A recent report by the Tax Fairness Project and the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association found that Proposition 13 saves Oakland homeowners of all backgrounds thousands of dollars per year in property taxes compared to a scenario in which Prop. 13 was repealed and homes were taxed on their current market value.
But that’s apparently a problem, according to the report, for two reasons.
One is that homeowners in majority white neighborhoods save more per year in property taxes ($9,631) than people who live in neighborhoods that are majority Latino (where people save $3,098), Black (where people save $4,587) and Asian (where people save $5,338).
“Our research shows that in Oakland, Prop. 13 benefits the few at the expense of the many,” the report says, trying to be profound.
The proposed remedy, then, reading between the lines of the report, is to axe Proposition 13 so no one saves any of that money anymore and everyone just pays thousands of dollars more in taxes in the name of fairness or whatever.
“Low-income households may be getting a far smaller subsidy, but it’s a subsidy nonetheless,” reporter Jesse Bedayne noted. “Doing away with Proposition 13 altogether would have far-reaching implications, including the potential to make property taxes unaffordable for low-income families and retired seniors who rely on a fixed income and low-property taxes to keep their homes.”
The second main point of the report gives away the whole point of even bringing up this confused idea of punishing lower-income homeowners with higher taxes so as to correct this perceived injustice.
“Oakland misses out on $400 million in Prop. 13 residential taxes every year, equivalent to what it spends on four city departments combined,” the report notes.
Clearly, the only purpose of the racial grievance stuff is to manipulate people into supporting a plan that would particularly punish minority- and low-income homeowners so the government (and the public employee unions who own it, obviously) can have more money to play with.
“If Oakland were able to collect this missing money, the city could invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the public goods and services that would most help Oakland’s lower-income residents,” the report says.
Cool story.
Related Articles
When will UTLA allow LAUSD students to remove their masks?
It’s time to ditch the anti-democratic ‘top two’ system
California Democratic leaders take heat from two directions
Gov faces easy re-election as GOP collapses
Enforcing abortion bans is much harder than passing them
“Oakland’s elected officials have repeatedly made financial decisions that left the city with a debt burden of $2.4 billion,” notes Truth in Accounting. “That burden came to $17,200 for every city taxpayer. Oakland’s financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated over the years. The city had set aside only 66 cents for every dollar of promised pension benefits and 12 cents for every dollar of promised retiree health care benefits.”
I’m sure the $2 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and $900 million in unfunded retiree health benefit liabilities have nothing to do with this.
Most Californians recognize the value of Proposition 13. Just two years ago, California voters slapped down a split roll property tax system championed by unions and Gov. Gavin Newsom. And in 2019, 60% of Californians told the Public Policy Institute of California they pay more in state and local taxes than they should.
They’re right.
Sal Rodriguez can be reached at [email protected]