A user on Wikipedia accuses me of hating Proposition 13, saying that I'm "pissed off", and deride eth article as reeking of bias. (Look! He mispelled reek!—the grammarian in me exclaims.)

Proposition 13, I've noticed, is a contentious article. Not controversial enough to start a revert war, but contentious enough for people to try to put in data, rather lamely, about how Proposition 13 benefits homeowners—um, homeowners only? without regard to renters? I actually want them to present a convincing side of how Proposition 13 benefits California, even at the expense of fiscal deficits.

Putting up numbers and statistics, is ineffective. It's better if you have arguments not as ill-inured as the "propensity of government to spend outside it's mean" [sic], but about how "ownership society, self-reliance, and personal responsibilities" are promoted through Proposition 13. That is acceptable: Statistics are not. I could counter that point with how sales tax increased from 5% to 8.25% after Proposition 13, to keep state funding intact.

I do realize that fluctuating property tax were the main cause of taxpayers' outrage. Indeed, they showed images of senior citizens on fixed income unable to pay the property tax.

Such pulling on heartstrings!

Here's something interesting: If property values increase, you would still have to pay more tax, even if it's at only 1%. Those senior citizens on fixed income would still be subject to fluctuation of property value, even if property tax itself doesn't fluctuate. The state and the districts, unable to adjust property tax to fit each region, are therefore limited in helping them.