Property Tax

Ignore the Naysayers, Proposition 13 is Still Working After All These Years

February 6, 2023 By Jon Coupal 5 Comments

In most of America, one of the worst impacts of high inflation is a sharp rise in property taxes. But that’s not the case in California.

True, housing prices are some of the highest in the nation, due mostly to government policies restricting supply. But existing homeowners are protected by Proposition 13’s cap on annual increases in assessed value of 2%. According to the California Taxpayers Association, Californians would have seen their property taxes increase more than 7 percent this year without Prop. 13.

It is understandable why the political left – which wants all your money – has it in for Proposition 13, but we were surprised when the normally credible Tax Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., fell for some of the same falsehoods advanced by the “tax-and-spend” crowd. The Foundation is advising other states not to adopt Prop. 13-style reforms. We disagree and believe all states currently struggling with out-of-control property taxes should take a good, long look at California’s system based on acquisition value. It is vastly superior to one based on market value.

While the Tax Foundation admits that “Proposition 13 and other property tax assessment limits have done their job, keeping incumbent property owners’ taxes in check,” they assert that those systems result in “hidden costs.”

One clearly false claim is that assessment limits “discourage homeowners from renovating or adding onto their homes, for fear of incurring a dramatic tax increase.” In general, remodeling and repairs that are part of normal maintenance or cosmetic are not considered assessable. New additions that increase the square footage of a home or add new improvements that didn’t exist before are assessable—but that’s true everywhere. The difference is that in California, the reassessment is limited to the value added by the addition, with the rest of the assessment unchanged. So what you would pay under Prop. 13 is still less than what you would have paid in a market-based property tax system.

Next, the Tax Foundation claims that property tax assessment limits “make it less attractive for growing families to move past their starter homes or for empty nesters to downsize.” This isn’t true in California. Older homeowners (age 55 and up) can move and take their Prop. 13 base-year value with them to a new home. For younger homeowners, moving to a larger and more expensive home means higher property taxes — but again, that’s true everywhere. All homeowners benefit from Proposition 13, which capped the tax rate at 1%. Before Prop. 13, the statewide average tax rate was 2.67%, applied annually to the current market value. That means a young family’s property tax bill would be more than double in the first year of homeownership without Prop. 13.

Next, the Foundation states that assessment limits “interfere with efforts to change a property’s use.” That’s a polite way of saying that the land upon which your home rests is being “underutilized.” Does this mean you should be taxed out of it so it can be sold to someone who can build something deemed a better use, like a sales-tax-revenue-producing used car lot? No thanks.

Another myth is that acquisition value systems gradually “shift costs to newer, younger homeowners — the rising generation that [state] lawmakers want to keep in-state.” But under Prop. 13, all homeowners are taxed according to what they voluntarily pay for their property. The worst thing that could happen to a young family is to be taxed out of a home they just purchased because their tax bill is based on the vagaries of the real estate market. Prop. 13 gives new homeowners the predictability of knowing what their tax bill will be years into the future as well as a reasonable 1% rate cap.

And the real surprise of Proposition 13 is how it helps local government. Because Prop. 13 allows increases in assessed value of 2% per year and requires reassessment of property when it changes hands, it provides a stable, predictable and growing source of tax revenue to local governments. Property tax revenue in the Golden State has grown virtually every year since 1978 in percentages that exceed both inflation and population growth. Moreover, Prop. 13 provides a “shock absorber” effect during recessions when market values fall precipitously but assessed values – in the aggregate – fall slightly or not at all.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Howard Jarvis, Prop 13, Property Tax

Assembly Bill 133 Can Help Keep Seniors in Their Homes

September 30, 2019 By Jon Coupal and Sharon Quirk-Silva Leave a Comment

Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, it was not uncommon for seniors on fixed incomes who had already paid off their mortgages to nonetheless lose their homes because they couldn’t afford to pay their property taxes.

While Proposition 13 continues to protect millions of older Californians by providing reasonable and predictable property tax liability, for low-income seniors it may not be enough.

Voter approved local bonds and parcel taxes that are added to property tax bills above and beyond Proposition 13’s one percent cap have typically added hundreds of dollars a year to individual property tax bills across the state.

One of the state programs meant to help seniors over age 65, the blind, and the disabled stay in their homes is the Property Tax Postponement program or PTP.

The concept behind the Tax Postponement program is simple. A lien is placed against the home of an eligible individual and all property taxes are deferred.

Later, when the homeowner moves, the taxes are paid out of the sale of the home plus simple interest.

The program worked perfectly for 40 years. Beyond paying for itself, 6,000 homeowners from across California benefit from the Property Tax Postponement program.

To read the entire column, please click here.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Prop 13, Property Tax

Is California really a low property tax state?

April 15, 2019 By Jon Coupal 6 Comments

To hear progressives tell it, California’s property tax is way too low and needs to be increased to fund the critical needs of schools and local governments. But the notion that Proposition 13 – enacted 40 years ago – has somehow “starved” local governments is nothing more than urban myth. In virtually every year since 1978, the growth in property tax revenue has exceeded the combined growth in inflation and population.

While the consistent growth in property tax revenue is indisputable, that has not deterred Proposition 13’s detractors from arguing that, relative to other states, property owners in California aren’t paying their “fair share.” Eschewing for the moment what constitutes “fair,” a part of the debate involves whether California is a high or low property tax state. And it is here that the saying “lies, damn lies and statistics” comes into full play. The reality is that there are many ways to measure tax burden and most can be manipulated to support some desired narrative.

Those who argue that California’s property tax burden is too high might be tempted to point out that California collects far more property taxes than any other state. That is true, but it is also intellectually dishonest. Our size and population is what generates the tax revenue and aggregate dollars collected simply do not reflect a fair measure of tax burden.

One measure, certainly more accurate than total dollars collected, is per capita property tax collections. This is simply aggregate property tax revenue collected divided by population – a relatively easy calculation. Using this metric, it is clear that California is not a low property tax state. The authoritative Tax Foundation ranks California 17th highest among the fifty states, which puts us almost in the top third in burden.

To read the entire column, please click here.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Jon Coupal, Property Tax

Taxing the Oil & Gas Industry to its Knees

March 1, 2019 By Joel Fox 5 Comments

A one-two punch is being aimed at California’s oil and gas industry and that just may be fine with anti-fossil fuel crusaders but it could have an immediate disruptive effect on the California economy.

Between proposals to raise the oil severance tax and property taxes, California’s oil and gas producing companies face a double whammy that could threaten their businesses. While supporters of these tax increases may applaud the idea that oil production is cut back, they may not be so joyous if the double attack undercuts the state’s economy.

Senator Bob Wieckowski introduced a 10% oil and natural gas severance tax bill, SB 246, arguing that California producers should pay for the right to sever oil and gas from the ground such as is imposed by other oil producing states. Yet, many of those states do not levy ad valorum property taxes on the oil that sits in the ground as California does.

If the oil severance tax is not enough to threaten the industry, the split roll property tax initiative destined for the November 2020 ballot would levy another hit on many producers’ land and improvements.

California oil production has already fallen off dramatically over the last few decades. California oil production dropped from 394 million barrels in 1985 to 173 million in 2017.

Imagine what two tax increases would mean to the industry over a short period. The quest for renewable energy is moving forward but if the tax hit over the next couple of years reduces oil and gas production how does the state’s economy function to full capacity?

Despite being one of the top oil producing states, California already imports a large portion of its oil. That is because California is the second largest consumer of petroleum products in the nation and the largest consumer of motor gasoline and jet fuel.

Much of the imported oil comes from foreign countries but California receives a good portion of its oil from Alaska, one of those states with a severance tax but no property tax on the oil in the ground.

If a severance tax is passed in the Golden State, ironically, through the price of gasoline, consumers will be paying both the California severance tax and a portion of the Alaska severance tax as well.

A decade ago, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a 9.9% oil severance tax to help rescue the state budget during the Great Recession. At the time, a study indicated such an increase would make California the number one state in oil production taxes, doubling what the companies paid and shelling out 40% more in oil production taxes than the next highest state.

Oil companies in the Golden State pay corporate income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes on their business. Not all oil producing states assess all these taxes, nor are the tax rates the same as high income, high sales and high corporate tax California.

Two years ago, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation issued a report on the economic impact of the California oil and gas industry. The report found “the industry’s direct output of more than $111 billion generates more than $148 billion in direct economic activity, contributing 2.7 percent of the state’s GDP and supporting 368,100 total jobs in 2015, or 1.6 percent of California’s employment. Additionally, the oil and gas industry generates $26.4 billion in state and local tax revenues and $28.5 billion in sales and excise taxes.”

What happens to government coffers if production is reduced dramatically?

While the goal of some environmentalist might be satisfied with reduced production, it is doubtful the state’s economy could withstand the shock.

Joel Fox is editor and co-publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily.

This was article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Bob Wieckowski, Gas, Oil, Property Tax, Split Roll

How to Read Your Property Tax Bill

October 29, 2018 By Jon Coupal 2 Comments

Thanks to Proposition 13, property tax bills are less scary in California than they are in a lot of other states. Homeowners in Illinois and New Jersey, just to cite two examples, have been known to let out a blood-curdling scream when they open the tax collector’s envelope that would be right at home on the soundtrack of a Jamie Lee Curtis movie.

Proposition 13 limits increases in a property’s assessed value to 2 percent per year and provides property owners with a pretty good idea of what their tax bill will be before they open the envelope.

Still, there can be some surprises. Taxpayers should understand the various charges and check the tax bill to make sure they’re not being assessed for more than they’re legally obligated to pay. It’s a good idea to compare each year’s tax bill to the previous year’s bill.

For most California counties, the property tax bill will show three categories of charges. They are the General Tax Levy, Voted Indebtedness and Direct Assessments.

The General Tax Levy is what most people think of when talking about property taxes. It is based on the assessed value of land, improvements and fixtures. This charge usually makes up the largest part of the tax bill and it is the amount that is limited by Proposition 13.

The annual increase in the General Levy of Assessment should be no more than 2 percent, unless there have been improvements to the property, like adding a room to the house. However, if a property received a “reduction in value” reassessment under Proposition 8, the taxable value may go up more than 2 percent to reflect the recovery in the market value. But in no case will the taxable value be more than the initial Prop. 13 base year plus 2 percent annually from the date of purchase.

If homes like yours are selling for less than the valuation on your current bill, contact your county assessor and ask for an adjustment to reflect the actual market value.

The second category of charges is Voted Indebtedness. …

Click here to read the full article from the Los Angeles Daily News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: HJTA, Jon Coupal, Prop 13, Property Tax

Locals Governments Seek New Levies Despite $4 Billion Property Tax Surge

October 19, 2018 By Dan Walters 11 Comments

Local government officials throughout the state got some very good financial news when county tax assessors toted up changes in taxable property values for their 2018-19 budgets.

The state’s uber-strong real estate market generated a 6.51 percent increase in those values, adding another $374 billion to the property tax rolls and pushing the total to $6.1 trillion.

That increase, three times the rate of inflation, translates into $4-plus billion more in revenue for cities, counties and other local governments. While schools also receive property taxes, they don’t directly benefit from the increase because of how state aid is structured.

The big winners are cities because, unlike counties and schools, they are almost totally dependent on local taxes and fees to finance their budgets. San Francisco, which is both a city and a county, reported the state’s strongest assessed valuation gain, 10.35 percent.

The very strong growth in property tax revenue, however, raises a pithy question: Why then are so many local governments, cities especially, complaining that they can’t balance their budgets unless local voters raise taxes?

There are 254 local tax increases on the November ballot – sales taxes, parcel taxes, utility taxes and hotel/motel taxes, mostly – according to the California Taxpayers Association, 65 percent more than there were four years ago.

The reason is that even with strong property tax gains, local governments’ pension costs are growing faster than revenues, thus putting the squeeze on their budgets.

Cities have been hit the hardest by increases in mandatory payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) as it tries to shrink its large “unfunded liability.” City officials have repeatedly complained about the specter of insolvency if pension payments continue to grow and the League of California Cities has labeled the situation “unsustainable.”

With very rare exceptions, however, officials who place the tax increases on the ballot will not publicly say the extra revenue is needed to offset rising pension costs. Officials believe that telling the truth would make voters less likely to vote for the new taxes. It could also make employee unions less likely to provide money for tax campaigns.

Rather, on the advice of high-priced consultants, they say the money is needed for popular police and fire services and parks.

Unfortunately, most local news media are carelessly complicit in this conspiracy of silence, tending to accept the official reasons at face value, rather than analyze them critically. That’s true even though data about what revenue the new taxes would generate and projections of pension costs are readily available.

Over the weekend, for instance, the Sacramento Bee published a long article about proposed tax increases in Central Valley cities, quoting officials about what they hoped to do with the extra revenue, including Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, who called his one-cent sales tax hike a “game changer.”

However, the article only tersely mentioned pensions as something brought up by unnamed “critics,” even though the city’s own budget complains about pension costs and data indicate that the new taxes would largely go to pensions.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel, in a similar piece about new hotel/motel tax proposals in its region, took the opposite – and more responsible – tack by delving into how pensions are straining local budgets and driving tax hikes.

The Sentinel’s article, unfortunately, is a very rare exception. Otherwise, local officials and local media seem to believe that ignorance will be blissful.

Dan Walters is a columnist for CALmatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Taxpayers Association, CalPERS, Property Tax, taxes

Proposition 5: The Property Tax Transfer Initiative

August 8, 2018 By John Paul Ledesma 8 Comments

Proposition 5 will be on the November 6, 2018 statewide ballot and could provide you property tax relief if you are a qualified California homeowner.

If passed, Proposition 5 will extend Proposition 13 property tax benefits.

First, a brief history of property tax propositions:

Proposition 13 passed in 1978 making base property tax 1%, with 2% maximum annual increases.
Proposition 60 authorized seniors a one-time move of the property tax to another property. In the same county if the new home’s purchase price is equal to or less than the sold dwelling.
Proposition 90 allowed counties to accept Proposition 60 property tax basis from a home sold in a different county to be applied to those that accept low property tax transfers. 10 counties have opted into accepting these transfers.

What is being considered today:

If passed, Proposition 5 will make it so that those 55 and older will be able to move their Proposition 13 tax benefit to a home of any value, anywhere in California any number of times. Plus, Proposition 5 adds two addition categories of persons: those that lose their home to natural disasters and the permanently disabled homeowners of any age.

If you are thinking of moving call me at 949-616-2988 to discuss your particular circumstance.

Note: this article is not tax or legal advice.

For further details about Proposition 5 and how it may affect you read the information below.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

The California Association of Realtors sponsored the initiative and referred to it as the “People’s Initiative to Protect Proposition 13 Savings.” The California Attorney General describes Proposition 5 as “Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

Starting January 1, 2019 three segments of the population would be enabled to benefit from the passage of Proposition 5, they include: 1) homeowners over 55 with their primary residence in California, 2) homeowners that have had their primary residence substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor and 3) any homeowners that are a severely and permanently disabled person.

To fully understand the significance of the 2018 Proposition 5 you will need to have a basic understanding of the Howard Jarvis’s lauded Proposition 13, passed in 1978, along with Proposition 60, passed in 1986, and Proposition 90, passed in 1988.

Proposition 13 made it state law that property tax base rates are 1% of the full cash value, usually the purchase price, (minus the $7,000 homeowners’ exemption) and that the property tax may only increase a maximum of 2% per year. Proposition 13 defined “full cash value” as the county assessor’s valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under “full cash value” or the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership that occurred after the 1975 assessment.

Proposition 60 allows seniors a one-time opportunity to use the Proposition 13 benefit of having their lower property tax basis transferred to a newly purchased replacement dwelling. Seniors are defined as any person over the age of 55 years and includes a married couple one member of which is over the age of 55 years. The current law in place is that the replacement dwelling must be of equal or lesser value than the dwelling to be sold. Proposition 60 only applies to intra-county primary residence replacements and was enhanced with the passage of Proposition 90.

In 1988, Proposition 90 was passed and enhances the Proposition 60 benefits by allowing counties to opt into allowing Proposition 60 transfers of property tax basis from other counties. Only 10 counties in California have chosen to accept this inter-county property tax bases, they include: Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Ventura counties.

Proposition 5 would enhance Propositions 60 and 90 by allowing homeowners 55 years of age or older to transfer their Proposition 13 tax basis to a home of any price (proportionally), located anywhere in the state, any number of times. Let me provide a hypothetical example to explain by what I meant by proportionally. Say you purchased your home 21 years ago for $200,000, with a property tax basis of $2,000 and with compounding your property tax basis is now $3,000 and your home is now worth $900,000 and you want to purchase a home for $1,200,000. You sell the less expensive home and purchase the home that costs $300,000 more, your property tax basis from the original home would move with you for the first $900,000 in value and your property tax basic 1% levy would only increase by the difference in the full cash value. Your new property tax would be the $3,000 moved basis plus an additional $3,000 for the property tax on the increased value. Therefore, your property tax base would be $6,000 instead of $12,000 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1, Buy Up Example

If you want to buy a less expensive home, your property taxes will be reduced proportionally equal to the original home. Any replacement property of equal or lesser value purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement property will be calculated by dividing the base year value of the original property by the full cash value of the original property, and multiplying the result by the full cash value of the replacement property. If in the same scenario as above, you sold your $900,000 property and purchased a $450,000 home the new property tax would be half of the new sale price or $1,500 per year (see Figure 2). The buy down is a little harder to follow so let me provide a second example. If your existing home sells for $600,000 and your property tax is $2,000 and you purchase a home for $400,000 your new property tax basis would be 1% of one-third of $400,000 or about $1,333.33 per year (see Figure 3).

Figure 2, Buy Down Example 1

Figure 3, Buy Down Example 2

The benefits to those that have suffered from having their primary residence substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the governor, applies to replacement properties that are comparable to the home that was damaged or destroyed without regard to the age of the owner(s). This is explicitly for a replacement property that is located intra-county. Proposition 5 has language indicating that the state Legislature may authorize each county board of supervisors to adopt, after consultation with affected local agencies within the county, an ordinance allowing the transfer of the base year value of property that is located within another county in the State.

The third category of persons that may benefit from the passage of Proposition 5 include any severely and permanently disabled person, who resides in a property that is eligible for the homeowners’ exemption. The property tax base year transfer is also applied to replacement dwellings that are purchased or newly constructed on or after June 6, 1990. The benefit would be in place regardless of the number of prior transfers, the value of the replacement home or whether the replacement dwelling is located within the same county. There are other details, but this gives you a general overview of the three classes of persons that may choose to benefit from the passage of Proposition 5.

The California Association of Realtors believes that if Proposition 5 is approved by California’s voters it would make moving between counties once again aﬀordable for California’s retirees, help victims of officially recognized natural disasters and provide relief to the severely disabled. These property tax benefits would result in the freeing up of home inventory and encouraging home ownership. If you are considering moving contact me to discuss your unique real estate needs, (949) 616-2988.

John Paul Ledesma, GRI | Broker Associate | HomeSmart Evergreen Realty| DRE 01810644

www.MissionViejoREDispatch.com

Note: this is not tax or legal advice.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Howard Jarvis, Prop 13, Property Tax, Proposition 13, Proposition 5

California’s Property Tax Postponement program aids low-income seniors

July 23, 2018 By Jon Coupal 7 Comments

For Californians who are struggling to pay property tax bills that are rising ever higher due to the increasing number of local bonds and parcel taxes, help may be available.

Property taxes are held in check by Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978. It limited the annual increase in the assessed value of a property and cut the tax rate to 1 percent statewide. Prop. 13 has helped millions of Californians keep their homes by keeping property taxes predictable and affordable.

But keeping property taxes in check doesn’t always keep property tax bills in check. That’s because extra charges for voter-approved debt or special taxes can be added to property tax bills, and those can really add up. This can become a terrible burden for homeowners who live on fixed incomes, and may even force some to sell their homes because they can’t afford to pay the taxes.

Fortunately, the state of California has restarted the Property Tax Postponement program, allowing homeowners who are at least 62 years old, are blind or have a disability to defer the current-year property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria.

Before the Legislature ended the Property Tax Postponement program in 2009 amid budget cuts, nearly 6,000 homeowners throughout the state were able to benefit from it. Many had been in the program for 20 years or more and the majority were over 70 years old. In the last year of the program before it was cut, 208 people who claimed its assistance were over 90 years old.

In 2014, legislation was passed to restore the program, and it started up again in the fall of 2016.

To qualify, applicants must have 40 percent equity in their home and an annual household income of $35,500 or less. Other requirements also apply. For example, homeowners who have taken out a reverse mortgage are not eligible.

Homeowners who are accepted into the program may defer their current-year property taxes. It’s actually a loan from the state, with an interest rate of 7 percent per year. The state places a lien on the property until the loan is repaid, but repayment is not due until the homeowner moves or sells the property, transfers the title, refinances, defaults on a senior lien, obtains a reverse mortgage or passes away. …

Click here to read the full article from the Orange County Register

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: HJTA, Jon Coupal, Property Tax