The fatal flaw of Proposition 13

Re “What the GOP tax plan could do to Prop. 13,” Opinion, Nov. 9

David Dayen makes the same mistake that was made when Proposition 13 was enacted: He confuses tax rates with taxes paid.

Dayen writes that California’s property tax rates are “one of the country’s lowest” and suggests this bargain: “lower personal income tax rates combined with a property tax rate more in line with the rest of the country.”

He forgets that what really matters to property owners is not the rate, but the amount paid. That dollar amount is among the highest in the country.

Proposition 13 was intended to limit the increase in tax when the property value rises. Foolishly, it did this by limiting increases in assessed values and leaving rates untouched. The result is grossly unfair taxation, where neighbors pay drastically different taxes based on assessed values determined largely by when a house was sold.

Proposition 13’s objective could have been accomplished without the unfairness by keeping all assessed values at market value, but forcing rates to be adjusted so as to limit the increase in revenue to the taxing jurisdiction. Larry D’Addario

Pasadena

Thank you for calling attention to the loophole in Proposition 13 for commercial property and the ways the GOP tax plan would make a bad situation worse.

When the law was passed in 1978, homeowners and nonresidential commercial property owners paid about equal shares of the property tax revenue in California. Now, because homes turn over more frequently than nonresidential businesses, residential owners pay the vast majority of property taxes.

We don’t need to get rid of Proposition 13; we just need to assess large businesses on a regular basis. Doing so would bring in about $9 billion annually, providing funds for our crumbling infrastructure and shoring up our educational system. As an added bonus, it would help counter the GOP plan to penalize blue states. Kitty Calavita

Berkeley