soren mateu kast prop13

50 %
50 %
Information about soren mateu kast prop13

Published on August 20, 2007

Author: Roxie


Proposition 13: Truly Detrimental:  Proposition 13: Truly Detrimental Adam Sorensen Vanesa Mateu Justin Kastenbaum Education 406 Hoffman-Kipp Fall 2004 Features of Proposition 13 :  Features of Proposition 13 1. One percent rate cap. Prop. 13 capped, with limited exceptions, property tax rates at one percent of full cash value at the time of acquisition. Prior to Prop. 13, local jurisdictions independently established their tax rates and the total property tax rate was the composite of the individual rates. 2. Assessment rollback. Prop. 13 rolled back property values for tax purposes to their 1975-76 level. 3. Responsibility for allocating property tax transferred to the state. Prop. 13 gave state lawmakers responsibility for allocating property tax revenues among local jurisdictions. Prior to Prop. 13, jurisdictions established their tax rates independently and their property tax revenues depended on the rate levied and the value of the property located within the jurisdiction’s boundaries. Slide3:  4. Reassessment upon change of ownership. Prop. 13 replaced the practice of annually reassessing property at full cash value with a system based on cost at acquisition. Under Prop. 13, property is assessed at market value for tax purposes only when it changes ownership. Increases in value are limited to an annual inflation factor of no more than two percent. 5. Vote requirement for state taxes. Prop. 13 requires any measure enacted for the purpose of increasing state revenues to be approved by a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature. 6. Voter approval for local ‘special’ taxes. Prop. 13 requires taxes raised by local governments for a designated or 'special' purpose to be approved by 2/3 of the voters. Taxpayer Revolt :  Taxpayer Revolt 1) Assessor’s scandal- no uniform assessment 2) 1970s real estate value escalation Some reasons why people supported Prop 13: :  Some reasons why people supported Prop 13: 1) Stability in Revenue Flows Acquisition-value assessments provide substantially greater predictability and certainty of revenue flow to local agencies, with property tax revenues growing at a steadier clip than any other revenue source. Some reasons why people supported Prop 13::  Some reasons why people supported Prop 13: High volatility in tax systems leads to a lack of predictability and certainty of revenue for governmental agencies for planning, budgeting and management purposes. Some reasons why people supported Prop 13::  Some reasons why people supported Prop 13: 2) Predictability for Taxpayers Taxpayers are protected under an acquisition-value assessment system with the certainty that the property tax burden will grow no faster than two percent per year. Thus property owners can know precisely how much the property tax liability will be at the time of purchase and at any time in the future. 3) Objective Standard of Measurement Proposition 13 introduced an objective standard upon which property is taxed. Under a market-value system, the assessor's opinion of value is the basis of assessment. Prop. 13 in Action!:  Prop. 13 in Action! He just bought this property in West LA for $500,000. This is Charles. His annual property tax will be $5000 (1% of the property’s full value). Slide9:  This is Charles’ neighbor, Elmer. He bought an identical property in 1975 for $150,000. His annual property tax is constant at $1500 (1% of the assessed value in 1975). How does Prop. 13 affect public education in Los Angeles?:  How does Prop. 13 affect public education in Los Angeles? “It will destroy education in California as we know it. Many schools will close, thousands of teachers will be laid off and the average class size will be between 45 and 60.”:  'It will destroy education in California as we know it. Many schools will close, thousands of teachers will be laid off and the average class size will be between 45 and 60.' -State Superintendent of Schools Wilson Riles Let’s look at the numbers…:  Let’s look at the numbers… 1975: California ranked 18th in public school funding 1995: California drops to 41st 2001-02: California moves up to 31st! Crazy-ass numbers galore!:  Crazy-ass numbers galore! 2000: California has the 9th highest per capita personal income! Who cares? It’s 40th in K-12 spending. 2001: Only Utah and Arizona have more crowded classrooms than California. 59% of CA students read below the basic level. But is Prop. 13 responsible?:  But is Prop. 13 responsible? Its supporters say no. They say that: The growing population of non-English speaking students lowers CA test scores in comparison to other states. CA has a school funding formula that discourages local initiative to spend more on education. Clash of the Titans!Serrano v. Priest:  Clash of the Titans! Serrano v. Priest 1968: School funding is a shared state-local arrangement. Local property tax money goes to local schools: *Beverly Hills per pupil spending: $1,223 *Baldwin Park per pupil spending: $577 Serrano v. Priest, cont’d:  Serrano v. Priest, cont’d 1971: the CA Supreme Court rules that the state’s system for funding public schools violates the equal protection clause of the state Constitution. The aftermath: CA’s public education becomes a state-funded system. The state assumes 85% of the cost of public education. If everyone’s getting funded by the state, does property value still affect how much money schools get?:  If everyone’s getting funded by the state, does property value still affect how much money schools get? HELL YES! BUT HOW? Here’s how::  Here’s how: Higher property values usually means higher-performing students Higher-performing students means higher-performing schools Higher-performing schools will be rewarded with more cash money ($$$) God bless No Child Left Behind! From the U.S. Dept. of Education’s website::  From the U.S. Dept. of Education’s website: 'and#x16;No Child Left Behind requires states to provide state academic achievement awards to schools that close achievement gaps between groups of students or that exceed academic achievement goals. States may also use Title I funds to financially reward teachers in schools that receive academic achievement awards. In addition, states must designate as distinguished schools those that have made the greatest gains in closing the achievement gap or in exceeding achievement goals.' LAUSD vs. the CAHSEE!:  LAUSD vs. the CAHSEE! Consider the following: (2004 data) Slide21:  Who Objects to Changing Prop. 13?:  Who Objects to Changing Prop. 13? Owns the Damn Lakers Go Clippers You’re Fired! Ok, not them personally: But Old Rich People Object 4 Remedies to Prop. 13:  4 Remedies to Prop. 13 1. Equalize up  This would have the effect of raising taxes substantially for many homeowners with 1975 base-year values and those who have transferred property or constructed properties since that time and who benefited from inflation protection provided in Prop. 13. Slide24:  2. Equalize down  Would involve equalizing all properties downward to achieve equity. Most often this is discussed in terms of establishing 1975 base-year values for properties which existed at that time and indexing values for properties constructed since then. Slide25:  3. Equalize up and reduce the rate  Would combine equalization upward -- bringing properties up to market value -- with a rate reduction to ensure revenue neutrality and avoid revenue windfalls to local agencies. Split Roll :  Split Roll 4. Split-roll  Property tax in which business would pay property taxes at a rate higher than that imposed on residential properties. Essentially, higher business taxes would allow equalization downward for homeowner property taxes. (Businesses pay more, I like it) Conclusion: How Screwed Are We?:  Conclusion: How Screwed Are We? Combine a history of residential and school segregation with Prop. 13 and one has the perpetuation of an a vicious cycle. The Bottom Line :  The Bottom Line Proposition 13 blatantly favored pre-1978 property owners. Many pre-1978 property owners are white males. Does this appear problematic yet? Last Remarks:  Last Remarks Recommendations in Brief: Changes to existing property tax structure Drastic changes in academic curriculum so that more students are UC/CSU eligible State must allocate funding so that all public high schools offer courses (ie. AP) that make their students not only minimally eligible, but competitively eligible for UC/CSU. Acknowledgements:  Acknowledgements None, we don’t like any of you. Really, thanks to everyone in here

Add a comment

Related presentations