'Prop 13 Arizona'

Well the problem is the property tax is a de facto wealth tax. You can make no income and your tax liability is raised based on the premise that the value of your property is more. Not on the sale or purchase of the house. For Friedman he forgot about the average Joe. The income tax is based on the economy, taxing labor after something has been produced in society. The sales tax is based on consumption spending also a wheel of the economy.
I am working a campaign in Washington on I-1033 and Tim Eyman's initiative will control government spending at inflation plus population growth and any surplus in the future would go toward lowering property tax levies. Basically a TABOR Law with a caveat of a tax break on property owners. Washington has no income tax and homeowner's have much contempt of renters who don't get a property tax bill. Though landlords will pass off into their rent whether they know or not.
Maine will have a TABOR law voted on in Novemeber 2009. California's budget fight along with a possible Prop 1A fight and possible recall of legislators may lead to voter revolts of big government policies nationwide. Prop 13 in Arizona is a reflection of the Californians who have left California and want to re-create the Prop 13 protections. Also it looks as if Conservatives are tiring of Republicans caving in to Democrats and are willing to go to ballot box. Remember the initiative cannot promise something and renege on its promise when voted in. 

Although property valuations are down in Arizona, tax bills will not be following suit. Tax rates automatically rise to assure no taxing district receives less tax revenue than the prior year. The system is rigged against us. Under current law, if everyone's valuation was cut in half no one's tax bill would go down a cent.

Just as it was in California, Prop 13 Arizona's savings is in the tax rate reduction and capping of maximumm tax more than any valuation adjustment. Arizona assessments are random and arbitrary and need to be done away with. A willing buyer and a willing seller determined the purchase price of a property and that represents an objective basis for taxation unaffected by government bureaucrats.

Even those who bought at the top of the real estate market will still see some tax savings and then will have the peace of mind that as long as they can keep up with a maximum 2% increase per year, they will never be taxed out of their home.

Lynne Weaver
Chairman@Prop13Arizona.com

There is no doubt that property tax reform is long overdue however this "slash and burn" measure reads as if it was written by someone in way over their head.
Like their failed initiative offering during the last election cycle, it is poorly thought out, it has incorrect spelling and more importantly does not appear to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for initiatives to be placed onto the ballot.
Those who improved their property after 2003 would not pay their fair share since the taxable value can not be increased for any reason. The worst case scenario is that you purchased a lot for $10,000 prior to 2003 and then built an identical $1,000,000 home to the one next door. Your value would be $10,000 and your neighbor's $1,010,000. Under weaver's system, your neighbor would pay $5,050 each year in taxes as compared with your $50 payment. Now imagine switching places with your neighbor!
More importantly, if we ignore the many drafting problems, it would shift the tax burden substantially. Of great importance to some, it does not address how property purchased on 12/31/2003 is to be valued and most importantly it would decimate local services.
If you were one of the lucky ones to have a $50 tax bill, know that your children will make up for it when they buy a home. Don't you think that Washington has with its "bailouts" shifted just about enough of the tax burden onto our children and grandchildren without a measure like this to exacerbate the situation?
The Arizona Tax Revolt has been sharing its extensive knowledge of the property taxation system and our carefully architected solutions with the Legislature. The end result of this work will be a couple of strike everything bills to be submitted by Senator Gould. Keep an eye out for these in the coming months and ask your representatives to lend their support for passage.
Respectfully,
Marc Goldstone, Chair.
www.ArizonaTaxRevolt.orgOK,

Always great to hear from California Screamin, who predicts a voter revolt against big government. I don't see it -- at least now that the economy is in free fall. If we hit bottom and start to rise, that's when you'll see the revolt. Thanks also to Lynne Weaver and Marc Gladstone. I'd love to hear again from Lynne responding to Marc's argument that the measure contains drafting errors. As a Californian, I would say only: be careful what you wish for. The value of having predictable property tax rates and property tax increases is substantial. But there are unintended consequences. Many here think that Prop 13 has hurt growth. It keeps older folks and businesses in the homes and commercial properties at low rates, while penalizing the young and the new. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/

The argument about the unfairness of Prop 13 type taxes bennefitting those who bought earlier is BOGUS ! You pay the tax rate at time of purchase and the rate will ONLY increase at a set maximum rate (2%). The whole idea is to PREVENT runaway tax increases that primarily hurt the older owners (i.e retired on fixed income). That's what was happening in Calif. and why 13 was popular and passed. Houses mainly bennefit you when you sell,because up to then you PAY (mort ,taxes,maintenance,etc.).If you live in a house 10 years your tax has increased 22% and you have paid the tax 10 years ! What the real problem is INFLATION,that has driven up the price the "new" owner pay's and the "new" corresponding tax rate.

I can see how this may have passed very easily a couple of years ago when the house values in Arizona were climbing at a fast rate. Now that the market has been falling, it may not be such a priority anymore. With that being said, I do feel it is important to protect people whose property values have suddenly increased and their taxed along with it. Arizona is home to a lot of retirees that are living on a fixed income and would not be able to hand unexpected large increases in property taxes. I hope they can iron out all the loop holes and end up with a tax reform that is fair to all.