'Luxury tax' in L.A. generates debate

What does Sarah Palin think about this? City Hall is buzzing (and some are groaning) about a proposal by Councilman Richard Alarcon for a "luxury tax" on residents who own houses that are larger than 5,000 square feet. There are questions about whether the tax has much of a chance of passage -- or whether it's legal. But it's generating debate at a time when City Hall is hurting for revenue. According to City News Service:

Under the proposal, owners of houses that are between 5,000 and 5,999 square feet would be taxed $1,000. Every additional 1,000 square feet would result in another $1,000 in the tax up to 10,000 square feet, which would result in a $6,000 fee. ... In the city of Los Angeles, there are 6,336 single-family residences that exceed 5,000 square feet and 534 houses larger than 10,000 square feet. Taxing those residences would generate $15 million a year. The tax would most affect homeowners in Bel Air, Beverly Crest, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Encino, Tarzana, Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Toluca Lake and the Wilshire area. A report by the Chief Legislative Analyst found the “luxury tax” would violate the state constitution if it is based on increments of 1,000 square feet.

Over on The Times' Opinion blog, editorial writer Robert Greene offers some more analysis of the proposal: "In case you were wondering (and of course you were), L.A. has 6,336 single-family homes of more than 5,000 square feet and 534 of more than 10,000. Who knew all those houses would fit on Boardwalk and Park Place?"

-- Shelby Grad

Photo: Iris Schneider / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Jennifer]

Seriously? And this article is in the same issue as the article stating we are covering dialysis and kidney transplant costs for illegal immigrants? ( http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dialysis29-2008oct29,0,2166155.story )

How about California reigns in ridiculous expenses instead of lopping more taxes on an already overtaxed sector of society.

And if you think that tax doesn't affect the middle class, think again. That is $6,000 that would be going to the hair stylists, dentists, child care experts, doctors, etc. that the wealthy utilize. Or, worse, $6,000 that would be invested in a small upstart business like mine.