteful farming practices, which consumes 80% of it [1]. As with most of its problems, California’s retail water “shortage” is a policy choice.
[1] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...
Sure. They’re still wasting the water.
> more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem
It also won’t meaningfully worsen it. Water is simply not a real barrier to development in California.
"Don't look up" is a film that could be perfectly be based on the California groundwater crisis.
Would these be the same communities pumping their aquifers dry [1] to export almonds and alfalfa?
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-wat...
How is that relevant? The point is they wasted water. They’re not victims, they’re the source of the problem. People moving into California’s cities are a rounding error to its farms’ wasted water.
Abstractly using up local resources until forced to import them isn’t a policy issue, it’s simply rational behavior.
Every time a person cashes out their home that they bought for a couple buttons and some twine in 1982, then moves to Arizona to retire, California's tax revenue goes up, because the people that take their place actually pay appropriate property taxes on the 2023 value of the home.
That said, it depends on people’s total state tax burden. If it’s too high they will leave to lower tax burden states.
This is one of those slow moving things like when corps were leaving NYC in the 80s. It’s hard to stop it. Adding taxes is too attractive. Eventually companies and people will have enough reason to leave.
Many are not there yet. You will never have everyone willing or able to leave. But on occasion you get enough leaving so that a state is left with a potential which will not become realized.
I don't know how much this applies to California, I think they cap property tax increases there, not sure how the rates differ by town?
A single state-wide standardized marginal property tax rate would probably work best. Those with $5 million+ single family homes should be paying a higher percentage to discourage that type of housing. Additionally that tax money could be collected at a state level and distributed more equitably (to towns that aren't as wealthy).
Ultimately single family homes need to be phased out in these kinds of places and replaced with higher density along with mixed zoning. Mixed zoning should reduce the need for more car based infrastructure which is extremely expensive and allow more efficient public transit to be built. That would lower costs for regular people since they wouldn't need a car to get places.
As to to the question you answered, I could understand land value taxes, or some other forms of taxes that are actually based on the infrastructure cost for supporting your home. (And you could add exemptions/tiers for people who can't afford it, that's beside my point.) But property taxes seem nonsensical for exactly the reason you mention: that they depend on the value of the home (at whatever point) rather than on the cost of the infrastructure itself. Whether my home sells for $1 or $1M, my pipes and wires are going to act the same. And neither of those tells you anything about my means for payment - I could easily lose more money on a more expensive home.
StrongTowns likes to talk about it: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/8/if-the-land-tax...
Hot take: One possible compromise is limit prop 13 to a single property maybe two bed two baths for the owner and each adult state resident also gets this "credit"? I mean what the owner and every adult living in the household can help keep the property tax low but only for their own primary residence. but beyond that raise the property tax every year based on property value.
> What worries me is California refuses to raise property taxes
Sure, if you're trying to increase taxes somehow, then the proposal in your reply could be one way to do it, and it sounds less painful than increasing everybody's property taxes. That logic isn't what I have issues with, since you're just comparing different ways to do property taxes regarding primary residences. (This isn't to say I agree or disagree with it.)
> Raise property taxes because without it, your income tax will have no upper bound.
This is the part I took issue with. It appeared you were trying to motivate property tax increases by arguing income taxes are an obviously worse way to make up for them, but... why? I didn't understand the logic behind that, and that's what I was asking about. If I'm a policymaker trying to choose between increasing income and property taxes, why should I choose property taxes to be the one to increase?
But that's not relevant to why a policy maker should choose to raise property tax over income tax. You could argue both ways here - income taxes are straightforward because you can basically get your cut at the source of income but property taxes are good because you can't hide or take land with you to another state. And in general, I am not an expert on this or any matter but California is very lopsided with prop 13. I don't even live in California.
In the comment you just replied to, weren't they specifically saying this wouldn't apply to your primary residence?