patrick.net

It ain’t rent, it’s investment into my city and state for future generations.

Just didn’t think future generations would be out of touch entitled brats that want everything free.

They want free, start your own city.

Quigley says

FortWayneIndiana says

So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

You’re mistaking the “rent” you pay to the government for the privilege of owning a house under their jurisdiction with some sort of retirement account or investment. You’re a renter to the government. We all are. Sure you paid rent (at vastly unfair low rates) for 30 years but you also got 30 years of home ownership out of the deal. I’ve had mine for two and already paid $19,000 for the taxes. I figure that’s about 10 of your thirty years. In four more I’ll have contributed the same amount as you have.

So there!

Prop 13 is fundamentally unfair in that some people pay much less tax than other people for the exact same government services.

Quigley says

FortWayneIndiana says

So yeah, pay me 30 years worth of taxes that I paid into the system with interest than we'll be paying equally.

You’re mistaking the “rent” you pay to the government for the privilege of owning a house under their jurisdiction with some sort of retirement account or investment. You’re a renter to the government. We all are. Sure you paid rent (at vastly unfair low rates) for 30 years but you also got 30 years of home ownership out of the deal. I’ve had mine for two and already paid $19,000 for the taxes. I figure that’s about 10 of your thirty years. In four more I’ll have contributed the same amount as you have.

So there!

Exactly. Prop 13 has created such inequity. No wonder Prop13-humpers are willing to fight to the death to keep their unfair advantage. Same reason the South fought so fiercely to keep slavery. Tunnel vision to their own selfish desires.

I think unfairness comes from tax free generational transfer.

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes. It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment.

I’d prefer primary residence tax free, all rental props reassessed yearly with higher rate too. This way people can live in houses, and rent seeking is taxed instead.

Patrick says

Prop 13 is fundamentally unfair in that some people pay much less tax than other people for the exact same government services.

HeadSet says

Has anyone ever managed to rip a large govt program to shreds and start over with efficiency?

Germany, Japan, 1945

I was thinking the exact same thing. However, there are plenty of examples where a country's government was overthrown and the resulting new "government" was worse than the previous.

Fortwaynemobile says

I think unfairness comes from tax free generational transfer.

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes. It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment.

I’d prefer primary residence tax free, all rental props reassessed yearly with higher rate too. This way people can live in houses, and rent seeking is taxed instead.

With democrats running all of California at the state level, I'm surprised this sort of change hasn't happened.

"It’s what we had before Jarvis amendment." That's why the original poster postulated that Prop 13 be replaced with a law that taxes everyone at the same but lower rate so that the total amount of tax didn't increase of the total amount collected now. To the extent that Prop 13 is effective at massively holding down taxes for old people, couldn't a new and different Prop do the same in moderation for everyone and also level the playing field?

You actually forgot the largest Prop 13 ridiculousness: businesses also get the Prop 13 reduction. And, the way business can work the system, business properties will NEVER get reassessed under Prop 13 because those properties will technically never sold — just transferred through mergers and acquisitions specifically designed for that purpose.

You write that unfairness comes trough "tax free generational transfer," but do you also realize that Prop 13 perks are also inherited! Yes, that same law designed to "keep granny in her house" also assures that her 50 year old kid can stay in the house practically tax free and keep passing the house down through the generations nearly tax free. I'm not sure what 55 year old — having moved out of the neighborhood 30+ years ago and having already bought his/her own house 20 years prior, would really want to ditch that and move into granny's house, but there you have it!

Fortwaynemobile says

But keeping it locked seems fine, because earning years go away by 50, without prop 13 we’ll have taxes just going up constantly, people losing homes.

People who buy a home and don't use it as an ATM if the value increases drastically have no problem paying the tax. As I've noted before, I think here in Santa Clara County, if you are over a certain age you can just have the tax collector put a lien on your house for the tax amount with a promise not to collect until you die.

What's the flaw with this logic: Buy a hose at age 30 where you can actually afford the 30 year mortgage. At age 50 you might be post-peak earnings, but thanks to 20 years of modest inflation, you should still be able to afford your monthly mortgage payment, which hasn't experienced any inflation at all. You pay off the house at age 60. If your house experienced massive value gain, you now have a paid off house worth $2M that you own outright; you should have no problem with even a $20k annual lien to pay the taxes you claim you can't afford. If your house did not experience massive value gain, then your taxes are as low as ever, so there's no problem there either.