Thank you for your tremendous efforts at the state level. However I think there are better solutions to our problem. Raising higher taxes on businesses would put many small businesses out. We cannot afford to lose the small businesses. It is almost like asking for all stores to combine into Walmarts. Instead, I propose keeping corporation tax breaks and taking drastic cuts in our budget. Unemployment is at a point where it is almost worth staying at home for many individuals rather than looking for work. Social Security is a completely broken system that we should not “throw” more money at it to fix it. Our prison system is a disaster, and so on. California needs to get back to what made it successful. A free, capitalistic economy with small government and a higher chance for the American Dream. People from all backgrounds were able to land here and with hard work and dedication, become successful as well. Another tax will simply take us a step backwards rather than a step forward.

So uhh…what exactly do you mean by fair share? Who exactly decides what a “fair share” is? I’m pretty sure the definition of a “fair share” differs with each person you ask.

Also, please take Management 127A and/or B before suggesting repealing Prop 13. If you repeal it, most of California’s population will not be able to afford property within the sate. Be careful what you wish for.

And yet the Regents backed AB 131, giving Illegal Aliens $40 Million of Legal Students’ State aid and further impacting education budget. This will only become larger every year. Say goodbye to YOUR higher education.

This article talks about keeping the residential tax cap and only reforming the corporation tax cap. @ class of 13

It would be great to get more revenue for higher education, but the probability of even reforming Prop 13 is slim to none. I’m curious what your proposition would be. Tax commercial properties exclusively? Would small businesses be distinguished from large corporations? In such a terrible economy, is it really worth raising taxes on businesses of any size? More likely than not, higher taxes will cause a loss of jobs or pay cuts for those working at the bottom of the pyramid, just as budget cuts to the UC has resulted in layoffs, etc for janitors etc and higher tuition for students. The issue is a systemic one, and radical change is needed.

Also, California being broke is not the only reason tuition has gone up. The UC has been able to raise tuition because, simply put, they can. Is anyone going to “boycott” UCLA? As long as the UC maintains its reputation, demand will stay high, and I doubt this will change anytime soon. The accessibility of student loans has also given them the ability to raise tuition.

How can we combat these issues? I have no idea. Maybe fight for a fairer distribution of wealth. If this can be achieved with Prop 13 reform, great. As far as I can tell, things like the CA Dream Act, affirmative action, and tax reform are all just band-aids for much bigger (systematic) problems that need to be addressed.

If you repeal Prop 13 in regards to corporations, you can kiss California’s economy goodbye and say hello to bankruptcy as most corporations, including those in the Silicon Valley, will leave.

Then the UC system will REALLY be broke.

“Proposition 13 also created a corporate property tax loophole that allows businesses to pay less than their fair share of property tax in the state. It caps commercial property taxes at a very low level. “

From what I can find, the cap is 1% for both residential and non-residential property, yet this article (per above sentences) implies otherwise. At best, the above statement is misleading. At worst, it’s downright dishonest.

The only loophole in prop 13 regarding commercial properties that I could find pertains to the re-assessment requirement on ‘change of ownership’ (that led to generally less frequent re-assessment of non-residential properties). However, current Board of Equalization webpage implies that this loophole has been closed as re-assessment of commercial property is now required with change of ‘ownership interest’, even if no ‘change of ownership’ technically occurs for the property. Of course, I’m no expert on Prop. 13, so I could be wrong. Regardless, what loophole is this article referring to?

@good luck

“Also, California being broke is not the only reason tuition has gone up. The UC has been able to raise tuition because, simply put, they can. Is anyone going to “boycott” UCLA? As long as the UC maintains its reputation, demand will stay high, and I doubt this will change anytime soon. The accessibility of student loans has also given them the ability to raise tuition.”

I’m glad to see there are people around here who can the bigger picture. As much as UC tuition has gone up, UCLA is still a bargain (for residents) for its calibre. The rapid rise of college tuition itself is a problem, and it’s been going on well before the economy went south. As long as people keep paying for exorbitant tuition increases, cost is going to keep increasing. As long as people think that any college degree is worth any amount of easily obtainable student loan, people are going to get the government to pay the universities, without worrying that they’ll have to pay back the government (but then again, with all this talk about forgiveness after a 20, why worry about that?). The change is not an easy one, as the people as a whole need to start re-assessing the value of a college degree and only be willing to pay accordingly.

from the comments section it looks like the Free-marketeers have organized themselves for a collective chastisement of Joelle’s and other students’ efforts for a more afforable educations. Thanks Bruin Republicans for your concerted effort on the comments section. Just keep chanting “Status Quo! Status Quo! Status Quo!” Good productive comment.

@Mathew Sandoval

I’m not sure what you are referring to. If you read my comment at all, it is extremely clear that I am not “chanting ‘status quo’” nor chastising Joelle. I am merely suggesting that the problem cannot be easily resolved with tax reform, especially Prop 13-related reform, and that this article implies that our problem is almost exclusively “revenue related” (i.e. tax increases are the only solution). I believe I was explicit in my claim that the problem with higher ed is systemic, and that people should not be exclusively focused on fighting for higher taxes on corporations. Anyone who knows anything about economics will tell you this is not the solution. However, I do support raising taxes (or more accurately, eliminating tax cuts) on the rich. They are undoubtedly not paying their fair share. I think the mistake a lot of people make is to assume that taxing large corporations will inherently tax the rich. This is simply not the case.

If you were wondering, I align myself politically on the left, and consider myself progressive. It’s annoying that you assume I am a free-marketeer Republican simply because we have different ideas of solutions for the crises in the economy and higher education.

@Matthew Sandoval

Apparently asking a question is not allowed here? I honestly want to know what loophole the author is talking about, as my understanding is that the loophole has essentially been closed. Forgive me if I don’t take the author’s words at face value without trying to understand the issue he raises at a deeper level.

And if you read ‘good luck’s comment and my reply to his, we were both saying that the issue is not as simply as state cuts and raising taxes. I’m not going to repeat it. Go and read it, and this time, use that reading comprehension skill. Again, unfortunately having a view that’s not identical to the ruling left at UCLA is the same as being a proponent of the status quo.