Health & Fitness
How Is Your Rent Contingent Upon Six Bills In Sacramento
How can you stop an attempt, via six bills in Sacramento, to undermine residents & business owners ability to afford to live and create a future in California?
YOUR rent is partially based on the property tax your landlord pays. If he has a mortgage of $100 and taxes of $10 it would not make good business sense to charge you $50 rent and even if he was giving you a break, at some point, if his property taxes continue to increase he is going to have to pass it on to you.
Currently at least six bills in Sacramento are on the radar to undermine the mission and purpose of Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that made National news and set an example for other states to enact similar laws. Proposition 13 put the brakes on spending by way of controlling property tax increases.
So the candidates running for State Assembly this June should have a clear stance on these bills. Period. An interesting newcomer in the California political arena is Zachary Taylor. His fundraising site on Rally explains his stance on taxes..budgets etc quite clearly. https://rally.org/f/3XEi5hHPCjf
Proposition 13 essentially told the legislators IF YOU PASS A BILL you have to define a means to finance it beyond what is available from property tax and within the further constraints of the bill or you have to live within your means (aka balanced budget).
Year after year the legislators saw the STOP sign and tried to work around it...basically they began to "California Stop" around spending and budgets.
Now we have blatant and aggressive legislators devising bills, utilizing clever and convoluted vocabulary. In fact, David R. Doerr, the author of “California's Tax Machine: A History of Taxing and Spending in the Golden State,” which is used as a reference work by the state's policy makers, and has been called “the bible on California taxes.” makes an interesting comment in his Jan 3, 2014 article on the history of Proposition 13 (http://www.caltax.org/homepage/010314_Prop13.html)
"Tax laws should never be made on the basis of political expediency" And then he continues on the temptation of legislators to change the method of taxation: the real reason behind the push for a split roll: political expediency. A split roll does not adhere to principles of sound tax policy. A split-roll property tax is not based on ability to pay nor on benefits received. Under a split-roll system, a number of businesses would not have ready capital to pay the higher tax, and some would find it advantageous to move to another state. Small businesses would suffer even more from a return of “highest and best use” assessments, where their properties might be assessed as a site for a high-rise building or some other use."
In other words, if you live on or own a business any of the main streets, in a structure which is not conducive to a developer expanding HIS dreams you could be re-assessed based on the State getting more money if your 2000sq ft structure were a 10 story hotel. Period. This is the “highest and best use” assessment.
Information on those bills undermining Proposition 13: (See: http://hjta.org/legislative/major-threats-proposition-13-and-homeowners)
Meanwhile, in our state and the East SFV 46th Assembly district the current legislator (according to CalTax) has only SUPPORTED taxpayers 23% of the time in 2013. WOW! Even the Howard Jarvis Association, utilizing the Prop 13 authors name in their dedication to protecting it, gives him 6.2% rating. OUCH!
Perhaps newcomer Nazarian misunderstood who he should be protecting....voters...taxpayers. Perhaps a RALLY to support Zachary Taylor is in order: https://rally.org/f/3XEi5hHPCjf and a vote for Zachary in June will send a clear message.