A Prop 13 overhaul would raise billions
« prev   random   next »

« First    « Previous     Comments 7 - 46 of 46     Last »

7   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 9:20am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Just what California needs - higher taxes!

Imagine how much worse the 2008 recession would be if California cities were pegging their tax revenues to the volatile housing market after it took a dump. We would probably have seen many more municipal bankruptcies.
8   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 9:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

How is it the fault of existing home-owner that a new perspective buyer chooses to pay extra $300K for comparable floor plan a few years later? Why should their taxes go up simply because new purchaser tweaks the "market rate" for everyone else?....all in clear attempt to artificially boot the existing homeowner out via higher property taxes and artificially increase demand.
9   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 10:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
Just what California needs - higher taxes!


Seems like they are already well ahead of you


#fuckcalifornia
10   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 10:46am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

zzyzzx says
#fuckcalifornia


California is already fully fucked. Any more penetration is like fucking a dead body. Still won't stop the very stupid politicians.
Sick sick sick.
11   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
California is already fully fucked.


What about the weather? You guys got the weather. Nothing else really matters. You want 6-9 inches..... of snow? That's what we're getting starting tomorrow night. Wohooooo!
12   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 10:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

WookieMan says
You want 6-9 inches..... of snow? That's what we're getting starting tomorrow night. Wohooooo!


I've got ice.
13   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 11:01am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

WookieMan says
Strategist says
California is already fully fucked.


What about the weather? You guys got the weather. Nothing else really matters. You want 6-9 inches..... of snow? That's what we're getting starting tomorrow night. Wohooooo!


It's exactly 78 degrees right now. I thought sunshine was free. Why are these assholes taxing me for something that is free?
14   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 11:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I've missed this discussion. Over ten years ago, I remember talking about this with Patrick. Like many issues, there are strong points to be made on both sides. Those points range from, it lets older people afford their home to the (in my opinion) equally valid point of the apparent injustice of two people paying a 10 fold difference in taxes on homes with the exact same market value.

I'll just start off by saying that I definitely can find common ground between the extremes of leaving Prop 13 stand as is, or repealing it and doing property assessments every year, on everyone.

Without considering morality, consider that two people pay different sales taxes on two exact cars depending on when then purchases and or how good a negotiator they are. If the manufacturer of a car raises the price on the same model in the same of consecutive years, or say they do an end of the year sale, should the person with the lower tax bill get a supplemental tax bill because it is unfair? My hunch is that I think not, but I don't dismiss this, it would just take a major overhaul of how we levy taxes as well as a debate on the morality of tax policies.

So, here are a few ideas of a compromise. We could raise the maximum assessment cap from 2% to 3%. That would in essence increase the marginal increases by 50%. Another compromise, from a different angle is to do assessments, but freeze them for those over 55.

I have tempered my views on this issue over the last decade, it will be interesting to get different perspectives.
15   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 11:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Malcolm says
So, here are a few ideas of a compromise. We could raise the maximum assessment cap from 2% to 3%. That would in essence increase the marginal increases by 50%. Another compromise, from a different angle is to do assessments, but freeze them for those over 55.


It's a nice idea. People, however, put their own interests first. For that reason I would say.......OMG, what a horrible idea. Over my dead body.
16   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 11:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

socal2 says
Imagine how much worse the 2008 recession would be if California cities were pegging their tax revenues to the volatile housing market after it took a dump.


Well, some people did take advantage of the flop and did lower their property taxes based on the lower valuations.
17   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 11:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
Eventually, the "new kids" become "big kids" It's just a cycle where everyone gets their turn.


Uh no. Not unless we see 25% annual inflation again like we did in the late 70s and early 80s. The annual 2% tax increases neatly keep up with any current gains.
18   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 2:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

dublin hillz says
How is it the fault of existing home-owner that a new perspective buyer chooses to pay extra $300K for comparable floor plan a few years later? Why should their taxes go up simply because new purchaser tweaks the "market rate" for everyone else?....all in clear attempt to artificially boot the existing homeowner out via higher property taxes and artificially increase demand.


This has been my traditional objection to repealing Prop 13. To me, it is the right law for property taxes, for that reason. Home ownership and property rights need to be respected.

It is only fair that it taxes keep pace with inflation. Think about it, if it didn’t, every year that there was inflation would mean a budget cut to the state if no one ever sold their houses. The funny thing is, that in certain areas almost no one sells their home, and ironically, those homes tend to be valuable, underassessed properties.
19   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 2:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

For those who don’t know, homeowners can appeal their assessment if values drop substantially. The caveat, which would never be an impediment, is that the 2% annual cap goes out the window until the lost value recovers.
20   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 2:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

It's why you can drive around expensive areas like Santa Cruz, and see weed strewn dumps everywhere. The families just keep them for generations without fixing them up because the taxes are zilch.

You would think you could find a "cheap" place based on appearances, but none of the places are cheap no matter what they look like because of land value.
21   TwoScoopsPlissken   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 2:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Any Prop 13 reform has to come with sales and income tax reductions. Also, the coast and the rivers need to be nationalized. You don't own all the rain runoff or the tides.

Private ownership of water is barbarous Spanish-Arab crap, not Anglo-Saxon Law.
22   lahossain   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 4:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
ome once told me that all that is necessary to repeal Prop 13 is to publish the property taxes that everyone is paying.


I had this fantasy of writing with chalk the annual property taxes of each home on the sidewalk in my San Francisco neighborhood. The purchase price is all public thanks to online records. So this is very possible. An interactive map website would be very educational and fairly easy to make. I dream on.
23   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 6:43pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

So government will take more money and “magically” start spending less? Hahaha!!! Unicorns too?

Work for government and get pensions and full salary after 30 years, paid for by taxpayers who thenselves will never have pensions or retirement.

Why the fuck would anyone want to pay more in taxes for this corrupt horseshit union pandering system?
24   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 7:06pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FortWayne says
So government will take more money and “magically” start spending less? Hahaha!!! Unicorns too?

Work for government and get pensions and full salary after 30 years, paid for by taxpayers who thenselves will never have pensions or retirement.

Why the fuck would anyone want to pay more in taxes for this corrupt horseshit union pandering system?


Thanks for mentioning this. All those who want to eliminate Proposition 13 are renters who don't realize the extra revenues generated will be wasted by the government as usual, and their rents would go up, because higher costs are always passed on to the consumer.
Suckers!
25   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:42pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
FortWayne says
So government will take more money and “magically” start spending less? Hahaha!!! Unicorns too?

Work for government and get pensions and full salary after 30 years, paid for by taxpayers who thenselves will never have pensions or retirement.

Why the fuck would anyone want to pay more in taxes for this corrupt horseshit union pandering system?


Thanks for mentioning this. All those who want to eliminate Proposition 13 are renters who don't realize the extra revenues generated will be wasted by the government as usual, and their rents would go up, because higher costs are always passed on to the consumer.
Suckers!


I remember prop 13 was passed because people were losing their homes, could no longer afford a reasonable living standard because of high taxes. Unions were ranking in the tax dollars, total waste, fraud, abuse. And regular people were getting screwed. It's why prop 13 passed in the first place to keep government from screwing us all.

And the audacity they have to call this "revenues". It's not revenue, it's taxes. Nothing is made in the process, all they do is shake down whatever money we have so they can pay themselves extravagantly.

High cost of housing is a supply and demand issue, not an "insufficient taxation". Anyone who wants more housing and lower rent... well build more houses. Don't let government artificially restrict supply, while propping demand with all sorts of illegals they bring and cram into tiny places.

I can really go on and on about this government and their failures. Thanks for mentioning Strategist.
26   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:43pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Redfin and Zillow did that. Nothing happened.


What they did not do is show a map divided into properties with the property tax actually paid by everyone on the map.
27   anon_3a1a3   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I def. will not buy RE in California unless it crashes. I am all for getting rid of prop 13. It’s highly unfair to new buyers. Don’t support this shitty market by not buying. I rather buy crypto currency! Especially on this awesome dip!
28   anon_783f6   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

All those who don't want to eliminate Prop 13 are losers who can't afford to pay their fair share of property taxes.
29   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_3a1a3 says
I def. will not buy RE in California unless it crashes. I am all for getting rid of prop 13. It’s highly unfair to new buyers. Don’t support this shitty market by not buying. I rather buy crypto currency! Especially on this awesome dip!


Hear, hear! When in doubt - buy Bitcoin!
30   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 7:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

FortWayne says

I remember prop 13 was passed because people were losing their homes, could no longer afford a reasonable living standard because of high taxes. Unions were ranking in the tax dollars, total waste, fraud, abuse. And regular people were getting screwed. It's why prop 13 passed in the first place to keep government from screwing us all.


I'm sure that would have been the case. Old folks living in the same home for decades, would fall victim to loan sharks, because they would need to borrow to keep up with the property taxes that go to support useless, lazy bureaucrats that retire with maximum salary 10 years before the citizen. Who the hell made this even possible? Did we get to vote for it? No, these scumbag lazy bureaucrats thought it was a good idea to give it to themselves. It was so nice of them. They deserve a bonus.
31   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 7:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Redfin and Zillow did that. Nothing happened.


What they did not do is show a map divided into properties with the property tax actually paid by everyone on the map.


Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to crawl Zillow, Redfin or even county site to get current property tax numbers and then create a custom google map with them.

Monetizing it would be hard though.
32   Strategist   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 7, 8:14pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

anon_783f6 says
All those who don't want to eliminate Prop 13 are losers who can't afford to pay their fair share of property taxes.


You are right. Those assholes can't afford to pay:
1. The pensions of the lazy bureaucrats.
2. The welfare payments of those who do not want to work.
3. Providing for the benefits of illegals.
4. Paying $70K per prisoner per year now, when other states pay a $20K or something.
--------
If you can afford to pay all that, please pay, because people like me sure can't afford to, and won't pay that.

33   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 7, 9:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
Redfin and Zillow did that. Nothing happened.


What they did not do is show a map divided into properties with the property tax actually paid by everyone on the map.


That data is public. I can even look it up on an assessor website. I think the only reason it's not on Redfin is probably there isn't a market need beyond curiosity or something like that.
34   willywonka   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 4:11am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

You see, without Prop 13, Granny, who owns her home outright, and may live for another 10-20 years, can't afford to pay taxes on her million dollar crapshack. If only she knew about home equity loans.
35   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 8, 8:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

willywonka says
without Prop 13, Granny, who owns her home outright, and may live for another 10-20 years
That was the case with my cousin Margaret and her husband Bent who lived in San Pedro--they married in 1951 and had lived in their home since 1955. If it hadn't been for Prop 13, their taxes would have gone from something like $1,500 to $7,500, thus causing them to lose their home. Whatever else the problems with Prop 13, that did seem like an unreasonable thing for people to face. I don't even know if they're still living as I don't keep up with that part of my mother's family--Margaret and her sister Nancy visited her in 1991, but haven't heard anything since then. They'd both be hitting 90 by now so it's a good chance they live in other circumstances and newer buyers are now paying the much higher taxes on their former home.
36   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 8:54am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

P N Dr Lo R says
taxes would have gone from something like $1,500 to $7,500, thus causing them to lose their home


So why is there no means test for Prop 13?

Fine if you want to save a poor granny from being evicted. And even in that case, let her pay by running up a tab with the government, and paying it off when the house eventually transfers ownership by whatever means.

Not so fine if you want to save landlords, the very rich, and big businesses from paying their fair share. But that is actually why we have Prop 13. Those were the people backing it.
37   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 8:57am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I sure wish the Democrats running California would spend more time trying to reform out of control State spending and waste instead of always trying to devise schemes to raise our already sky-high taxes.

Is it too much to ask for better and more cost effective services from our government? Or do we just have to take the Democrat and union protected bureaucrat's word that there can be no reform and we just need to keep shoveling over our money to them?
38   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 8:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

PLOT TWIST:

There should be no property tax at all.

Only a tax on transfer when a property sells or goes to a new owner.
39   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 10:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says
So why is there no means test for Prop 13?

Fine if you want to save a poor granny from being evicted. And even in that case, let her pay by running up a tab with the government, and paying it off when the house eventually transfers ownership by whatever means.

Not so fine if you want to save landlords, the very rich, and big businesses from paying their fair share. But that is actually why we have Prop 13. Those were the people backing it.


I think it's because it wouldn't work very well. People who bought back in the days, they can't compete with salaries today. I remember working for $4/hour, there is no time machine that will give me more money in the past during my best times of my lifetime to deal with inflation. And inflation would just put people into real misery.

I understand how someone today pays more than someone who bought long ago. I'm paying almost 10 times what someone paid for it before me. But that someone is in a nursing home already. Seems like a fair thing.

As far as landlordism (if property is classified as rental), way I see it if taxes were raised, there would be consequences. Some would probably not make money on it and probably put them on market (very few though), others would raise rents. I don't know. But I do know that if government taxes something heavily, it generally makes it cost prohibitive for most people, pricing average person out. The way I see it, this government should just tax us less and spend less. It's so bloated and inefficient, it's a sham.
40   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 8, 10:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
Only a tax on transfer when a property sells or goes to a new owner.
In other words work kind of like a sales tax--on a $300K home you'd owe another $24,000 if the sales tax was 8%. That would just be a cost you'd have to factor into the price. Already cars are costing what houses used to cost--a new Navigator can cost $72,000, which adds another $5,700, what used to buy a luxury car maybe 40 years ago.
41   anon_de640   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 10:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

We desperately need a prop 13 tax overhaul. Owners who bought a long time ago or inherited are not paying their fair share. They need to start paying 1.25% of current market value. That’s what we have to pay in case we decide to buy an overpriced crapshack.
42   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 10:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote      

P N Dr Lo R says
In other words work kind of like a sales tax--on a $300K home you'd owe another $24,000 if the sales tax was 8%. That would just be a cost you'd have to factor into the price. Already cars are costing what houses used to cost--a new Navigator can cost $72,000, which adds another $5,700, what used to buy a luxury car maybe 40 years ago.


That's how I'd see it. I think the U.S tax system is overly complex, wasteful, and just enlarges government.

What do you guys think?
43   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 10:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Goran_K says
That's how I'd see it. I think the U.S tax system is overly complex, wasteful, and just enlarges government.

What do you guys think?


Absolutely agree.
44   Onvacation   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 8, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Corporations and individuals that own single family homes for rental should not be "protected" under prop 13. That was not the intent of the law.

There is a blight of neglected rentals all over the bay area. Landlords just collect rent and do minimal maintenance. Tenants don't complain because someone else will pay more for less.

I was driving through Alameda (the island city) the other day and saw block after block of glorious old victorian houses. Restored jewels here and there but many were in states of disrepair from faded paint to nothing put curled paintchips on bare weathered wood.

Slumlords don't need taxbreaks. Neighborhoods need pride of ownership.
45   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Feb 8, 11:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

willywonka says
You see, without Prop 13, Granny, who owns her home outright, and may live for another 10-20 years, can't afford to pay taxes on her million dollar crapshack. If only she knew about home equity loans.


Granny should move someplace with a lower cost of living. I doubt that the move has to be all that great either (1-2 hour drive from previous location for most people). I can't comment about CA, but if it were DC, there is affordable housing on the Delmarva peninsula, West Virginia, Southern MD, and I'm sure in places in VA too, just not near DC.
46   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2018 Feb 8, 6:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Ca is fubar. Supply very low, demand through the roof.

zzyzzx says
willywonka says
You see, without Prop 13, Granny, who owns her home outright, and may live for another 10-20 years, can't afford to pay taxes on her million dollar crapshack. If only she knew about home equity loans.


Granny should move someplace with a lower cost of living. I doubt that the move has to be all that great either (1-2 hour drive from previous location for most people). I can't comment about CA, but if it were DC, there is affordable housing on the Delmarva peninsula, West Virginia, Southern MD, and I'm sure in places in VA too, just not near DC.

« First    « Previous     Comments 7 - 46 of 46     Last »


Comment as anon_d667c or log in at top of page: