Are you familiar with the impetus behind Prop 13? (Not the side effects, but the motives.) A lot of homeowners were priced out of their homes because they couldn't afford the property tax rates. Sure they can sell, but then they're stuck as renters.
Prop 13 kicked in in 1978, so 37 years ago. I wonder if there's any way to find out the percentage of homes purchased after 1978. My intuition tells me that most home would have churned by now, since most people who owned prior to 1978 would be in retirement or close to it.
Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable.
>Also, Prop 13 still allows for increased assessments; they're just capped at 2% annually unless the property is sold. Considering the housing boom/bust cycle in CA has been pretty bad, 2% seems equitable.
The boom/bust cycle was exacerbated by capping it at 2%.
Property taxes are not raised or lowered, incidentally. They're a flow of income that is redirected from homeowners to the state or back again. Of course, home values increase substantially if homeowners can capture that stream of income derived from the value of the land. Hence the crazzzzzy house prices in California.
Compared to the 1%? Fuck yes. Does the 1% dole out social security? Build schools? Roads? I don't think so.
>property taxes can be very regressive for low income home owners.
Not unless it's designed to be regressive (e.g. a poll tax instead of based upon the value of the property).
Property taxes are naturally progressive - the more your property is worth, the more you pay in tax.