I don't think we're saying the same thing, but rather speaking past each other. I think I need to dissect these two parts of your original comment:
> What worries me is California refuses to raise property taxes
Sure, if you're trying to increase taxes somehow, then the proposal in your reply could be one way to do it, and it sounds less painful than increasing everybody's property taxes. That logic isn't what I have issues with, since you're just comparing different ways to do property taxes regarding primary residences. (This isn't to say I agree or disagree with it.)
> Raise property taxes because without it, your income tax will have no upper bound.
This is the part I took issue with. It appeared you were trying to motivate property tax increases by arguing income taxes are an obviously worse way to make up for them, but... why? I didn't understand the logic behind that, and that's what I was asking about. If I'm a policymaker trying to choose between increasing income and property taxes, why should I choose property taxes to be the one to increase?
I think we are pretty aligned on this topic.
My ulterior motive for pushing for high property taxes is to satisfy a mental curiosity I have -- will raising property taxes to sky high rates (my ideal cap is about seven to eight percent of the sticker price of the land) lower the sticker price of the land/property?
I just want to know what happens if you have to pay the sticker price of a piece of land (compounded) every ten years or so.
But that's not relevant to why a policy maker should choose to raise property tax over income tax.
You could argue both ways here - income taxes are straightforward because you can basically get your cut at the source of income but property taxes are good because you can't hide or take land with you to another state.
And in general, I am not an expert on this or any matter but California is very lopsided with prop 13.
I don't even live in California.
> What worries me is California refuses to raise property taxes
Sure, if you're trying to increase taxes somehow, then the proposal in your reply could be one way to do it, and it sounds less painful than increasing everybody's property taxes. That logic isn't what I have issues with, since you're just comparing different ways to do property taxes regarding primary residences. (This isn't to say I agree or disagree with it.)
> Raise property taxes because without it, your income tax will have no upper bound.
This is the part I took issue with. It appeared you were trying to motivate property tax increases by arguing income taxes are an obviously worse way to make up for them, but... why? I didn't understand the logic behind that, and that's what I was asking about. If I'm a policymaker trying to choose between increasing income and property taxes, why should I choose property taxes to be the one to increase?