tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8336173835252185480.post9021857741129350078..comments2023-09-24T11:30:13.297-05:00Comments on State and Local Public Finance: California’s budget crisis…in Minnesotan termsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8336173835252185480.post-29831823911125197072009-02-21T23:01:00.000-06:002009-02-21T23:01:00.000-06:00Two thumbs up for the post! I am not totally agree...Two thumbs up for the post! <BR/><BR/>I am not totally agree on the following sentence though: <BR/><BR/>"Even if California did not have a property tax cap, it seems that any potential tax revenue gains would have been offset by the record-setting low home values regardless."<BR/><BR/>Without a cap on property tax rate, low home values will not automatically translate into decreased property tax revenue, because local governments can adjust property tax rates accordingly to get the same tax revenues, as was the traditional mechanism of property tax levy before the "tax revolt." <BR/><BR/>However, things changed in CA after 1978. Among other things, the proposition 13 holds that "The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978).) This makes all the analysis meaningful here.Zhirong (Jerry) Zhaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07073293673519003452noreply@blogger.com