« prev   random   next »

4
0

if prop 13 was gone

By Hircus following x   2018 Nov 8, 9:06am 869 views   74 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


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 74    Next »    Last »

1   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 8, 10:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 8, 10:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 10:29am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 11:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 8, 11:58am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The guv would just squander the money and be back for more in a year or two.
6   DASKAA   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 8, 12:07pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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   MegaForce   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 12:11pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.


The US Constitution has this part in it called the Uniformity Clause. But SCOTUS gutted it and won't enforce it any time soon.

If it had, then the US income tax would be a flat tax as would state income and property taxes, in all probability.
8   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 8, 2:09pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
9   mell   ignore (2)   2018 Nov 8, 2:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
10   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 3:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
11   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 3:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
12   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 3:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
13   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 8, 4:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
14   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Nov 8, 5:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
15   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 6:24pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
16   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 8, 6:33pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Until it comes to where you live also.

Look what the mouth breathers from CA who moved to Nevada just did.
17   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 7:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
18   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 7:25pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
19   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 8, 7:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
20   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 7:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

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.
21   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 8, 7:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
22   Hircus   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 14, 6:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
23   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 14, 9:19pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
24   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 14, 9:57pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
25   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 14, 9:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
26   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 14, 10:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
27   DASKAA   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 14, 10:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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!
28   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 14, 10:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
29   DASKAA   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 14, 10:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
30   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 14, 10:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
31   just_dregalicious   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 14, 10:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
32   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 14, 11:53pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?
33   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 15, 7:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
34   APHAman   ignore (8)   2018 Nov 15, 7:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

FortWayneIndiana says
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 ...


Why do Virtue Signalling right wingers always want big government to come in and interfere with The Market?
35   DASKAA   ignore (3)   2018 Nov 15, 7:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
36   MegaForce   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 15, 12:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
That is, raising real estate taxes has no effect on house prices?....This means that all those Joe Howmuchamonths would have $50k less to put in the house, which would drive down prices.


No. Not in Ca so much. As is also the case in Wyoming (also has low property taxes), I believe.

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. And 'construction done' has gone through the courts with all kinds of legal determinations to decide what constitutes 'construction done, too. In most cases, if you keep a certain amount of load bearing walls from the old construction used in the new, it is not considered 'new' but a 'remodel'.

'Until all time' actually happens when corporate entities own the property. So, instead of buying/selling properties, REITS and landlords buy and sell LLCs and Type S/C corps that own the properties in question. Thus the actual property never changes hands and the old Prop 13 assessment from decades ago still applies. Not to mention that corporate entities are easier/quicker to buy/sell and don't involve CAR or CAR-serving Realtor state regs/procedures, which makes the transaction cheaper overall despite the involvement of contract lawyers.

AND, if property values in your neighborhood should drop, you can get the county to reassess your house at a lower current market value, which Prop 13 will apply to that. But if your houses' market value then rises later, it can't be reassessed. That was an amendment to Prop 13, I think.

Some of my friends who moved to places like New Jersey had the shock of their lives when they had to pay higher property taxes and the State or local governments via a simple legislative act could a) raise their existing rate and b) reassess the value of the property. The idea was totally foreign to them. And most states make downward property value assessments such a complete hassle it rarely happens, unlike in CA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)#Sales_disincentives,_higher_housing_costs
37   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 15, 12:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
38   PrivilegedtobeWhite   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 15, 12:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?
39   Eric Holder   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 15, 12:42pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
40   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (34)   2018 Nov 15, 6:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Geezers would be machine gunning city halls.

Comments 1 - 40 of 74    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions