Blue State Lawmakers Make Taxpayers Blue

The terms “Blue State” and “Red State” were coined about a dozen years ago by journalist Tim Russert and were based on the colored maps being used by the television networks to graphically display presidential election results. Although originally based on the arbitrary decision to label Republican voting states red, and those supporting the Democratic candidate blue, these colors have also come to represent liberal (blue) and conservative (red).

The latest Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Legislative Report Card demonstrates that, in terms of state representation, California continues to be the bluest of blue. But while California has a reputation as being ultra-liberal on a host of issues, for purposes of the HJTA Report Card, we focused solely on how legislative votes were cast on tax issues.

Taken as a whole, the Report Card shows that a preponderance of lawmakers actively support the redistribution of wealth, not from one citizen to another, but from all citizens to the government. This allows the majority party in the Legislature to continue to reward their most active backers, the government employee unions. Government employees in California are the highest paid in all 50 states and it is no secret that money to meet the payroll must come from taxpayers.

The HJTA Legislative Report Card is designed to help Californians gauge how their state representatives are actually performing on taxpayer-related issues. For the 2013 legislative year, 20 bills were used to evaluate and grade voting records. Practically all of these bills deal with tax increases — often masquerading as fees — or direct assaults on Proposition 13 and Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act.

There is no question that the consequences of what occurs “Under the Dome” are very real and personal for average taxpayers. For example, decisions made by legislators in the last five years have helped ensure we have the highest income, sales, and gas taxes in the nation. These are facts most lawmakers fail to mention when discussing their voting records. The letter grades allow Californians to see past the politicians’ self-promoting press releases and glossy campaign mailers touting their record in Sacramento.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

California: Prop 13: Who’s the Fairest of Them All?

Almost twenty years ago, Money Magazine sponsored a debate and panel discussion at UCLA on Proposition 13. When one of the panelists, with ties to the public sector, began to assert vigorously that the tax cutting measure was unfair, he was challenged by Craig Stubblebine, Professor of Political Economy at Claremont McKenna College. Stubblebine said he would be happy to discuss fairness, but charged that the critic’s true motivation was simply the desire for more revenue. The Proposition 13 critic sheepishly conceded the point.

I thought of this last week when we of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association caucused with about a hundred Southern California taxpayer advocates and activists to discuss attacks on Proposition 13. After the event, a longtime homeowner approached me and told me that he had had words with a new neighbor over the fact that he was paying less in property taxes and the recent homebuyer thought this was unfair.

While Professor Stubblebine’s opponent refused to continue the fairness debate, knowledgeable taxpayers are always glad to address the issue.

Because Proposition 13 uses acquisition value (usually the purchase price) as a basis of taxation and not current market value, it is possible for owners of identical side-by-side properties to have significantly different tax bills. Critics claim that this is an “inherent flaw.” But this criticism flows from a mind-set accustomed to market-value-based taxation.

To understand why Proposition 13 is fair one must understand how it works. Proposition 13 limits property taxes by limiting the maximum rate to one percent and, more importantly, by limiting increases in assessed valuation to two percent annually. With the latter provision, it is easy to see how, during a real estate market upswing, a property’s market value can greatly exceed its taxable value over the span of just a few years.

This difference between a property’s actual value and its taxable value disappears when the property changes hands because then county assessors reassess the property to market value. Thus, recent purchasers derive no immediate benefit from the limitation on annual increases in taxable value.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....