Category Archives: 2020 Proposition 13 Split-Roll Property Tax measure

The California Proposition 19 Newspaper Debate

Posted on by
3
California Proposition 19

California Proposition 19


The official California  “Voter Guide” (Official Voter Information Guide) tells us CA Proposition 19 actually protects Proposition 13 property tax savings; and “closes unfair tax loopholes used by wealthy out-of-state investors” — a subtle reference to East Coast investors, of which in reality there are relatively few families like this actually coming to California to inherit property from parents, under Proposition 13, and rent out to wealthy tourists. 

This exaggerated claim has already been dis-proven, yet folks that support Prop 19  and continuously question property tax relief and Proposition 13, continue to repeat this false claim in the media — even though most CA property owners back Prop 13 and Proposition 58.

Newspapers have weighed in recently on Proposition 19: in terms of support…  

• San Mateo Daily Journal: “This would enable people in high cost areas to move more easily, opening up room for new residents to the area.”

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: “While critics see this as a gift to the wealthy elderly, the great majority of older homeowners are middle-income, not rich. Allowing them (as well as disabled homeowners and wildfire or disaster victims) to downsize without suffering a huge property tax hit is a humane policy that helps people retire with much less financial stress. It would also promote fluidity in home sales, increasing the availability of larger homes for families with children and easing the phenomenon of Proposition 13 depressing the real estate free market by trapping empty-nesters in homes bigger than they need.”

And in opposition…

• Tahoe Daily Tribune: “It’s no secret that ballot initiatives can be confusing, but Proposition 19 takes obfuscation to a whole new level.  Voters can’t be blamed if they can’t remember whether Prop. 19 is the initiative that is a massive property tax hike or the measure that actually has something good for homeowners or the initiative that has something to do with firefighting. The fact is, all three are at least somewhat true — especially the part about the big tax increase.”

• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Boards: “Prop. 19 merely plugs one hole in the state’s porous property tax laws while creating another. It’s time for holistic reform that simplifies the system and makes it more equitable. This isn’t it. The longer a person had owned their current home, and already benefited from inordinately low tax bills due to Prop. 13, the greater the tax break on the new property. And those who downsize would often be competing with first-time buyers for more-affordable smaller homes. The real reform would be to abolish the tax-transfer program, not expand it.”

• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: “Proposition 19 is another do-over on the ballot. Two years ago, the real estate industry spent $13 million on a similar initiative campaign to expand the program statewide and enhance the benefit for eligible homeowners. Sixty percent of voters rejected the initiative.”

• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: “But Proposition 19 would just expand the inequities in California’s property tax system. It would grossly benefit those who were lucky enough to buy a home years ago and hold onto it as values skyrocketed. It would give them a huge tax break and greater buying power in an already expensive real estate market. It would skew tax breaks further away from people who don’t own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.”

• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: “[Proposition 19] is still a flawed package, designed to rev up home sales that benefit real estate agents who could reap more in commissions. It favors one narrow segment of the tax-paying public but does nothing for the rest of the state’s home buyers. The measure shows the convoluted extremes that California’s tangled property tax system produces.”

Whichever way you see it, it’s fairly clear that Proposition 19 is a billion-dollar tax increase on families. It limits one of the best tools parents have to help their children — the right, enshrined in California’s Constitution since 1986, to pass their home and other property on without any increase in property taxes, as a Proposition 19 parent to child transfer.

On the other hand, Proposition 19 still allows residents to avoid property tax reassessment, as long as families move into inherited property inside 12 months, and only as a primary residence. 

California beneficiaries inheriting property from parents can still work with trust lenders to get a loan to a trust — you can also get a trust loan to buyout co-beneficiaries, while locking in a low property tax base… You can still easily buyout co-beneficiaries with a transfer of property between siblings.  Beneficiaries can always take advantage of a property tax transfer — in other words, transfer parents’  property taxes to themselves under Prop 19, what used to be Prop 58… and keep parents property taxes after inheriting property, and inheriting property taxes,  for as long as they live in their inherited home… as a standard Proposition 19 parent to child transfer or parent to child exclusion from current property tax rates. 

Moreover, Prop 19 will in fact generate additional property tax revenue, that will supposedly be put to good use in the state of California. So, it cuts both ways.

PART SEVEN: Coronavirus Crisis in California Motivating Certain Politicians to Push Harder for New Proposition 15 “Split-Roll” Property Tax

Posted on by
1
Property Taxes During the Pandemic

Property Taxes During the Pandemic

So let’s wrap this discussion up with a brief recap… and summary.  It  is completely obvious to any reasonable person that even though the new, proposed Proposition 15 commercial & industrial property tax on landlords and business property owners is not aimed at consumers per se – at the end of the day, it is consumers who will pay for this new property tax; paying significantly higher prices for normal everyday goods and services. 

Consumers that have for some time already been struggling with the high cost of living in the state of California… as have residents in, for example, other states at the top of the list of “most expensive states” list…  most expensive American states – such as Hawaii, New York, Washington DC, and Oregon.  States that are this costly to live in do not, and we should repeat do not, need property tax hikes, especially at a time like this when state economies are literally crumbling under the weight of a Coronavirus Pandemic, a tsunami of unemployment, now surpassing 51 million jobless claims nationwide and over 13 million looming evictions; plus a host of other related problematic issues. 

These costs, in California, encompass some of the steepest taxes in the country, including some of the highest gas, income, and sales taxes. In fact, the California Legislature just passed policies that have resulted in residents paying 48% more for electricity than the rest of the nation.  Fact, not opinion.

Adding a new property tax on top of these existing costs will only exacerbate the affordability issue for many Californians. The downside (ironically, there is no upside) of the Proposition 15 business property & industrial facility property tax that Secretary of State Padilla and other powerful political critics of property tax relief in California are not looking at.

We suggest they had better remember we are in the throes of a national Pandemic, with California running particularly high infection rates, and they would do well to start looking at a potentially massive downswing of middle class and working class personal income descent if landlords, business and commercial property owners   abruptly lose their ability to use Proposition 13 to avoid property tax reassessment. At the same time, if business properties have been passed down through family members, countless businesses will be impacted in this fashion, losing their ability to keep parents property taxes and parent to child exclusion in California, when  taking advantage of Proposition 13 and Proposition 58, working through a loan to an irrevocable trust… a Prop 58 transfer of property. 

The great fear is that the next step politicians who oppose Proposition 13 and Prop 58 will take, after opening the door to unraveling property tax relief for businesses, will be to go after property owners’  ability to take advantage of property tax transfer, or the transfer of parents property taxes upon inheriting property taxes in general.  The anxiety running through the state concerns fear that critics of 1978 Proposition 13 now pushing a property tax measure called Proposition 15 (formerly entitled Proposition 13 “Split-Roll” tax) will feel free to go after the right to avoid property tax reassessment, or parent to child transfer and parent to child exclusion in California, if Proposition 15 actually passes in November, 2020.         

Obviously, this will impact all Californians, raising rents, throwing prices of goods and services throughout the state completely off the map of normalcy.  If these folks do not begin looking at this issue more realistically, they are going to step into a deep statewide quagmire of economic quicksand, if this property tax passes in November.

Although politicians on the state level claim that their revised version of the true Proposition 13 property tax relief system, they’re calling “The Split-Roll  Proposition 15” property tax, includes a “small business exemption” that will supposedly fix everything. Don’t believe it.  We suggest you don’t drink the Cool-Aid!  This new property tax on commercial property owners in California will be crippling, to most  businesses and commercial entities, including landlords, in California.  The revised measure supposedly expands the “reassessment exemption” to small business owners with property valued at $3 million or less, up from the initial $2 million threshold.  Sounds like double-talk to most of us. 

One of “us” being the talented, courageous Rob Gutierrez, President of California Taxpayers Association. Mr. Gutierrez says that these supposed “protections” for small businesses aren’t even close to being strong enough to allow these folks to survive – with thousands of jobs for Californians not able to survive in the bargain! More people on the Unemployment Line.

“Because so many small businesses rent as opposed to own their commercial space… higher property taxes on the buildings they rent space in will of course result in more expensive rent for them”, says Mr. Gutierrez… “What that translates into is higher prices for consumers and brick-and-mortar stores. Dry cleaners, grocers, companies that cannot move, will have to find a way to pass these costs on.”

And as usual, who does this get passed on to? That’s right. Us. The consumers.

Faced with higher property taxes, commercial property owners with leases will assuredly be motivated to pass these increased costs on to their tenants.  They’ll have no choice.  For example, the owners of shopping centers or strip-malls, with numerous commercial tenants, if unable to avoid property tax reassessment or parent to child exclusion in California, will without question be compelled to increase rents on their commercial and industrial tenants. Next step, prices on goods and services go up literally overnight.  

So we can only further assume that adding a new property tax to the already heavy burden carried by residents of this great state will only serve to make current economic challenges only more challenging   for regular middle class Californians.  There’s no doubt about it.  Hence the need for California to keep the property tax system as is… Leaving the status quo alone. 

PART TWO: Coronavirus Crisis in California Motivating State Politicians to Push Harder for “Split-Roll” Property Tax

Posted on by
1
California Property Tax Changes

California Property Tax Changes

Even without California’s ill-advised Split-Roll property tax measure looming over every renter and residential as well as commercial property owners’  head throughout the sunshine state — California has already been grappling with lopsided expenditures such as over-spending on state & local government  salary increases, healthcare benefits, and lavish vacation time… Rather than budgeting properly for public works that would actually be beneficial for regular every-day Californians rather than folks with elite government positions.

Residents of this state are already dealing with unusually high taxation (other than property taxes), and other challenging regulations that make it difficult as it is for California businesses to compete effectively in a number of important and popular industrial and commercial playing fields.  

Let’s face facts… an $11 billion Split-Roll property tax increase  on business and commercial property owners would, without question, prevent businesses based in California from hiring new employees;  and would make it more difficult to retain existing employees.  

And you can forget about Christmas bonuses and/or timely raises, not to mention maintaining proper levels of health coverage!  It’s obvious that stability and predictability provided by 1978 Proposition 13 property tax relief has helped businesses in California to compete on a national level regardless of the fact that doing business in California is expensive to begin with!

Even if correctly managed, tax assessments will mirror the ups and downs of  the real estate market in  California— resulting in volatility, the way things were prior to 1978 when Proposition 13 was passed into law.  During low economic times this would most likely end up leading the state into an even more severe loss of revenue. 

If you think back… during the 2008— 2009 recession, commercial property values dropped by over 35%, mainly due to the economic recession.  These abrupt and  unpredictable economic shifts are what motivated unease and unhappiness among California property owners before 1978, and ultimately led to the big win pushed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and others, leading ultimately to the passage of  Proposition 13 in the first place. 

Proposition 13 stabilized the property tax revenue system by capping property taxation at 2% plus nailing down property owners’ right to avoid property tax reassessment… with other stabilizing influences,   rules and iron clad regulations favoring the taxpayer for the first time.

Much to most beneficiaries’ surprise, it also became possible for estates to entertain certain options, where none existed previously; such as beneficiaries who were intent on retaining inherited property from parents now being able to buyout siblings that wanted to sell their property shares… Through a loan to an irrevocable trust, working alongside CA Proposition 58. 

Trust loans have become popular throughout California, to resolve heated sibling “inherited-property conflicts”, working in tandem with CA Proposition 58,  once those beneficiaries looking to keep inherited property actually qualified – enabling their co-beneficiaries to buyout siblings’ shares of a home usually… typically called a “beneficiary buyout of sibling property shares”.

While at the same time the siblings keeping the home were now able to legally avoid property tax reassessment, by using a trust loan to buyout a sibling’s share of an inherited house – or, as realtors call it, “a transfer of property between siblings” or “sibling to sibling property transfer” – whereas regular middle class folks simply refer to the process as “getting cash from a trust loan to buyout siblings’ shares in inherited property”.  Most people prefer to keep things simple.  As we do.

It  was unthinkable that the bad old days would even have a remote chance of returning…  Until now. 

>> Click Here: to Continue to Part Three…

Part One: As Attacks on Proposition 13 And Prop 58 Weaken, Critics Continue on with Split-Roll Tax Effort – Featuring Jon Coupal, CEO, Taxpayer’s Association

Posted on by
5

Property Taxes Proposition 13 and 58

Property Taxes Proposition 13 and 58

As we all know, for many years, critics of California Proposition 13 have been blaming property tax relief, the right to avoid property tax reassessment, for overall under-funding of public services…

The critics also blame parent to child transfer of a home and/or land, in other words simple parent to child exclusion from present-day property revaluation, however they mainly place the blame on the  1978 California Proposition 13 property tax relief measure, and the 1986 Proposition 58 property transfer tax shelter, for the under-funding and watering down of critical statewide public services – without any believable data or statistics to back up these accusations.

These claims, largely false and overblown, are still bandied about    in the media by critics, even though they have been debunked and discredited countless times – as the facts repeatedly point, again ad again, at state and local government over-spending on high salaries, reportedly extravagant pensions and benefits, as well as ruinous special-interest construction, building projects, and so forth.

Not, as economists and analysts have said repeatedly, property tax shelters made possible by Prop 13 and Prop 58; which merely benefit offspring when it comes time to transfer parents property taxes when inheriting a home from parents, for example,  and inheriting property taxes… Allowing the family to avoid property tax reassessment, enabling any property tax transfer to be less costly.

All things considered, from an objective standpoint, this is brazen misinformation. In fact, there is a mountain of data revealed in various charts and tables, with arrows pointing up, not down, showing us that total inbound revenue from property taxes has gone up since Prop 13 went into affect in 1978 – not down; despite residential and commercial property owners’ ability to avoid property tax reassessment.

In a recent interview with Mr. Jon Coupal, Chief Executive Officer of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; with offices in Sacramento and Los Angeles.  Their official motto states that, “When illegal taxes are imposed by state or local governments, our legal organization goes to court to protect your taxpayer rights.”

During our brief interview, Mr. Coupal addressed several current, related issues – beginning with the so-called “2020 Proposition 13 Split-Roll Property Tax measure”; the latest public initiative being promoted throughout California by virulent critics of the original 1978 Proposition 13…

 

Property Tax Transfer: Mr. Coupal, thank you so much for taking some time out of your very busy schedule today to speak with us.

Jon Coupal: No problem.

Property Tax Transfer: Can you tell us what you think about the 2020 so-called Split-Roll property tax measure, by coincidence also named Proposition 13, pushed forward by opponents and critics of the original 1978 California Proposition 13 property tax shelter…

Jon Coupal: All of this is confusing, intentionally.  This new  2020 Proposition 13 is more or less tricking voters into thinking that the two   Proposition 13s are related. They’re not. The 2020 Proposition 13 with the Split-Roll Tax is strictly about removing all caps on commercial and industrial properties.

Property Tax Transfer: So how do folks stay on top of all this? How do they figure out what those folks are really up to?

Jon Coupal: This is all designed by opponents of the genuine 1978 Proposition 13 to be confusing and tricky. This is an ongoing educational process for Californians. The new Proposition 13 is not related to the original Proposition 13. What it is, is a $15 Billion bond measure to fund local schools, who must provide matching funds. Plain and simple, this is a tax increase that falls on property owners. Bottom line.

Property Tax Transfer: Yes we can see that. It is very tricky. Jon, what do you believe is our greatest threat?

Jon Coupal: Put simply, your greatest threat is realtors trying to end family property transfers. They would like to destroy inter-generational property transfers. Or they intend to at least limit transfers. The school bond affects the local debt caps… but it’s the realtors – they are the real threat to you.

Property Tax Transfer: A certain group of California realtors…

Jon Coupal: Yes. The media and the realtors will keep pounding away at this; and of course continue to use that one example they have of Lloyd Bridges and his sons renting out that property… to try to convince the public of all the things that are wrong with Prop 13 and property tax transfer. That is the one dramatic example they have to convince people of their point of view. That’s all they have. Nothing else.

Property Tax Transfer: The highly exaggerated, perhaps fictitious real estate crisis…

Jon Coupal: Yes. No matter how many times you ask that’s the only supposedly compelling evidence they have ever come up with to support their argument about their countless rich people  taking advantage of Proposition 13 tax shelter, supposedly renting our thousands of non-primary residences all over California, shrinking tax revenue to the government.  This, of course, is utter nonsense.

(Continued in Part Two…)