What is Prop 13?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 61

  • @johnnyduong1618
    @johnnyduong1618 Рік тому +1

    This was very helpful information 🙂

  • @realkingsimon
    @realkingsimon 2 роки тому +4

    Thank you! doing a research in class. Thanks for non bias and straight forward explanation

  • @MrPanda771
    @MrPanda771 4 роки тому +12

    Prop 13 just means higher taxes. Also raising taxes on commercial buildings just means higher prices on consumer goods.

    • @ueck1125
      @ueck1125 4 роки тому +1

      junior choe prop 13 is good. The law makers are trying to screw us and repeal it man

  • @dfnope
    @dfnope 6 років тому +8

    Inheritance to children or grandchildren is exempt under Prop 58 & 193...

    • @ladydoc7221
      @ladydoc7221 5 років тому

      Daniel Fernandes thank you. I was wondering how that worked. Makes sense. I am sure that pisses off a lot of people tho.

    • @rockers7889
      @rockers7889 5 років тому

      Seen rasta

    • @rockers7889
      @rockers7889 5 років тому

      @@ladydoc7221 piss on dem mon

    • @PizzaCake360
      @PizzaCake360 5 років тому

      Hey could you explain the relation of those props and prop 13?

    • @CaliforniaGirl-qk5kq
      @CaliforniaGirl-qk5kq 4 роки тому

      No longer true. California voters just voted in Proposition 19. That is assuming that there was no fraud in California elections.

  • @CaliforniaGirl-qk5kq
    @CaliforniaGirl-qk5kq 4 роки тому

    transparentcalifornia.com
    Carmen Chu is 42 years old and is getting over $259 thousand every year as her salary and benefits. State (meaning taxpayers) pension contribution to Ms. Chu in 2019 was $49,700. That is about 20% of her salary. In a typical private business there is no pensions, only 401K plans and employers contribute the maximum 4% of annual salary to employee 401K plan. State employees like Carmen Cu are ripping off California taxpayers. Since 2013 when then 34 years old Ms. Chu got her job as an assessor, in 7 years she got nearly $1.7 million as her pay. No wonder state wants to eliminate proposition 13. Somebody has to pay for state employees exorbitant salaries and pensions. Time for proposition to reduce obscene levels of government pensions and salaries in California.

  • @israelcastro911
    @israelcastro911 Рік тому

    I freaken love youtube

  • @BoxingMaster
    @BoxingMaster 2 роки тому

    I have a question regarding CA Prop 13. Let's say one purchase a $400,000 home. After 1st year, house value become $600,000. (basically 50% increase)
    So the 2nd year assessment value is $408,000 , but market value is $600,000. I get that.
    Now, my question is, after 2nd year, market value of a home remains same at $600,000 (0% increase). Will you assessment value be increased by 2% (about $416,000)? or will your assessment value remain the same ($408,000) because market value did not increase the 2nd year?

    • @whereidgoes9207
      @whereidgoes9207 2 роки тому +1

      In theory it could be flat, but in reality property values in San Francisco City & County always go up. That was the case even during the recession. There was also a smaller increase in market value in the first year of the pandemic. My annual letter from Carmen Chu stayed consistent w/the usual higher assessment....She didn't mention that the City Assessor's office has a 5 year workflow to re-assess the value of a house when it has a new owner -- partly because of renovations, permits and potential added square footage most new owners undertake immediately. In the first 4 years, starting in 2012, I paid various small supplemental tax bills, then got a whopping catch-up bill for all 5 years in one go. They didn't even split it into November and April payments. Good thing I went in every year --in person--to get a ballpark estimate. If you miss 3 years (I think) of payments, I'm told the city sends a letter about selling your house in order to collect back taxes. Their 5 year assessment of course doesn't include late fees, but it's not a grace period either.

  • @ninolopez2349
    @ninolopez2349 4 роки тому +12

    I learned that the California department of education has a surplus of 21 billion of dollars just siting in the bank. why they don't use that money to repair the schools , and the other facilities that they say they will fix with proposition 13 money?

  • @alexreid2393
    @alexreid2393 4 роки тому +4

    I don’t quite understand the complaints in the comments. Isn’t prop 13 a good thing? If I buy a house for 300k and in 5 years it’s worth $1million, I will only be taxed as if it was worth $324k (the Prop 13 Value) and NOT the $1million. Furthermore, 2% a year is only the CAP, not that it cannot go down. Can someone enlighten me on the bad?
    Also (to the video maker), towards the end of the video you say the construction just gets added on top of the Prop 13 Value but I thought a reassessment of the whole thing takes place once construction is added and new tax base is created. Am I wrong in this?

    • @arealsleepytimejerry6459
      @arealsleepytimejerry6459 4 роки тому +4

      Lower taxes is a problem because taxes are what we use to make schools better. If you pay less in taxes you hurting the people that need help the most by limiting their ability to achieve a better life. While your sitting in this hypothetical million-dollar home others can't even afford rent, and you'd be keeping it like that. The rich who are trying not to pay taxes are just slaves to money because they fear their lives will be terrible with just a little less of it, when in the grand scheme of things they are still living extremely comfortable. Please vote no on Prop 13.

    • @arealsleepytimejerry6459
      @arealsleepytimejerry6459 4 роки тому +1

      @Jo Donnelly chances are I'm around more money than you lol. secondly, only somebody who has a narrow perspective could ever talk about someone who he thinks of as poor as lazy, as if that's why poor people are poor. People who don't try to bring others up are weak, and that's poor.

    • @LifeWithParole
      @LifeWithParole 4 роки тому +6

      This is late but I'll give an explanation. It does seem good in the short term. However, you're essentially bankrupting yourself in the long run. If you can't buy a house at 1 million, you won't buy it and there's a good reason behind it. Partially that is due to other expenditures that aren't affected by Prop 13. For example, you might have many more consumer industries targeting richer people because of the increased property value. Ideally, you want the marginal cost and marginal utility to approach each other, but Prop 13 actually separates them further. Due to this, the state knows that they need new sources of revenue so they turn to commercial development instead which further drives up the price of land, creating a cycle. In addition, you have less mobility to move because people actually retain their houses for longer, meaning you make the entire market much less liquid.

    • @Aaron-fb6mb
      @Aaron-fb6mb 3 роки тому +2

      @@LifeWithParole good explanation, thanks man. But if not for prop 13, wouldn't thousands of people been priced out of their homes due to rising property tax over the years? Especially after massive population boons.

    • @LifeWithParole
      @LifeWithParole 3 роки тому

      @@Aaron-fb6mb tbh that may have very well been the case but at least it would’ve been a “fairer” price which reflected the market more. I understand also that sometimes you need an attractive way to retain and expand your base as a municipality but I just wonder if such short term growth can ever be free of negative consequences.

  • @pigjubby1
    @pigjubby1 4 роки тому +1

    This is a tax increase with no guarantee it goes to schools. This is making our debt greater. What happened to the Lotto money? This is scam.

  • @JakesOnline
    @JakesOnline 4 роки тому

    What if CPI goes down? Do taxes go down?

  • @michellemarie1197
    @michellemarie1197 4 роки тому

    I thought it was supposed to lower the property taxes?

  • @simon.templar9998
    @simon.templar9998 4 роки тому +2

    I’m voting yes, because I don’t own property and I’m moving out of CA anyway...just to piss people off!

  • @lottastuff1917
    @lottastuff1917 4 роки тому +2

    So there is no end to the 2 percent increase every year? I dont understand

  • @earthstrong7855
    @earthstrong7855 4 роки тому +7

    vote no on prop 13

  • @blessedtrinity9664
    @blessedtrinity9664 4 роки тому

    Welcome to subscribe

  • @reallybadaim118
    @reallybadaim118 4 роки тому +1

    How about eliminating waste. Seems the demand for more money outpaces the taxpayers pay increases.

  • @alexreid2393
    @alexreid2393 4 роки тому

    @ 1:35 Shouldn’t year 4 be $432k instead of $433k?
    Same with year 5, shouldn’t it be $440k instead of $441k?

  • @charliethewanderer6872
    @charliethewanderer6872 4 роки тому

    Wish there are more county assessors in California just like you helping property owners in SF. LOL

  • @dlk4996
    @dlk4996 5 років тому +4

    It's time to ajust prop 13 cap at 6%. That could help for california retirement and education

    • @ladydoc7221
      @ladydoc7221 5 років тому +3

      D K I disagree... and why 6%? Why not 3%? Learn how to live within the budget.

    • @todd9016
      @todd9016 5 років тому +4

      Give the $$ to illegals Health Care Fund. Just increased by Gov Newsome to 90 Million.. C

    • @1catbrains
      @1catbrains 5 років тому +9

      Says the socialist non home owner .

    • @wellknowndrilla3303
      @wellknowndrilla3303 5 років тому +2

      D K no way, 2% is fine and follows inflation

    • @Contreras-z4e
      @Contreras-z4e 5 років тому +2

      Bullshit

  • @sergiozavala6525
    @sergiozavala6525 4 роки тому +1

    Vote YES!! FOR OUR CHILDREN

    • @politicaloco52
      @politicaloco52 4 роки тому

      The children will die if CA doesn't TAX you to death! mental.