|
Proposition 13 (officially named the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation) was an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. It was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of ''Nordlinger v. Hahn'', . Proposition 13 is embodied in ''Article 13A of the Constitution of the State of California''.〔(Full text of Article 13A )〕 The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which limited the tax rate for real estate: The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for in cases of (a) change in ownership, or (b) completion of new construction. In addition to decreasing property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases of any state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds vote majority in local elections for local governments wishing to increase special taxes. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States. Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency during 1980. 13 of 30 anti-tax ballot measures passed that year.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title= Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Initiative? )〕 A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title= Senator Peace: Cure Prop. 13 'Sickness' by Reassessing Commercial Property, Boosting the Homeowners' Exemption and Cutting the Sales Tax )〕 The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it is not popular politically for lawmakers to attempt to change it.〔(【引用サイトリンク】publisher=Los Angeles Times )〕 ==Background== There are several accounts of the origins of Proposition 13. The evidence for or against these accounts varies. One explanation is that older Californians with fixed incomes had increasing difficulty paying property taxes, which were rising as a result of California's population growth, increasing housing demand, and inflation. Due to severe inflation during the 1970s, reassessments of residential property increased property taxes so much that some retired people could no longer afford to remain in homes they had purchased long before. An academic study found support for this explanation, reporting that older voters, homeowners, and voters expecting a tax increase were more likely to vote for Proposition 13.〔Martin, Isaac. 2006. “Does School Finance Litigation Cause Taxpayer Revolt? Serrano and Proposition 13.” Law Another popular explanation is that Proposition 13 drew its impetus from the 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings in ''Serrano v. Priest'', which somewhat equalized California school funding by redistributing local property taxes from wealthy to poor school districts. According to this explanation, property owners in affluent districts perceived that the taxes they paid were no longer benefiting their local schools, and chose to cap their taxes. A basic problem with this explanation is that the Serrano decision and school finance equalization were actually quite popular among California voters.〔 It is true that Californians who voted for Proposition 13 were less likely than other voters to support school finance, but Proposition 13 supporters were not more likely to oppose the Serrano decision, and on average they were typically supportive of both the Serrano decision and of school finance equalization.〔 Another explanation that has been offered is that spending by California's government had increased dramatically during the years prior to 1978, and taxpayers sought to limit further growth. The evidence supporting this explanation is limited, as there have been no studies relating Californians' views on the size and role of government to their views on Proposition 13. However, it is true that California's government had grown. Between 1973 and 1977, California state and local government expenditures per $1000 of personal income were 8.2 percent higher than the national norm. From 1949 to 1979, public sector employment in California outstripped employment growth in the private sector. By 1978, 14.7 percent of California's civilian work force was state and local government employees, almost double the proportion of the early 1950s.〔 In addition, during the early 1960s, there were several scandals in California involving county assessors.〔Citrin, J. and Sears, D. Tax Revolt:Something for Nothing in California (1985)Harvard Press〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「California Proposition 13 (1978)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|