Here is another thought...how about the state just spends less?

With the bunch we have in Sacramento there is no limit, other than Prop 13 and a constitutional requirement for 2/3 approval on raising taxes to limit state spending. If we gave them 98% of our income, there would still be a budget crisis in California.

This years crisis budget? Higher than last year's.

It's a universal problem of government, to be sure. The main problem with Prop 13, as I understand it, is that it creates an unfair distribution of costs in that people who get in earlier are capped based on an existing appraisal of their home, forcing those who move in later to pay a relatively higher burden. This is also a generational transfer.

The check on spending is the people. I've got no problem with the people voting to keep taxes very low, but then they can't expect as much from government. If the basic services--schools, roads, etc.--are suffering, it's a problem.

And THAT is why there is a recall. Gray Davis has DOUBLED spending in only 5 years.

AND that is why they are holdng the line on Prop 13. If the voters do not put their foot down the posl will run wild.

Did you see what happened to Arnold's poll number when Buffet talked higher taxes?

Which sounds like a great problem to have until you realize there's nowhere to move to that doesn't also cost a million--and that you like it where you are, and don't want to be forced out just because of property taxes.

As one about to buy a townhouse at a price I never thought I'd pay for a "real house," I understand what you're saying. The problem is that, because the tax rate is fixed at the purchase/build price plus 2% per annum max increase, this means that the burden is much higher on the new folks moving in--including kids who were born and raised there but now can't afford to buy their own place. It amounts to the kids subsidizing the middle aged, even though the latter are almost invariably better off financially.

As for old people getting subsidized, that's a fact of life. Remember social security? Medicare? New drug benefit?

Good news (okay, just a fact of life) is that old people eventually die and the house will go into probate - and the tax tables - at its market value. Even if put into a trust to avoid probate, it will be recalculated at market value when put into probate.

Bottom line is that EVENTUALLY, Mr. Buffet's house will go onto the tax role at $40,000/year (1% of $4M) which is about the average salary of a Californian.

So

---