Readers React: California should stop allowing rich children to inherit their parents’ low property taxes

To the editor: Children should not get to inherit their parents’ low property taxes. That was clearly not the intent of Proposition 13, which was passed in 1978 under the guise of preventing seniors from being taxed out of their homes — which is fine and good.

But the passage in 1986 of Proposition 58, allowing low-tax transfers to heirs, was simply wrong. Even the legislation’s author admits that lawmakers were shortsighted in not considering the long-term consequences.

I benefit from Proposition 58, having inherited my mother’s house and its low property taxes; plus my children will benefit when I die and pass my greatly appreciated house and low taxes to them. But it shouldn’t be so. Fortunate children already won the lottery by being born to successful parents, and society should not give us a perpetual unfair tax break too.

Randy Kirk, Hermosa Beach

..

To the editor: One can always find instances where laws have unintended consequences. The Los Angeles Times focuses on people, like actors Jeff and Beau Bridges, who inherited multi-million-dollar properties from their parents and are renting them out.

But how many of the people who benefit from Proposition 58 are like the Bridges, and how many are able to live in the home or perhaps maintain a small business providing jobs or apartments in the community? This information is key to judging the law.

Gail Feuerstein, Irvine

..

To the editor: Proposition 58 allows people to inherit real estate and keep the cost basis of the person bequeathing the property. It allows the bequeathed to pay taxes on a low cost basis instead of the fair market value of the asset at the time of the bequest.

The Internal Revenue Service allows people receiving inherited real estate to step up the cost basis to the fair market value at the time of the bequeather’s death, allowing inheritors to pay no capital gains tax on the sale of those assets at the time of the transfer.

This is an example of two tax breaks for the rich.

John Kuney, Ojai

..

To the editor: Children inheriting property who decide to rent out the home are subject to tax on the rental income.

The article states that Jeff and Beau Bridges and their sister have listed their late father’s Malibu home for $15,995 per month. If they were to rent this home for one year, the income taxes to both the state and the federal government would be about the same as the property taxes after a reassessment.

It just proves you can’t avoid paying taxes, unless you are Paul Manafort. And that has not gone very well for him either.

Robert Hoyt, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: The Bridges did nothing wrong when they received a Proposition 58 exclusion from reassessment. Their mistake was not being willing to comment on the unfairness of it all.

Propositions 13, 58, 60, 90 and 193 are all ways to benefit well off older people and their families. Younger people struggling to buy are hurt by these laws.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said, “The average voter probably did not have in mind a multimillion-dollar property being given [to children] that they could use as income-producing property.”

Proposition 58 was clear: There would be no reassessment on your home and the first $1 million of assessed value on other property. The Howard Jarvis bunch supported Proposition 58. What do they think of their endorsement now?

Steve Grimm, Long Beach

..

To the editor: Et tu, dude?

Luís Campos, North Hollywood

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook