|
By Jon Coupal
Regular readers of this column undoubtedly know what Proposition 13 is, but they may not know it does more than set property taxes at 1% of the home’s market value with a 2% cap on annual increases. It also imposed certain vote requirements for other kinds of taxes, including a requirement that local special taxes receive a two-thirds vote of the electorate and a state tax increase proposed by the California Legislature receive a two-thirds vote of each house.
Government hates these constraints on taking other people’s money, so they constantly try to find ways around them — and they have. In the early 80’s, they hit upon “benefit assessment districts,” which historically had been used legitimately to fund capital improvements that directly benefited property. But over time, bureaucrats began imposing assessments for general municipal services rendering them indistinguishable from property taxes. The sole reason for this transformation was to avoid Prop. 13’s voter approval requirements.
That’s why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association put Proposition 218 on the ballot in 1996. It gave the people the right to vote on all local taxes and required taxpayer (or ratepayer) approval of assessments and property related fees. But just like when you squeeze a water balloon too hard, it tends to pop out somewhere else, so it is with government avoiding clear voter intent. That’s why state business associations and HJTA are supporting the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act initiative to close some new loopholes recent court rulings have opened in Props. 13 and 218.
While the initiative is still waiting for a circulating title and summary from the attorney general, the fiscal analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office was released last week and it’s instructive in explaining the tangled web of taxes our government weaves.
To read the entire column, please click here.
|
