Lopez: TaxTaxTaxTaxTaxTaxTax

John Seiler:

L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez continues his tax obsession with another attack on Proposition 13. His title is, “Speaking the unspeakable in California politics” — except that the “unspeakable” has been spoken continuously ever since voters passed Prop. 13 back in 1978, limiting increases in property taxes.

L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, taking time out from letting Dodger Stadium devolve into a gang den, called Steve personally about gutting Prop. 13. Villaraigosa is interested in a “split roll” for property taxes that Lopez has been pushing. Under a “split roll,” homeowners would continue to operate under the Prop. 13 protections, but commercial property would be hit with higher tax rates. Lopez enthuses:

But [Villaraigosa] said he plans to go to Sacramento in August, and he’s thinking he might make a speech to the press club pitching Prop. 13 reform. He said he was surprised that Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t done it himself, because at the age of 73, Brown doesn’t need to give much consideration to his political future.

“If he needs a guy like me to start it, then I’m going to do it,” said Villaraigosa, a former state Assembly speaker.

But neither the mayor nor Lopez cares about how a split roll would destroy California businesses and jobs.

First, increasing property taxes on businesses would mean they would have less money for jobs creation, increasing a state unemployment rate already second-highest in the nation at 11.7 percent in May. And after six years of Villaraigosa’s misrule, L.A.’s unemployment rate is even higher.

Second, businesses could avoid the tax by leaving the state, which they already are in record numbers.

Third, when other states have enacted split-roll property taxes, the action quickly leads not to just two tax rates (one for residential, the other for commercial properties), but a patch-quilt of rates from exemptions for special interests.

In California, first the environmental companies would say, “You’re killing green jobs and destroying the environment! Give us a tax break or Gaia will be polluted more.”

Then defense companies would say, “The higher property tax rate from the split roll is increasing the cost of producing weapons and equipment for our troops, meaning they have fewer of our products to defend themselves in the War on Terror. That means more of our brave young Americans will come home in body bags. Give us an exemption.”

And so on.

A split roll would be a full employment program for lawyers, lobbyists and politicians.

For the rest of us, it would be another California folly.

July 11, 2011


Write a comment
  1. GSL
    GSL 11 July, 2011, 10:17

    We wrote about this here.

    Another aspect of Lopez’s Prop 13 reforms that makes no sense: he complains that the law favors older, wealthier homeowners at the expense of younger, poorer homeowners (which is true), but then proposes reforms that avoid angering older voters; specifically, chipping away at the law with sharper tax increases for younger buyers. So . . . we’re going to address Prop 13’s regressive taxing of younger homeowners by . . . increasing taxes on younger homeowners?

    Reply this comment
  2. RObert
    RObert 11 July, 2011, 14:58

    The road to serfdom comes by facism…letting your government control your production and profits and taxes and regulations and your health and well being!!!!

    If they go for Prop. 13…start a wagon, pitch fork and sickel company….the mobs will be buying….

    Reply this comment
  3. Bob Smith
    Bob Smith 12 July, 2011, 04:03

    Why all the handwringing about Prop 13? In what meaningful sense does Prop 13 diminish the government’s ability to tax, when it has another 10 or 20 taxes, and myriad fees, it could raise instead? It seems to me that the only point of the exercise is to hide the true tax burden, inasmuch as property taxes are a less visible form of tax than income and sales taxes.

    Reply this comment
  4. beverlyrussell4wa
    beverlyrussell4wa 23 July, 2018, 23:40

    But neither the mayor nor Lopez cares about how a split roll would destroy California businesses and jobs.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Latest numbers: No ‘global warming’

April 16, 2013 By John Seiler AB 32 officially is the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” It coerces sharp

Contra Costa supervisors paid twice for vehicle costs

Some members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors are facing sharp questions about their ethics and honesty over

Is a notorious loophole about to close?

Shameless plug time: There are few revelations in my bosses’ new book Plunder!: How public employee unions are raiding treasuries,