patrick.net

marcus says

Quigley says

FortWayneIndiana says

Because at old age people should pay less.

Who knew ? Fort Wayne is a socialist ?

Why shouldn't they just sell their million dollar home and live somewhere cheaper. Why are they so entitled ?

Oh yeah. Some republicans only like the kind of socialism that goes to the corporations and the wealthy.

Never thought I’d agree with you on anything but you are absolutely correct here sir.

liberals, liberals
Paying lesser taxes is the same as taking from the government. LOL liberals-this country is doomed.

Eric Holder says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

Why is detaching from market price the “road to the abyss”?

Because it opens the door to assigning taxes and fees based purely on government fiat. And with pinko one-party government rule we have in CA it is exactly that - road to abyss. We are already firmly on that road with highest electricity rates in the nation and shittiest electric transmission infrastructure causing forest fires like a fucking clockwork, highest gas taxes in the nation and shittiest roads, highest per-pupil spending in the nation and schools among the shittiest, highest state income taxes and not much to show for them, etc.

So, what are the "rules detached from the market price" you propose? Use two 3-bedroom houses of the same size and on the same-sized plots in Palo Alto, CA and Mojave, CA as an example. I'm genuinely curious of what people talking about "fairness" really mean.

First off, Prop13 is completely unfair for the aforementioned reasons in this thread. Pinning it to market value is unfair for the "poor granny" reasons we've talked about, but more importantly, how does an increase in market value increase government expenses so that they would need more taxes? It makes no sense. Taxes should be levied based upon government need to spend them, not because the market goes ape-shit. If the market tanks, does that mean the government's expenses go down to maintain infrastructure? No. This is why taxes should be assessed in a different way...tying to the market makes no logical sense.

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee to levy on homeowners based upon the defined characteristics: size of land, type of land (residential vs commercial), location, etc. I don't know all of the characteristics...that would have to be determined. But in a nutshell, what are the factors of a property that determine the cost to the municipality? I don't know why this would be that hard to calculate. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than tying it to market value, which has NOTHING to do with the cost to run a municipality.

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee to levy on homeowners based upon the defined characteristics: size of land, type of land (residential vs commercial), location, etc.

Add to that the number of school age children.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee

Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.

Government pensions would grow, gentrification would balloon. People would be fucked by unions filled with bunch of low iq entitled chest pounding pension spiking assholes.

APHAman says

Why do Virtue Signalling right wingers always want big government to come in and interfere with The Market?

You are confusing sane people with left winger socialists. I can't help you there, that's a you problem.

DASKAA says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee

Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.

Wow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?

HeadSet says

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee to levy on homeowners based upon the defined characteristics: size of land, type of land (residential vs commercial), location, etc.

Add to that the number of school age children.

Why?

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

DASKAA says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee

Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.

Wow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?

This is not important? The proposal is essentially to stop collecting property taxes at county level in lieu of collecting some Gosplan-calculated fee completely divorced from the property's value, but it completely misses to mention what will replace the revenue stream the county will lose with property taxes going away. Let me guess: another "carefully-calculated fee, not linked to property values"?

I pay $2400/year property taxes on a $650k home, based on an appraised value of $220k. If prop 13 disappeared tomorrow, I would be paying around $6000/year. I'd be pissed, but I'll look at the positives... I wouldn't be 'forced' to keep my current home until I die. Since I'd be paying the same as everyone else, I would be able to actually move into a 'dream home' instead of a home I just bought from my parents for the tax benefits. On the other hand, it would be terrible to rip old folks from their communities and their support networks they've developed over their lifetimes.

Eric Holder says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

DASKAA says

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee

Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.

Wow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?

This is not important? The proposal is essentially to stop collecting property taxes at county level in lieu of collecting some Gosplan-calculated fee completely divorced from the property's value, but it completely misses to mention what will replace the revenue stream the county will lose with property taxes going away. Let me guess: another "carefully-calculated fee, not...

Wow. You guys love having property tax linked to market value. Let me guess...you pay very little each year while your neighbors pay a lot, and you get to enjoy others paying more for services that you benefit from. Again, I understand why you want to keep Prop 13 because it unfairly benefits you, but it's still wrong no matter how you spin it.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

First off, Prop13 is completely unfair for the aforementioned reasons in this thread. Pinning it to market value is unfair for the "poor granny" reasons we've talked about, but more importantly, how does an increase in market value increase government expenses so that they would need more taxes? It makes no sense. Taxes should be levied based upon government need to spend them, not because the market goes ape-shit. If the market tanks, does that mean the government's expenses go down to maintain infrastructure? No. This is why taxes should be assessed in a different way...tying to the market makes no logical sense.

Something like realtors demanding the same percent commission wether it's a 100K property, or a $million property. They aren't working 10 times as much for the higher priced property.

Is it fair to have an old person pay same taxes as a person who is in their prime earning years?
Society doesn't exist for the sole fucking purpose of paying taxes so that greedy unions can ran their pensions up.

Prop 13 = more government money, less private sector. That's it.

Eric Holder says

I challenge this. Real-life example: a house in AlCo bought in 2013 for ~$800K had property taxes set at ~$8.5K at that time. Current property tax ~$12.5 with Zillow showing zestimate at ~$1.2M (I know, I know) . Hardly a "1% at most on $200K value for all time". It seems that the current system does pretty good job tracking the raising prices.

When a property sells, the house is supposed to be assessed at "fair market value." However, if the transaction price were — for whatever reason — low, the house might get bumped up when the assessor actually goes to look at the house. Another possibility is that the house was upgraded by the new resident in such a way that the house is re-assessed at "fair market value" after the upgrade. Either of these situations would result in an increase higher than the 2% increase mandated by Prop 13.

Here's a counter-example to yours. This house just sold, so I hope I won't be picking anybody out for ridicule.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Sunnyvale-CA-94087/19614224_zpid/97549_rid/37.349032,-122.024039,37.346418,-122.029339_rect/17_zm/1_rs/
You'll see that the most recent tax record shows assessed value of $85k and $1446 paid in taxes for the year. It just sold for $1.95 million, so the new owner will be assessed about $21K tax per year. So, it definitely doesn't seem as though "the current system does pretty good job tracking the raising prices." This tax hike is common in this area; there are plenty of $2M homes that pay taxes on assessed value of $100k.

Prop 13 hurts people who move around too much, and benefits those who stay put. It's as simple as that.
It only ends up benefiting the old folks because they had the opportunity to buy 30 years ago vs a 30 year old couple trying to buy today. The new generations will have their turn to benefit when the time comes.

FortWayneIndiana says

Is it fair to have an old person pay same taxes as a person who is in their prime earning years?

Uh, Yes. If old people didnt properly save during their earning years, that’s their fault. One’s property tax should have nothing to do with how much they currently make. Why should someone with more money, THAT THEY EARNED, pay more than someone else? Should they pay more gas taxes too? How about higher DMV vehicle fees? Let’s just keep going because hey, they have more money.

They are not responsible for you overpaying and making dumb financial decisions.

Sorry boys , you chose to pay a lot for your house hence your tax is higher. Personal responsibility buddy. That’s fair in my book.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

Is it fair to have an old person pay same taxes as a person who is in their prime earning years?

Uh, Yes. If old people didnt properly save during their earning years, that’s their fault. One’s property tax should have nothing to do with how much they currently make. Why should someone with more money, THAT THEY EARNED, pay more than someone else? Should they pay more gas taxes too? How about higher DMV vehicle fees? Let’s just keep going because hey, they have more money.

Left operates on jealousy. Repeal prop 13 they say, so that grandma be forced out of her house. Immoral society of selfish liberal pervs.

Fortwaynemobile says

Left operates on jealousy. Repeal prop 13 they say, so that grandma be forced out of her house. Immoral society of selfish liberal pervs.

What would be funniest about this if it did happen is that it would fuck liberals over more than anyone else. White areas of LA would see their taxes quadruple and housing values crash and it would even be worse in the bay area.

PrivilegedtobeWhite says

FortWayneIndiana says

Is it fair to have an old person pay same taxes as a person who is in their prime earning years?

Uh, Yes. If old people didnt properly save during their earning years, that’s their fault. One’s property tax should have nothing to do with how much they currently make. Why should someone with more money, THAT THEY EARNED, pay more than someone else? Should they pay more gas taxes too? How about higher DMV vehicle fees? Let’s just keep going because hey, they have more money.

No one is forcing you to buy a house today and overpay for it. That's your choice, no one is holding a gun to your head and says you must pay insane amount or else. So no, you are wrong buddy.

RC2006 says

Fortwaynemobile says

Left operates on jealousy. Repeal prop 13 they say, so that grandma be forced out of her house. Immoral society of selfish liberal pervs.

What would be funniest about this if it did happen is that it would fuck liberals over more than anyone else. White areas of LA would see their taxes quadruple and housing values crash and it would even be worse in the bay area.

I know that too. Liberals don't understand that, they are still chasing "equality" without realizing full consequences of that equality. Soviet Union, North Korea, Venesuela all went that route. Somehow it don't click in their heads that they are trying for same.

I feel we should:
1) change how we calculate tax bills
2) make changes that maintain tax bill stability, but make tax bills more fair by making people carry their own weight instead of making others pay for them

#1
I don't think property tax should be a % of the market value. Rising housing costs don't change municipal costs very much, although they do a bit as the local cost of living influences the cost of labor.

IMO Property tax should be mostly fixed and grow to reflect the current cost of service, maybe with some ala carte aspects like paying proportionally extra for services your household uses etc... I still like the idea of having a cap on how much a tax bill can spike in a single year, because price stability is important. But, the cap should not be set so low that tax bills fall behind costs in the long run.

#2
I do personally think that there should be some special provisions that help keep families/people together. The "elderly on fixed income" getting price shocked out of their home is real and IMO something we can work around. Social connections, such as family and friends, are so important to people such that I think it's worth some small degree of free-market distortion to help foster it.

I think this "something that helps keep people together" almost necessitates policies which bias to make it easier to stay in an area once you're there. I don't think such policies necessarily need to collect less tax to accomplish this. For example, an elderly person who cant keep up with the rising cost of taxes could instead be granted a partially deferred tax bill via a lien on their home, and when they die, the house can be sold to square up. Or, the family can inherit the house and keep it, and just pay the tax bill. By "partially deferred", I mean we should decide on a max-yearly-increase level, say 2%, and if one year the bill rose 3%, then they pay the 2%-increased bill that year, and the remainder of the increase can be paid via the lien.

Children who inherit a home is a similar situation, but one that I'm somewhat less sympathetic with. I don't like the idea making them immediately pay the full outstanding tax bill, but I think maybe a home inheritance should trigger a transition period, where the amount of tax they need to pay progressively increases, allowing them ample time to make strategic moves to adjust their financial situation to either pay the tax and keep the sentimental home, or sell. The tax lien strategy could continue to be employed in this situation. Like, maybe make the accommodation period last until they're 30 or something, allowing a child a low pressure period where they can focus on establishing a career.

These are just rough ideas. Again, personally I'm in favor of price stability, but I don't like the idea of making people pay the bill for others.

Fortwaynemobile says

Left operates on jealousy.

@Fortwaynemobile I think you are right about that. Communism was motivated more by jealousy than by unfairness.

SJW intolerance is also motivated by jealousy:

* women are jealous of men
* ugly women are jealous of beautiful women
* minorities are jealous of white people

Jealousy is another extremely old story:

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.
4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?
7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Hircus says

I feel we should:
1) change how we calculate tax bills
2) make changes that maintain tax bill stability, but make tax bills more fair by making people carry their own weight instead of making others pay for them

That's my thinking as well, but your numbers might be a little off.

For the record, I don't want anybody to pay any taxes for anything. However, in the real world, there is some amount of tax revenue that needs to be raised, so let's figure out how to raise it more "fairly" if possible. Also, of course, the biggest change I'd like to see is that government is made much more efficient and much smaller — resulting in far lower tax revenue requirements.

I also think it's "more fair," if people's taxes (from whatever source) are proportional to the government services that they use. So, for example, using property taxes to pay for LOCAL roads, fire department, LOCAL police, library, etc. sounds like a reasonable use of property taxes. To that extent, why should one house have property taxes of $1300 per year while the house right next door and of identical quality is taxed at $22,000 per year while receiving the exact same local services? Taxes in general are inequitable, but that just takes the cake.

I'd also be totally up for income taxes being a flat tax.

Hircus says

max-yearly-increase level, say 2%

A steady assessed increase of 2% is exactly what Prop 13 does. Unfortunately, when Prop 13 happened, assessments were rolled back by a couple years and then the 2% increases started. This was also during the late 1970s, so inflation was double-digits. We were also already completely off the gold standard and so even "low" inflation years were way higher than 2%. For an example using an inflation calculator, a house costing $45k in 1975 should now be worth $211k in 2018 just according to inflation. However, with 2% increases, the Prop 13 house value is only $105k. Meanwhile, someone buying that house now in my neighborhood would be paying taxes based on a $2M purchase price. When Prop 13 went into effect, the inflation rate was north of 10%, so setting a 2% increase cap was rediculous.

I'd suggest that the total amount collected state-wide under the current system should be noted. We'll call that the "target collection amount." Then, each year that target is increased by a cost of living inflator (or some such amount). That might be somewhere between 1% and 4% depending on how inflation is running. Then, each house is assessed at "fair market value" and the sum of all assessed values is used to calculate the single tax rate each person pays so that the total hits the target.

So, if house prices double overall in the state then the rate everyone pays is cut in half so that the target is met. Put another way: if everyone's assessment doubled, then everyone would pay ... no more than the did before the doubling. The state would see steady and predictable tax revenues keeping up with inflation; homeowners would see somewhat steady and predictable taxes in keeping with inflation. The only "flaw" would be if only a tiny part of the state saw a housing price boom; those people would have higher assessed values but the overall tax rate wouldn't come down so much (assuming only a small number of people were affected by the boom). However, the general trend in California is that housing prices go up and down all over and all together.

An obvious solution (which you mentioned) to "keeping granny in her home" is to allow any tax increases over the very tiny Prop 13 amount to be put as a lien on the house until granny dies. The people who would see a large increase if Prop 13 ended are also the exact same people whose house prices have massively increased — so they have plenty of spare equity.
Let's see how this works for Granny in my neighborhood:
• Bought house in the 1970s
• Prop 13 happened and house was given an assessment of $45k in 1975
• With Prop 13 house assessed at $105k now (in 2018), so taxes of about $1300

With change so that every house is assessed to market value but tax rate is reduced to hit target rate:
• House is reassessed at $2M
• Instead of property tax rate of 1%, the rate for EVERYONE is set to 0.6% (this figure taken from another poster on this thread a few days ago). That would collect — state wide — the same amount of revenue
• Granny's yearly property tax is now 0.6 x $2M = $12,000
• Granny pays her usual $1300 and the county puts a lien on her house of 12,000 - 1,300 = $10,700.
• Granny goes on this way year after year after year. She lives for 40 more years and dies at age 105.

Does Granny lose her house while living it it? Let's see... 40 years $10,700 per year is $428,000 in back taxes. But the ONLY reason her taxes are "so high" is that her house is worth $2M. Even if she never paid off a single penny of principal on her house, her finances look like this: $45k initial mortgage + $500k "ATM" style cash outs + $428k in back taxes gives less than $1M of lien. She still has $1M equity.

Another thing to note is that there is no need for a sudden shock if switch away from Prop 13. It could be gradually phased out over 10 years. During that period of time, under-assessed houses would be gradually assessed each year such that over 10 years they would finally get back to properly-assessed value.

Why not look at cutting pensions? Hiring contractors for municipal work?? That should solve your money problem.

Where I live village managers make 250k a year-LOL -give us money/taxes for the children-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It never stops-it is like afire-the more fuel you give, the more it burns and get out of control before burning the whole thing down.

Sunnyvale94087 says

Hircus says

I feel we should:
1) change how we calculate tax bills
2) make changes that maintain tax bill stability, but make tax bills more fair by making people carry their own weight instead of making others pay for them

That's kind of what prop 13 did. Taxes were going through the roof because government unions were giving themselves pension raises left and right. It's easy, everyone in government gets the same CALPERS system, so everyone in decision making gets to benefit from rising taxes. The system was very bad. Prop 13 as tax revolt put a cap on it at least.

Because government didn't need taxes from real estate, they just wanted it to give themselves raises. While working people were losing housing, and could no longer afford basic necessities in order to pay taxes. It's one thing paying taxes, it's another to be burdened into poverty in order to make government live in the lap of luxury.

I'm all for cutting government, private sector can do a lot of this much more efficient and with much better accountability. I think they should even completely remove taxes on 65+ old primary residence folk, and they should lower taxes on current buyers to a neighborhood average. That won't be easy to pass, unions though will go up in arms about it.

Sunnyvale94087 says

I also think it's "more fair," if people's taxes (from whatever source) are proportional to the government services that they use.

Yup, which is why I said we should demphasize the "% of market value" when calculating property taxes and focus on people paying a slice of the cost of the services they get. Like you, I think locality matters.

I generally like people to pay for what they actually use (ala carte). When you socialize a cost, and make everyone pay a fixed rate and then receive the service/resource in unlimited amounts, there is no individual incentive to be frugal with it. However, sometimes it's the only practical way to charge.


lostand confused says

Why not look at cutting pensions? Hiring contractors for municipal work?? That should solve your money problem.

Those sound like really good ideas. But I think they're distinct issues, and aren't much related to how we should administer property taxes. Property taxation methods should be fixed/improved because they can be, and so should be, not because we have a money problem. I think any and all improvements we can do, should be done.


FortWayneIndiana says

That's kind of what prop 13 did.

Ya, and I think it was a good move. But, I also think prop 13 is starting to show it's age, as it hasn't grown with us quite right. I think in the near future we'll likely revisit our property taxation methods and make some tweaks.

I like your smaller govt + more privatization idea, but I can't say I agree with your idea that age 65+ should be allowed to skip all taxes on their primary residence. As I've said before, I do like tax bill stability, especially for old people. But, I think they can pay their taxes no problem at all via the equity in their home via a lien, if needed. Implementing your suggestion necessitates that we raise taxes on young people, so that enough money could be set aside to allow old people to skip their tax bill. But IMO this isn't a great strategy because the amount of money a given person pays into the system could be wayyy out of proportion to what they later get out of it, and clearly over or under paying isn't ideal. The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

People are frugal and efficient with their own money. People are wasteful with other people's money.

Hircus says

But, I think they can pay their taxes no problem at all via the equity in their home via a lien

People shouldn't go into debt just to pay taxes. Sorry we won't agree on this one. Government is a problem if that's what happens, and we don't need this government than. 65+ should be tax free, kicking old people onto the street is something our values and our culture stands against. We long ago committed ourselves to a stable society that promotes dignity and stability. We just have not observed those values lately with all the liberalisms going on around CA.

lostand confused says

Why not look at cutting pensions? Hiring contractors for municipal work?? That should solve your money problem.

Yes! We should do that. But even if, by some miracle, government were trimmed, Prop 13 would still be a tax loophole for millionaires. My proposal specifically stipulates that total property tax collected rise at inflation rate — I'm not giving wasteful government any more money in real terms.

Sunnyvale94087 says

My proposal specifically stipulates that total property tax collected rise at inflation rate — I'm not giving wasteful government any more money in real terms.

Even at current rates,govt find s away to pay their minions in pensions. I used to live in Alameda county-a clerk or whatever her title was retired with a 600k a year pension.

FortWayneIndiana says

Because government didn't need taxes from real estate, they just wanted it to give themselves raises.

Say so the same for the sales tax and income tax otherwise you are a prop 13 mega leach wanted to live on tax money collected (by the government that you hate) from slave neighbors to maintain your M++ $ life style.
If you genuinely believe in government waste. Talk about tax cuts in all forms, not just property tax alone.

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

in IL home of some of the highest property taxes in the nation-the governor ran and won on raising taxes and got a dem supermajority. I think this country is doomed.

lostand confused says

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

in IL home of some of the highest property taxes in the nation-the governor ran and won on raising taxes and got a dem supermajority. I think this country is doomed.

Or maybe they think this is the price to eject the middle class and have only rich and slave labor.

lostand confused says

CA is doomed. Liberals actually voted to keep the gas taxes and are now fighting to raise property taxes.

I voted for prop 6 (I think it was the only spending increase that I voted for). I didn't research it extensively, but my impression was that it collected tax revenue via gas and vehicle registration fees, and that the bulk of the money was actually spent on road repair/maintenance.

To me, this seemed like a great way to go. Like I've said many times in this thread, I think people should pay for what they personally use, in proportion to how much they use. People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less. Gas seems like the perfect way to make people pay for the cost of roads and other auto related services because by taxing gas directly on a per gallon basis, the people who drive the most, pay the most (because the more you drive the more gas you buy).

So, I don't know if the money is spent properly, but at least in regard to the tax collection strategy - I think it's near ideal.

Why do you feel prop 6 was bad?

Hircus says

People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less

They are already paying gas taxes. Some of this money is going to bart-whose janitors make 200k with pensions. Why not jettison BART's unions and use that money to run it profitably.
I live din CA and paid some real high gas taxes-how much si enough before liberals wake up and say enough?

I say same thing for all taxes.

So you barking up a wrong tree.

Blue says

FortWayneIndiana says

Because government didn't need taxes from real estate, they just wanted it to give themselves raises.

Say so the same for the sales tax and income tax otherwise you are a prop 13 mega leach wanted to live on tax money collected (by the government that you hate) from slave neighbors to maintain your M++ $ life style.
If you genuinely believe in government waste. Talk about tax cuts in all forms, not just property tax alone.

Hircus says

People who drive a lot should pay a larger share of the costs of providing roads and related services than those who drive less.

Prop 13 distorted housing market. Home owners fight blindly against new buildings and force new people to far and far away for shelter. Now driving long comes with additional penalty. I think 85% gas tax goes to train network.

Blue says

Home owners fight blindly against new buildings

That's a false generalization.

Hircus says

The world just makes so much more sense when the person pays for what they personally use.

That would be too fair. How are long-time homeowners supposed to get more county services for less if new homeowners aren't getting bent over a barrel?