TITLE

Sound And Fury Over Taxes Howard Jarvis and the voters send a message: "We're mad as hell!"

PUB. DATE
June 1978
SOURCE
Time;6/19/1978, Vol. 111 Issue 25, p12
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article reports on the significance of the victory of the Proposition 13 at the referendum in California to complaints against increasing taxes in the country. It mentions that 4.2 million voters supported the Proposition 13, which aims to reduce the state's property taxes by 57%. It states that the voters also mandated that any local tax could only increase up to 2% a year. It points out that by supporting the measure, voters have ignored its possible impact on various public services including education and library services in the state.
ACCESSION #
53522631

 

Related Articles

  • Appendix A. California Proposition 13 Overview.  // Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration;2010, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p66 

    An overview of California Proposition 13, amended state constitutional law that defends taxpayers from paying unforeseen increased property taxes, that relates to article that appeared in the volume 7, issue 1 of "Property Tax Assessment & Administration" is presented.

  • Tempering a famous tax revolt. Wood, Daniel B. // Christian Science Monitor;4/13/99, Vol. 91 Issue 95, p1 

    States that California may alter the Proposition 13 referendum which was passed in 1978. How Proposition 13 affected taxes and government spending; Criticism of the proposition.

  • Coping With The Tax Cut California eases the impact with a $5 billion relief fund.  // Time;7/3/1978, Vol. 112 Issue 1, p16 

    The article discusses the approval of Proposition 13, by politician Howard Jarvis, on July 1, 1978 which will cut over 7 billion in revenues from property taxes and the emergency aid approved by California government to soften the effect of the proposition. It states that several lobbyists...

  • Dispatch: PROS AND CONS ON 6 FILED.  // Advocate;9/6/78, Issue 249, p8 

    Reports that arguments for and against California Proposition 6 have been accepted for inclusion in the November 1978 voters pamphlet by the State Elections Committee in Sacramento, California. Issues covered in the statement in favor of the Proposition 6 filed by California state Senator John...

  • House swapping. Kreider, Sharon, // Outlook;Summer90, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p76 

    Presents two personal residence issues in which various provisions of California's real estate tax law are applicable. Deferral of gain in a property; Shared equity financing agreement; Situations in which interim residence provisions are applicable.

  • Prop. 192 good for state, San Diego economies.  // San Diego Business Journal;2/19/96, Vol. 17 Issue 8, p42 

    Editorial. Presents information on the benefits of Proposition 192 to San Diego economies. Effects of North Ridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes on funding; San Diego's business community; Endorsement of Prop. 192.

  • This tax revolt turned out to be revolting. Lalli, Frank // Money;Aug1994, Vol. 23 Issue 8, p5 

    Focuses on the negative consequences of California's property tax initiative called Proposition 13. `Money' magazine's seminar on `The Legacy of Prop. 13' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) in June 1994; Background on Proposition 13; Emergence of tax initiative as a vehicle...

  • Bay Area Real Estate Recovery Creates Property Tax Appeal Opportunities. O'Neall, Cris K. // National Real Estate Investor Exclusive Insight;10/16/2012, p9 

    The article discusses property tax appeal opportunities presented by uneven recover of the Bay Area real estate market in California for 2011-2012. The opportunities arise in part from growth in core Bay Area markets in terms of market rents and capitalization rate declines, prompting county...

  • CALIFORNIA SHOULD RETURN TO THE INDIRECT INITIATIVE. Stern, Robert M. // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review;Winter2011, Vol. 44 Issue 2, p671 

    Recognizing that California's initiative system is under attack, this Article proposes a return to the indirect initiative process, which California adopted in 1911 and repealed in 1966. If an initiative's proponents gather a sufficient number of signatures, the indirect initiative process...

Share

Other Topics