patrick.net

As orbitron says, this is very simple. The home is inexpensive, it's the land that cost so much, as least here in coastal California. Just look at your homeowners insurance policy and they are only insuring the dwelling, not the land. Only the building burns down or blows away in most instances. Homeowners insurance is very cheap in my opinion and that's why, the are not insuring the ground underneath your house. You might have a million dollar property, but the replacement cost for the insurance company is a fraction of that.

EconPete, you have clearly never been to Europe.

The house cannot be worth $23,000 in bay area because a luxury apartment nowadays (2 bedroom) can easily cost more than that to rent in 1 year. The pricing of the landlords as well as the purchase/paying power of the local population determines buy/rent ratios with regional variations of course.

lurking says

As orbitron says, this is very simple. The home is inexpensive, it's the land that cost so much, as least here in coastal California. Just look at your homeowners insurance policy and they are only insuring the dwelling, not the land. Only the building burns down or blows away in most instances. Homeowners insurance is very cheap in my opinion and that's why, the are not insuring the ground underneath your house. You might have a million dollar property, but the replacement cost for the insurance company is a fraction of that.

What you didn't say is that you never even "Own" the property/land that the house sits on. Try not paying property tax for a year or so. See who actually owns the land. You are renting that spot of land from the government, even after you think you have "paid" for it through the mortgage or cash that has exchanged hands from one "owner" to the next.

Who is the nitwit? ForcedTQ doesn't "own" mulitiple highly taxed, devaluing assets.

EconPete says

Who is the nitwit? ForcedTQ doesn't "own" mulitiple highly taxed, devaluing assets.

I don't feel that my properties are "highly taxed" by the CA counties, they are not devaluing, and they are paid for cash cows so I don't buy your silly argument. Hint: I may write the checks, but the tenants are paying by virutue of pass through.....you probably couldn't have figured that out on your own.

Price of house = Price of land + Cost of building & structure less depreciation + cost of home improvements made from time to time less depreciation

Is the land price that is appreciating. In fact, land is more than 80% of the house in SV. You can acquire an old badly maintained house for nearly the price of the land.

Quote from lurking
"I don't feel that my properties are "highly taxed" by the CA counties, they are not devaluing"

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-home-value/r_9/#metric=mt%3D34%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D4%26r%3D9%252C3101%252C1286%252C2841%26el%3D0

Let me guess, all your homes are in Mono County which is the only county that didn't depreciate in value Y-o-Y. ha-ha
Sure looks like a lot of red to me buddy!

Gold, bonds, and stocks all have a zero annual tax rate, other than inflation which is a moot point because real estate is also subject to this tax. Real estate unfortunately is a taxed asset. Therefore relative to other actual investments your assets are taxed heavily.

EconPete says

Let me guess, all your homes, lurking, are in Mono county

Ah, no, you guessed wrong, as usual. I can't say as if I have ever been to Mono County. When I go to the mountains I prefer Placer, El Dorado, and Shasta counties, but I don't own anything there either. It's all coastal CA metro rentals for me. That's where the money is in my opinion. If you read any of my posts you'd already know that.

lurking says

Yeah, yaah, this is a tired argument. I have no mortgage on most of my properties and I pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year and will continue to, and to the surprise of many, I don't mind paying them. I guess I won't have to try your approach and not pay the taxes to see what happens. I'm smarter than that and know what will happen. You are a nitwit.

Nitwit? You are showing your true colors here. The argument is not tired, and in fact, has not been talked about enough. If more potential home buyers/owners/mortgage holders and rental tenants alike actually thought about this for a minute and really understood the gravity of the property tax system, they would have ammunition to use. Research back to the begining of the property tax in California and see why it was started, what it was funding and how it has evolved. You don't mind paying them after all that research? REALLY? Prop 13 has protected you well it would seem.

Rent Seeking is your game. I will assume your rentals were purchased a while ago, at or below the going rates current for that time. That was your starting point for property taxation. I would also assume that, as rent prices fluctuate upwards, you have continued to raise your rates to stay "competitive." Correct on my assumptions? Well, if so, then your "profit" from said rentals has continued to escalate, all the while your exposure to increased taxation is limited to a 2% increase per year courtesy of Prop 13. So you pass those limited increases on to your tenants for sure as you said, while increasing the profit you see courtesy of limited taxation.

Sure you don't mind paying capped taxes. Rent-Seeking without regard is fun, huh?

My approach, not paying them? Never said I did that, that was an example meant to show you WHO actually owned that property. Most people don't actually think about that. You get it yet?

EconPete says

So, when the average home in 1950 was $7,354 and inflation adjusted is $70,000, why are people paying between $60,000 - 180,000 for these homes? The 1st and 2nd owners of the home built in 1950 didn't absorb any of the depreciation! Maybe homes are not subject to the laws of thermo dynamics (ha-ha). More probably, the 3rd and 4th owners will be t
he lucky ones to assume the full depreciation of the home.

Marketing, loan terms that make it easier for people to spend more money, and a larger labor pool that includes women. 1950 is about where we got the modern 30 year mortgage.

In the 1920s banks were making 2-3 year loans and life insurance companies 6-8 years. By 1940 the numbers had increased to 10 and 13 years respectively. By 1950 the average mortgage length was 15 years.

In the 1920s banks were making loans at 50% loan to value ratios and the life insurance companies somewhat lower. After WWII they'd reached 70% and S&Ls would write loans for 75% of property values.

ForcedTQ says

What you didn't say is that you never even "Own" the property/land that the house sits on. Try not paying property tax for a year or so. See who actually owns the land. You are renting that spot of land from the government, even after you think you have "paid" for it through the mortgage or cash that has exchanged hands from one "owner" to the next.

You own the land. Who gets the money when you sell the house? If you weren't charged property tax, then the needed revenue would come from some other tax. Seriously, to say that homeowners don't own their land (after paying off the mortgage) is just a facetious remark.

Bigsby says

If you weren't charged property tax, then the needed revenue would come from some other tax.

The "Needed" revenue is debatable, and probably should come from another defined source that is not dependent upon someone's ability to pay that is eroded by the "ownership" of an asset that has a value which is ever increasing due to the value of the currency which it is valued in ever decreasing.

If one truly "Owned" something, a "Tax/Fee/Assessment/Charge" which is left unpaid would not preclude the continuance of ownership by said individual.

To "own" land "fee and clear" and live on it is to be an occupant of that land that you have paid a sum (or inherited) to transfer certificate of title to the previous occupant of said land.

I don't see how your argument of "Property Taxes are a necessary revenue source" changes who actually has control of "your" property.

Lol, they depreciate after you sign your buyers contract.

orbitron says

It's called "land value" plus the value of the house given its current condition.

This isn't rocket science.

If it was really "land value" than the price of new construction should be low if you own your own lot. It isn't.

Land appreciation alone does not explain the long-term increase in prices.

Part of the difference between 1950s and 2010s housing cost for new construction is that we build bigger and better houses today than the crapholes built in the 1950s. Of course, profit margins are also higher.

Only CA has expensive land.

Everywhere else, people just build outside of downtown.

Dan8267 says

Part of the difference between 1950s and 2010s housing cost for new construction is that we build bigger and better houses today than the crapholes built in the 1950s. Of course, profit margins are also higher.

xenogear3 says

Only CA has expensive land.

CA desert you can buy for pennies.
New construction cost depends a lot from local labor costs and local permit requirements. Materials cost same everywhere.
Bigger house is actually cheaper per SqFt.
Crapholes are built today as well.