To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (423168 ) 7/6/2003 5:11:31 PM From: Lazarus_Long Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 effectively paid no taxes. She inherited 3 homes from her parents in San Mateo, and charges about 2K/mo for each house. Her parents bought the places for 15K or thereabouts. That is still different from "no taxes". What you now describe is legal. "No tax" implies evasion. Of course the renters send their kids to schools in the area, use roads, police and the like, and they pay dearly to live there. Problem is, it all goes to the pockets of their landlord. Does that include the income and sales tax they pay? And car reg fees? It all goes into the state treasury and a lot gets redistributed back to local gov'ts and agencies. These houses should have been reassessed, of course the landlord is just like you and defends this gross inequity and screwage of the system because it benefits her. The grasping pols and assessors had the opportunity to defend their actions during the Prop 13 election. And lost the debate and election. WTF, why don't we pass a law that all our income goes to the gov't? Maybe they'll give us back what they think we fools deserve. Why cap taxes at all? If the newer high tech companies have to pay tons in property taxes then every business should have to. Of course the loser businesses that have been here forever and never grow are benefitting from the system, so they are all for it. Gimme a break. Prop 13 affected PROPERTY taxes. Businesses still get nailed with state corporate income taxes. And not just a little bit either.ppinys.org taxadmin.org With the redistribution of income done by the state in CA, property taxes could be completely eliminated and gov't could still be financed. Remember that court decision equalizing income among school districts in the state so that those in low income, low property value areas don't have to depend on local property taxes?