CA Proposition 47 Unintended Consequences

[senseamp]

Costs less than jailing them.

 

[fskimospy]

I might not be understanding you correctly, but are you saying that there is nothing to gain in overall utility by having an educated voter? That would seem to fly in the face of the idea that education creates a better society.

Am I missing your point?

Society gains from educated voters, but the individual voters do not gain. (assuming the education is for the sole purpose of voting) This is mostly because individual votes are effectively meaningless anyway.

An expectation that voters would invest additional time for no increased utility is an expectation that they will behave irrationally. We can't make a system based on that.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, prop 13 is one of the more foolish ballot initiatives in history. Here's a list of just some of the bad outcomes from it:

1. It drastically inhibited labor mobility. You don't want to penalize someone for moving.

2. It drastically advantages people with assets over people with income. There's no economic incentive for this.

3. It undercut the ability of local governments to fund education which made them dependent on state revenues.

4. This led to prop 98, which was another incredibly dumb proposition.

5. It opened up a gaping loophole where businesses could avoid many of its effects, further distorting local revenue collection.

All of this so that people could 'stay in their homes'. What that actually means however, is 'tax advantages for people who have seen the value of their real estate assets massively increase'. It might be true that if you bought your house for $100k years ago that you can't afford the property taxes now that it's worth $1.5 million. You know what you get as a consolation prize for that? $1.4 million.

One of the dumbest propositions of all time.

1.4 million useless dollars and no place to live, A state that taxes people out of their homes is a state that does not deserve to live. The problem with 13 is that corporations are people. Corporations built themselves an advantage on the backs of homeowners frustration and rage.

 

[Subyman]

Seems like you need some kind of buffer between your taxes and market volatility. House prices swayed up and down radically. Many states have an assessment lock on property taxes. I'm not very familiar with CA's methods, but if they are reassessing often then I can see it being an issue for people. The side effect is government propagated gentrification. I'm not sure what the solution is.

 

[Sonikku]

You're all just being jelly of rich people. Stop being jelly.

 

[K1052]

Ballots and elections are 2 different things. Also, we are talking about state not local props. If a local prop is targeted, it does not effect the over all state very much. If you are saying that the corruption could go from one small election to another, then you would have to do that all over the state and that would be hugely expensive.

Cumulatively they do effect the state, particularly when a bunch of towns in a metro get similar ideas.

Anyhoo I don't care anymore since I moved out of CA yesterday. They can proposition and initiative their little hearts out. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

1.4 million useless dollars and no place to live, A state that taxes people out of their homes is a state that does not deserve to live. The problem with 13 is that corporations are people. Corporations built themselves an advantage on the backs of homeowners frustration and rage.

No place to live other than tons of other places. $1.4 million invested with average returns at 4% gives an annual income basically equivalent to California's median household income.

You're right, those poor homeowners. I can imagine how frustrated they must be with those incredible returns on what is likely their primary investment. Prop 13 is the ultimate in selfishness. They want to keep all of the enormous profits from the sale of their newly valuable home and pay none of the taxes that come with that valuation.

One of the proposed solutions is to use the proceeds of the sale to pay the 'back taxes' that were deferred by the lower taxable value given by prop 13. I would be open to that as a solution as that way they would be able to stay in their homes but still pay what they owe.

 

[madoka]

Costs less than jailing them.

No. The increased crime is costing us several times more I'm sure you'll find.

The Prop is just insane. Stealing a gun is now just a misdemeanor, but if you manage to squeeze an 11th round in your magazine for your legally owned, registered gun, then you're a felon.

Other effects:

- Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar.

- Make possession of "date rape" drugs a misdemeanor.

- Prevent many commercial burglars from being charged with a felony as long as they strike during work hours -- when it's most dangerous for employees.

- Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanor in almost all cases.

- Reduce sentences for muggers, burglars, cocaine and heroin dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession.

- Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor (up to $950).

- Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanor in many cases.

You know who supported Prop 47?

CA Democratic Party
ACLU
NAACP
NY Times
LA Times
Jay Z

You know who opposed Prop 47?

Shelley Zimmerman, San Diego chief of police
Nancy O'Malley, Alameda County district attorney
Bill Brown, Santa Barbara county sheriff
Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County district attorney
John Robertson, Napa County sheriff
Stephen Wagstaffe, San Mateo County district attorney
Mark Peterson, Contra Costa County district attorney
Jill Ravitch, Sonoma County district attorney
Thomas Allman, Mendocino County sheriff
Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney
Michael Webb, Redondo Beach city attorney
David Eyster, Mendocino County district attorney
John McMahon, San Bernardino County sheriff-coroner
Steve Freitas, Sonoma County sheriff
Jan Scully, Sacramento County district attorney
Thomas Cavallero, Merced County sheriff-coroner
Lisa Green, Kern County district attorney
Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff
Dean Growdon, Lassen County sheriff
Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus County district attorney
Scott Jones, Sacramento County sheriff
Thomas Cooke, Mariposa County district attorney
Greg Hagwood, Plumas County sheriff
David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney
Greg Strickland, Kings County district attorney
Bruce Haney, Trinity County sheriff
Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou County district attorney
Todd Riebe, Amador County district attorney
John Anderson, Madera County sheriff
California State Sheriffs Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Correctional Supervisors Association

Guess which side is more knowledgable about crime?

 

[fskimospy]

No. The increased crime is costing us several times more I'm sure you'll find.

The Prop is just insane. Stealing a gun is now just a misdemeanor, but if you manage to squeeze an 11th round in your magazine for your legally owned, registered gun, then you're a felon.

Other effects:

- Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar.

- Make possession of "date rape" drugs a misdemeanor.

- Prevent many commercial burglars from being charged with a felony as long as they strike during work hours -- when it's most dangerous for employees.

- Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanor in almost all cases.

- Reduce sentences for muggers, burglars, cocaine and heroin dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession.

- Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor (up to $950).

- Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanor in many cases.

You know who supported Prop 47?

CA Democratic Party
ACLU
NAACP
NY Times
LA Times
Jay Z

You know who opposed Prop 47?

Shelley Zimmerman, San Diego chief of police
Nancy O'Malley, Alameda County district attorney
Bill Brown, Santa Barbara county sheriff
Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County district attorney
John Robertson, Napa County sheriff
Stephen Wagstaffe, San Mateo County district attorney
Mark Peterson, Contra Costa County district attorney
Jill Ravitch, Sonoma County district attorney
Thomas Allman, Mendocino County sheriff
Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney
Michael Webb, Redondo Beach city attorney
David Eyster, Mendocino County district attorney
John McMahon, San Bernardino County sheriff-coroner
Steve Freitas, Sonoma County sheriff
Jan Scully, Sacramento County district attorney
Thomas Cavallero, Merced County sheriff-coroner
Lisa Green, Kern County district attorney
Jon Lopey, Siskiyou County sheriff
Dean Growdon, Lassen County sheriff
Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus County district attorney
Scott Jones, Sacramento County sheriff
Thomas Cooke, Mariposa County district attorney
Greg Hagwood, Plumas County sheriff
David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney
Greg Strickland, Kings County district attorney
Bruce Haney, Trinity County sheriff
Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou County district attorney
Todd Riebe, Amador County district attorney
John Anderson, Madera County sheriff
California State Sheriffs Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Correctional Supervisors Association

Guess which side is more knowledgable about crime?

I wonder how many of those people who opposed prop 47 supported CA's three strikes law? If they did support 'three strikes' their level of knowledge about crime has to be called into question.

 

[woolfe9998]

One of the proposed solutions is to use the proceeds of the sale to pay the 'back taxes' that were deferred by the lower taxable value given by prop 13. I would be open to that as a solution as that way they would be able to stay in their homes but still pay what they owe.

Doesn't sound like a great idea. One problem with Prop 13 as it stands it that no one ever wants to sell their homes because it triggers a reassessment. People often keep their homes until they die then pass them on to their kids because this is an inter-family transfer which under prop 13 does not trigger reassessment. Anyway, because people tend not to want to sell their homes, this shrinks supply without changing demand, making the cost of buying a house prohibitive. Where I live, firefighters, police and teachers can't afford to live where they work. They have to live across the bay and commute 90 minutes to get to work. If they make "back taxes" due on sale then people will have even more disincentive to sell and I suspect housing will become even more expensive. [edit: I just realized that you may have been referring to commercial property only here, in which case the above remarks are not really applicable]

Another problem with prop 13, which I believe you alluded to before, is this huge loophole for commercial businesses. Business A is say a dry cleaner. The business is owned by a corporate shell, say an LLC. The LLC also owns the property that the business operates out of. Say business A is going to close because the owner is retiring. Business B wants to run say a pet shop out of this location. Business B simply buys the LLC which owns the property, meaning there technically is no change in ownership, and hence no reassessment. In California, many commercial businesses are paying property taxes based on assessed values from the late 1970's. It's absurd.

Another huge problem is how Prop 13 makes California more vulnerable to budgetary problems during a recession. Prop 13's lowering of property taxes did not come free. Because the state has to pay more money to support education, sales and income taxes have gone up since then, to where they're among the highest in the nation. Most other states have lower income and sales taxes but higher property taxes. When a national recession hits and people are out of work, sales and income tax revenues take a much larger hit than property tax revenue, which tend to be more stable. Hence, states with lower income and sales taxes and higher property taxes tend to do better in a recession. Also, sales taxes are fundamentally regressive. It's another reason lower income people are screwed by Prop 13.

 

[zinfamous]

Adding a three strikes clause would help get repeat offenders off the streets?

Asking because I'm not privy to the fine print of this proposition.

Either it was part of this same proposition, or another, but the 3 strikes was voted out that year.

 

[zinfamous]

Cumulatively they do effect the state, particularly when a bunch of towns in a metro get similar ideas.

Anyhoo I don't care anymore since I moved out of CA yesterday. They can proposition and initiative their little hearts out. :thumbsup:

ORYLY? grats, man. Illinois permanent, then?

 

[werepossum]

No, prop 13 is one of the more foolish ballot initiatives in history. Here's a list of just some of the bad outcomes from it:

1. It drastically inhibited labor mobility. You don't want to penalize someone for moving.

2. It drastically advantages people with assets over people with income. There's no economic incentive for this.

3. It undercut the ability of local governments to fund education which made them dependent on state revenues.

4. This led to prop 98, which was another incredibly dumb proposition.

5. It opened up a gaping loophole where businesses could avoid many of its effects, further distorting local revenue collection.

All of this so that people could 'stay in their homes'. What that actually means however, is 'tax advantages for people who have seen the value of their real estate assets massively increase'. It might be true that if you bought your house for $100k years ago that you can't afford the property taxes now that it's worth $1.5 million. You know what you get as a consolation prize for that? $1.4 million.

One of the dumbest propositions of all time.

Plus you get the choice of whether to move into a piece of shit neighborhood (since you can no longer afford neighborhoods like your own with your $1.4 million less realtor commission) or simply be a renter for the remainder of your life, in exchange for empowering government. Amazing that more people don't see how horrible is Prop 13.

As far as being a conservative ballot initiative, Prop 13 passed with 2/3 of the vote in 1978.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think it's too early to assess prop 47. I voted no on it because I felt that courts should at least have discretion to charge a felony after x number of misdemeanors. However, to be fair, it's difficult to say whether a single year over year increase in certain crimes is connected to this law or not. Furthermore, the law provides that some savings from lower incarceration rates will be applied to treatment programs, but this hasn't happened yet. It happens this year.

Also, one benefit of the law is supposed to be that less overcrowding in jails means fewer prisoners are let out early. This article about prop 47 in the LA Times, which is also quite critical of the law for similar reasons as the WaPo article, says that prisoners in the LA County lockup are now serving 70% of their sentence instead of only 20%.

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-prop47-anniversary-20151106-story.html

One reason we passed this law is so that we could be tougher on more serious offenders by reducing jail overcrowding with drug and petty theft offenders. Like with all the other pluses and minuses of this law, it's still too early to assess the impacts. I suspect we will end up modifying this law but time will tell.

 

[fskimospy]

Plus you get the choice of whether to move into a piece of shit neighborhood (since you can no longer afford neighborhoods like your own with your $1.4 million less realtor commission) or simply be a renter for the remainder of your life, in exchange for empowering government. Amazing that more people don't see how horrible is Prop 13.

Yes, truly pity those of the $1.4 million net worth on top of whatever other income they have. Even though 4% returns on that nest egg would by itself put them at the median income for the state they will probably have to go live in a hovel in the ghetto. You seem like a real expert on California living, haha.

Economic and tax instability, incentive for people to turtle in their houses, artificially raising housing prices further, irrationally favoring established and inherited wealth over people who work for their money, blowing huge loopholes for corporations to walk through, and incentivizing the passage of further foolish propositions in order to mitigate its bad effects is a small price to pay for emotional feel-goods and ideological purity.

It's funny that ignorant posts like yours pretty much exactly showcase why the proposition system is a bad idea.

As far as being a conservative ballot initiative, Prop 13 passed with 2/3 of the vote in 1978.

So? California voted for the Republican candidate in 9 out of 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, including 6 straight from 1968 through 1988. It was a fairly conservative place in 1978.

 

[woolfe9998]

Plus you get the choice of whether to move into a piece of shit neighborhood (since you can no longer afford neighborhoods like your own with your $1.4 million less realtor commission) or simply be a renter for the remainder of your life, in exchange for empowering government. Amazing that more people don't see how horrible is Prop 13.

Why do you think prop 13 "empowers government?" You mean by reducing tax revenues?

As far as being a conservative ballot initiative, Prop 13 passed with 2/3 of the vote in 1978.

It was a conservative initiative, sponsored by two republicans. Homeowners voted for it because it lowered their taxes. The fact is that people can be bought with tax cuts, even liberals. Doesn't change the fact that this was a conservative initiative.

 

[woolfe9998]

So? California voted for the Republican candidate in 9 out of 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, including 6 straight from 1968 through 1988. It was a fairly conservative place in 1978.

California was a socially liberal place in 1978, possibly more so than now. It may have been more mixed on fiscal/economic issues. But voting republican back then didn't mean the same thing. The GOP wasn't as conservative back then.

The reason Prop 13 was a conservative initiative was because its sponsors were highly conservative anti-tax activists. Still, as I said above, many liberals voted for it because they owned homes. Self-interest usually trumps ideology.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you think prop 13 "empowers government?" You mean by reducing tax revenues?

I think he meant not having prop 13 would 'empower government', which to me seems to indicate he doesn't realize that government still has to be paid for and the revenues that used to come from property taxes just ended up coming from sales taxes and such instead.

I guess that did have the function of pushing taxation towards poorer, non-landowning people though, so maybe that was an outcome he liked anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

California was a socially liberal place in 1978, possibly more so than now. It may have been more mixed on fiscal/economic issues. But voting republican back then didn't mean the same thing. The GOP wasn't as conservative back then.

Sure, but I mean we are talking about tax policy here.

 

[K1052]

ORYLY? grats, man. Illinois permanent, then?

Yep, back for good.

 

[zinfamous]

Yep, back for good.

Nice to accumulate savings and unspent income again, yeah?

 

[Cozarkian]

1.4 million useless dollars and no place to live, A state that taxes people out of their homes is a state that does not deserve to live. The problem with 13 is that corporations are people. Corporations built themselves an advantage on the backs of homeowners frustration and rage.

One could take an equity line of credit to pay for the property taxes if one doesn't want to move.

That said, I would prefer prop 13 reform to revocation. Property subject to a commercial lease for any portion of a year should be subject to full reassessment. Residential leases should trigger a full reassessment whenever the tenant changes. Finally, a home not used as a primary residence for at least two of the past three years should be fully reassed. For purposes of this law, a primary residence must be identified by address on an individual's CA tax return.

 

[hal2kilo]

This all presumes that the initiative process itself isn't corrupt, which I can tell you at least in SF is most definitely not the case. A small number of monied insiders know exactly how to game the system to produce their desired outcomes though deception and trickery. You haven't solved a corruption problem...you've just moved it.

Exacty. It's like having special election recalls. Done out of normal voting sequence so mostly only the motivated that support it show up to vote. I was living in CA when AAAArnold was voted in. That exactly, how that turned out.

 

[Moonbeam]

No place to live other than tons of other places. $1.4 million invested with average returns at 4% gives an annual income basically equivalent to California's median household income.

You're right, those poor homeowners. I can imagine how frustrated they must be with those incredible returns on what is likely their primary investment. Prop 13 is the ultimate in selfishness. They want to keep all of the enormous profits from the sale of their newly valuable home and pay none of the taxes that come with that valuation.

One of the proposed solutions is to use the proceeds of the sale to pay the 'back taxes' that were deferred by the lower taxable value given by prop 13. I would be open to that as a solution as that way they would be able to stay in their homes but still pay what they owe.

Old people are attached to place. They have social support networks and families etc. They belong. You don't seem to care, thinking only about the money they would get if they sell. You do so because you ate footloose and fancy free and have no roots anywhere. You are not normal. Most of the people on earth are rooted in places. I think your attitude is rather cavalier. Attachment to place is a form of the sacred.

 

[K1052]

Nice to accumulate savings and unspent income again, yeah?

Is that what these numbers in my bank account are?