4
0

if prop 13 was gone


 invite response                
2018 Nov 8, 9:06am   14,522 views  111 comments

by Hircus   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

if prop 13 was killed ...what would the new typical tax rate be in CA? Assume we kept the total amount of tax revenue the same.

Right now, you have this huge dichotomy in taxes - someone pays 2k per yr, while their neighbor pays 16k for a comparable house.

I think right now we pay about 1% of the assessed value in CA unless there's special junk like melo roos or w/e they're called. But, 1% would be way too much if everyone were paying it and the assessed value was updated yearly without any yearly growth caps.

Comments 1 - 40 of 111       Last »     Search these comments

1   HeadSet   2018 Nov 8, 10:02am  

Interesting. Do real estate taxes have pretty much a vertical demand curve in California? That is, raising real estate taxes has no effect on house prices?

In most parts of the country, since so many people buy housed based on monthly payment, raising real estate taxes can cause house prices to fall. For example, consider the $500k home loan at 3.5%. The monthly payment would be about $2,245/mo. If the tax were $500/mo then the total would be about $2,745. But if the taxes were to increase to $750/ mo, the loan amount would need to decrease to around $450k to keep the same $2,745 payment. This means that all those Joe Howmuchamonths would have $50k less to put in the house, which would drive down prices.
2   Ceffer   2018 Nov 8, 10:08am  

That would incentivize the depraved State to keep real estate prices high, so that no home cost less than the annual GDP of Sweden.

Real Estate agents would be lurching, slobbering, pelvis grinding and rubbing themselves in the groin with glee.
3   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2018 Nov 8, 10:29am  

Hircus says
Right now, you have this huge dichotomy in taxes - someone pays 2k per yr, while their neighbor pays 16k for a comparable house.


Repealing prop 13 would just raise taxes, but not lower it for others. Solution would be to either build up more houses (preferably), or cap property taxes simply. Because at old age people should pay less. I would even support 65+ to pay no property taxes at all for owner occupied primary residence.

Problem is that CA lacks housing, so inflation is high. Building more houses would solve this problem, or kick out a whole lot of people (especially illegals w/ children that left brings in like magnet). Or even capping property taxes to neighborhood average would do the trick in fixing it, whichever is lower.

Prop 13 repeal would cause chaos and anarchy, a lot of middle class people who live in houses would lose them instantly. People are already overextended. Government inflation and speculation shouldn't cause people to pay higher taxes or worse lose housing. It would be massive gentrification where only wealthy elite would own, everyone else would lose housing. And no one ever loses house without going postal. Hell, I pledge to go postal if government makes me lose housing with increased taxes.
4   SunnyvaleCA   2018 Nov 8, 11:55am  

FortWayneIndiana says
Repealing prop 13 would just raise taxes, but not lower it for others.

The original poster posited that the law was changed to tax each property on "fair market value" but to change the tax rate down from 1% so that the same total property tax in all of CA has a whole stayed the same. If some people's taxes go up, it's mathematically certain that some people's taxes go down — that would be required if the total property tax collected as a whole stayed the same.
5   Ceffer   2018 Nov 8, 11:58am  

The guv would just squander the money and be back for more in a year or two.
6   RWSGFY   2018 Nov 8, 12:07pm  

Ceffer says
The guv would just squander the money and be back for more in a year or two.


This is basically what happened with the gas taxes.
7   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2018 Nov 8, 2:09pm  

100% certainty of a partial repeal of prop 13 on the ballot in the next four years. The mouth breathers that vote in this state are ready for this crap, so it shall be.
8   mell   2018 Nov 8, 2:59pm  

CovfefeButDeadly says
100% certainty of a partial repeal of prop 13 on the ballot in the next four years. The mouth breathers that vote in this state are ready for this crap, so it shall be.


They should repeal it but only under the condition of proportionally lowering and then fixing the property tax for many years.
9   Shaman   2018 Nov 8, 3:19pm  

FortWayneIndiana says
Repealing prop 13 would just raise taxes, but not lower it for others. Solution would be to either build up more houses (preferably), or cap property taxes simply. Because at old age people should pay less. I would even support 65+ to pay no property taxes at all for owner occupied primary residence.


I support all this, with the modification that seniors pay only 25% normal assessed tax. This would keep grandma in her home. Meanwhile the state does lose billions and billions in real estate taxes on large corporations and wealthy land owners because of Prop 13.
I don’t see a repeal bringing down overall real estate taxes. However perhaps we could lower other sales taxes or gas taxes or other such “regressive” taxes.
10   SunnyvaleCA   2018 Nov 8, 3:26pm  

Quigley says
seniors pay only 25% normal assessed tax. This would keep grandma in her home

The end of Prop 13 would hit people proportionally to how rich they actually are. Are you proposing that a person whose house was previously assessed at $100k but is now assessed at $2M can't pay $20k a year in taxes? Or — according to the original post — probably something like $10k a year in taxes? (Hint: this person has has a multi-million dollar asset windfall!)

I believe that in Santa Clara County old people are allowed to skip paying their property tax entirely. The county just puts a lien on their house and promises to not collect on it until the original owner dies. So there is no way granny would ever be kicked out. The total net result is that after retiring and living rent-free (and effectively tax-free) for 30 more years granny can "only" bequeath $1.7M to grandkids instead of $2M. Pardon me, but I'm not feeling sorry for granny or the grandkids.
11   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2018 Nov 8, 3:52pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
Quigley says
seniors pay only 25% normal assessed tax. This would keep grandma in her home

The end of Prop 13 would hit people proportionally to how rich they actually are. Are you proposing that a person whose house was previously assessed at $100k but is now assessed at $2M can't pay $20k a year in taxes? Or — according to the original post — probably something like $10k a year in taxes? (Hint: this person has has a multi-million dollar asset windfall!)

I believe that in Santa Clara County old people are allowed to skip paying their property tax entirely. The county just puts a lien on their house and promises to not collect on it until the original owner dies. So there is no way granny would ever be kicked out. The total net result is that after retiring and living rent-free (and effectively tax-free) for 30 more years granny can "only" bequeath $1.7M to grandkids instead of $2...


If you don't pay your taxes for a few years, your home gets sold at an auction. Grandma living in a house that she bought long ago, can't afford 20k in taxes. her social security barely pays $1100/month. Now take out $300 for medicare. And she probably has to at least eat something and have some basic utilities.

This anti prop 13 stuff is just pure jealousy. Hey look grandma isn't paying what I'm paying. Well, go back in time, and pay what she paid into the system over years while earning what she earned over years before inflation. But no, they just want to fuck grandma over, because poor people and old people need to die off so that wealthy liberals can feel that "equality" has been achieved.
12   Ceffer   2018 Nov 8, 4:00pm  

There are a lot of rich descendants who don't pay, either, because Mom's home still has it's Prop. 13 advantage after she's croaked. Santa Cruz has tons of weed strewn legacy properties, that the families keep because they are next to free to hold onto.
13   Heraclitusstudent   2018 Nov 8, 5:39pm  

FortWayneIndiana says
Grandma living in a house that she bought long ago, can't afford 20k in taxes.

If she has to pay $20K in taxes, it means she is a millionaire.
She can sell the house and buy a smaller apartment, or go leave a little bit farther out.
She is the winner either way. People buying now are taking the hit.
14   WookieMan   2018 Nov 8, 6:24pm  

FortWayneIndiana says
Grandma living in a house that she bought long ago, can't afford 20k in taxes. her social security barely pays $1100/month. Now take out $300 for medicare. And she probably has to at least eat something and have some basic utilities.


Why is it other peoples problems to carry Granny on their backs because she didn't save enough throughout her lifetime? If you're solely relying on social security at that age, you're a simple retard. Pump the taxes, force her to sell her house and she can live within her measly means off the house gains in Nebraska paying $200/mo in insurance and taxes.

No one HAS to live in CA. If you can't afford it, get the fuck out. Too much whining going on now from all demographics. Jesus. Everyone needs to grow a pair.
15   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2018 Nov 8, 6:33pm  

Until it comes to where you live also.

Look what the mouth breathers from CA who moved to Nevada just did.
16   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2018 Nov 8, 7:17pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
FortWayneIndiana says
Grandma living in a house that she bought long ago, can't afford 20k in taxes.

If she has to pay $20K in taxes, it means she is a millionaire.
She can sell the house and buy a smaller apartment, or go leave a little bit farther out.
She is the winner either way. People buying now are taking the hit.


Forcing someone to move out of their house because of tax inflation isn't a goal of society. That's too much instability, and no one who will ever get old will want that for them. Prop 13 simply works, leave it alone. Government tax inflation should be addressed, without trying to punish those who are not affected by it yet.

WookieMan says
Why is it other peoples problems to carry Granny on their backs because she didn't save enough throughout her lifetime


Your poor financial choices of buying things you can't afford, are not granny's fault. Clearly granny isn't your enemy, the problem is out of control government spending and inflation that is brought on by government. Focus on that instead.
17   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2018 Nov 8, 7:25pm  

If prop 13 is gone, you are all going to be fucked beyond belief, just like pre prop 13 days. Young fools never seen it, willing to repeat that costly mistake.
18   Strategist   2018 Nov 8, 7:32pm  

Hircus says
if prop 13 was killed ...what would the new typical tax rate be in CA? Assume we kept the total amount of tax revenue the same.


Very interesting question. If you hold the tax revenue constant, my guess, it would lower the tax rate by 20%. The tax rate would then be inversely proportional to home prices as they increase or decrease.
In reality, the tax rate would be the full 1% or even more for everyone because we have politicians who want more more more more and more. Fuck them.
19   WookieMan   2018 Nov 8, 7:51pm  

FortWayneIndiana says
Your poor financial choices of buying things you can't afford, are not granny's fault.


What are you talking about? You just said Granny is pulling in $1,100/Mo in social security. Sounds like Granny made some poor financial choices with her bare bones property taxes on a $1M+ shack.

FortWayneIndiana says
Clearly granny isn't your enemy, the problem is out of control government spending and inflation that is brought on by government. Focus on that instead.


Of course, focus on out of control government spending. So let's tax the productive people at 13% on the state level and then rip them a new one on property taxes when they buy a home when they're 30. This makes all the sense in the world to have people spending every dollar on income taxes and property taxes, all because Granny is a dipshit and solely relied on SS income. Fact is, Granny likely was the one that fucking voted for the policies allowing her to be a socialist bitch. She's part of the reason real estate prices are so damn high out there (again just part of the reason).

I'll take care of my folks and in laws if and when it comes time. I didn't realize that it was cool to be 65 plus and be a deadbeat and expect everyone else in society to take care of you. Grow up. Should have saved more if you can't afford where you live. If you can't afford it, move.
20   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2018 Nov 8, 7:55pm  

WookieMan says
What are you talking about? You just said Granny is pulling in $1,100/Mo in social security. Sounds like Granny made some poor financial choices with her bare bones property taxes on a $1M+ shack.


It's not grannys fault you are willing to pay 1M for a property she bought for a lot less.

WookieMan says
So let's tax the productive people at 13% on the state level and then rip them a new one on property taxes when they buy a home when they're 30


Increasing taxes on granny isn't going to lower your taxes. Your problem here is first misplaced jealousy. Instead you should be upset at the state of CA taxing so damn much. CA taxes are too high, welcome to the liberal socialist equality paradise state. Stop voting for all the hand outs, government, spending, and you'll get lower taxes.

One thing liberals seem to never learn. Government doesn't need all the money it takes in, it always just finds a need for all the money it gets.
21   Hircus   2018 Nov 14, 6:56pm  

So, I took a lame crack at estimating the "new tax rate". It's pretty bad quality, but maybe someone finds it useful.

Data:

1) This article discussed repealing prop 13 for commercial property:
"Proponents estimate that altering this part of Prop. 13 would provide $11.4 billion annually for state and local governments"
https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2018/08/19/prop-13-could-be-partly-undone-in-2020-heres-what-you-should-know/

So, commercial property currently saves about $11.4 billion via prop 13.

2) Other sources mentioned that for 2017-2018, CA total taxable property is about $5.75 trillion.
That's the currently assessed value, not market value, and it includes commercial property. That yields about $65 billion in tax revenue right now.
Here's 1 source:
https://calmatters.org/articles/despite-proposition-13-california-property-tax-revenue-soared/

3) This next 2012 source states the following for the 2011-2012 tax year:
Owner–Occupied Residential - $1.6 trillion total assessed value (39%)
Investment and Vacation Residential - $1.4 trillion total assessed value (34%)
Commercial - $1.2 trillion total assessed value (28%)
Total tax revenue for properties taxed at "the 1% rate category" $43.2 billion
Total tax revenue, including churches, hospitals, and other stuff that doesnt pay the 1% tax rate - $55 billion
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.aspx


Calculations:
If we assume commercial property benefits from prop 13 an equal amount as the residential and investment categories, then the following math gets us in the ballpark. This assumption is kinda weak though, as the 2012 article mentioned commercial property benefits somewhat more.

In 2012 the commercial category accounted for 28% of total CA assessed value, and I will assume the same % for 2018. So, that's about 1/3. The first article said commercial RE saves $11.4 billion, so since CRE makes up 1/3 of total assessed value, we will assume the other 2/3 of CA RE will save equally well, so $11 billion * 3 = $33 billion.
So, prop 13 causes about $33 billion in tax discounts right now. CA property tax revenue is currently $65 billion, so w/o prop 13 it would jump to $98.
But, we don't need $98, we only need $65. 65 / 98 = 66%

So, w/o prop 13, instead of paying a current 1% property tax rate, we could use 0.66% and maintain the same tax revenue.

I want to emphasize this math is very rough, and I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was in the range of 0.4%-0.9%. I made many assumptions and rounded to convenient numbers. In particular, the 3rd article revealed many complexities that I just glossed over.
22   lostand confused   2018 Nov 14, 9:19pm  

WookieMan says
So let's tax the productive people at 13% on the state level and then rip them a new one on property taxes when they buy a home when they're 30. This makes all the sense in the w


You honestly think that is the case. Any ne wbuyer only pays 1% in property taxes, more if Mello Roos or whatever it is called.

In Il some people pay 3-5% based on actual value of house -not assessed value. Then on top of that they stillw ant to increase taxes-not withstanding the 30% or so tax hike just a few years ago.

You think dems will ever stop taxing everybody. You think if they get rid of prop 13, there won't be countless new social programs -their governorelect already called for giving free healthcare or some such garbage to all including illegals.
23   Patrick   2018 Nov 14, 9:57pm  

Georgism is the solution.

The land should be taxed, but the house should not.

No one made land. Taxing land does not discourage "production of land".
Someone made the house, a useful thing. Taxing productive work does discourage productive work.
24   Strategist   2018 Nov 14, 9:57pm  

Hircus says
So, w/o prop 13, instead of paying a current 1% property tax rate, we could use 0.66% and maintain the same tax revenue.


Interesting. I believe that is very fair, but would only result in higher taxes down the road to pay for public employee pensions. No thanks.
25   anonymous   2018 Nov 14, 10:07pm  

Prop 13 is completely unfair, but so is assessing property tax based on the value of the land. Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land. Then, it's fairly assessed and you don't have older generations pathetically subsidized by younger generations.
26   RWSGFY   2018 Nov 14, 10:18pm  

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.


Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
27   anonymous   2018 Nov 14, 10:20pm  

DASKAA says
PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.


Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
Do you read? TYPE and size. You must be a Prop13-humper.
28   RWSGFY   2018 Nov 14, 10:24pm  

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
DASKAA says
PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.


Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
Do you read? TYPE and size.


OK, change it to "in the small city in the middle of Mojave desert". Better?

Still insist that parcels of the same size and type (residential, commercial) should be taxed the same per sq foot at both locations?

PS. Watch it with the personal attacks: it's not kosher here.
29   anonymous   2018 Nov 14, 10:39pm  

DASKAA says
OK, change it to "in the small city in the middle of Mojave desert". Better?
No

DASKAA says
Still insist that parcels of the same size and type (residential, commercial) should be taxed the same per sq foot at both locations?
Never insisted that about location. Why couldn't location play into it as well? So, type, size and location. Or, the alternative is the pathetic system we have now.
30   just_passing_through   2018 Nov 14, 10:47pm  

WookieMan says
No one HAS to live in CA. If you can't afford it, get the fuck out.


That's what our local politicians say when people complain they won't let us build. That and CA is full.
31   Eric Holder   2018 Nov 14, 11:53pm  

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.


PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Never insisted that about location. Why couldn't location play into it as well? So, type, size and location.


OK, who's going to decide the "fair land tax" based on "type, size" and, now, also a "location"? A committee of friendly ocasio-cortezes?
32   anonymous   2018 Nov 15, 7:03am  

Who decides local taxes today?

I get it. You have a law unfairly favoring you and you don’t want to lose it, but the key word there is “unfair”. It’s easy to forget about people getting screwed when you benefit, so you’ll keep blindly fighting against new ideas to fix it.

The facts are this. Taxes levied today are to pay for expenses of today, not of 20 years ago.
33   RWSGFY   2018 Nov 15, 7:30am  

PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Who decides local taxes today?

I get it. You have a law unfairly favoring you and you don’t want to lose it, but the key word there is “unfair”. It’s easy to forget about people getting screwed when you benefit, so you’ll keep blindly fighting against new ideas to fix it.

The facts are this. Taxes levied today are to pay for expenses of today, not of 20 years ago.


Today the taxes are based on transaction price and rules governing the increase. The rules were set by voters in a tax revolt. But at least we have rules. Going from the system based on rules to the system based on "fairness by fiat" and not anchored even to market price is the road to abyss. This is why your "solution" is not a solution. And it keeps changing from post to post, lol.
34   Eric Holder   2018 Nov 15, 12:19pm  

MegaForce says
In CA, is because the base that the tax is charged against can't change beyond what it was set at at the time of the property's purchase. And the rate is constitutionally capped to 1%. A reassessment of the the property tax payment thus can only be made a) when the property ownership changes or b) there is construction done.

So a house that was bought for $200k would pay 1% at most on that $200k value for all time until it was sold or construction was done.


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.
35   anonymous   2018 Nov 15, 12:26pm  

DASKAA says
PrivilegedtobeWhite says
Who decides local taxes today?

I get it. You have a law unfairly favoring you and you don’t want to lose it, but the key word there is “unfair”. It’s easy to forget about people getting screwed when you benefit, so you’ll keep blindly fighting against new ideas to fix it.

The facts are this. Taxes levied today are to pay for expenses of today, not of 20 years ago.


Today the taxes are based on transaction price and rules governing the increase. The rules were set by voters in a tax revolt. But at least we have rules. Going from the system based on rules to the system based on "fairness by fiat" and not anchored even to market price is the road to abyss.
Huh? No one said we wouldn’t have rules. I’m suggesting we have different rules. Your argument above is convoluted and makes no sense. Why is detaching from market price the “road to the abyss”? lol. Because you say so?
36   Eric Holder   2018 Nov 15, 12:42pm  

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.
37   Strategist   2018 Nov 15, 7:19pm  

Eric Holder says
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

Another reason to go solar.

Eric Holder says
highest gas taxes in the nation

Yet another reason to go solar and EV - electric vehicle.

Eric Holder says
highest per-pupil spending in the nation and schools among the shittiest

Another reason to eliminate unions.

Eric Holder says
shittiest roads

Another reason to eliminate government pensions.

Eric Holder says
highest state income taxes and not much to show for them

Another reason to eliminate welfare queens, government pensions, and democrats.
38   Strategist   2018 Nov 15, 7:24pm  

Patrick says
Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!


@DASKAA Where do you get the idea that those bits of land should be taxed the same?

No one is suggesting that.

Taxes should be proportional to land market values.


DAASKA, how much do you think you can get in taxes from a 1 acre lot worth $1K in the middle of the desert?
39   marcus   2018 Nov 15, 8:53pm  

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.
40   marcus   2018 Nov 15, 8:55pm  

Hircus says
if prop 13 was gone


Housing would be much cheaper in California.

Who would have predicted that people will pay a premium for lower RE taxes.

Comments 1 - 40 of 111       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions