« First « Previous Comments 3 - 42 of 111 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
The guv would just squander the money and be back for more in a year or two.
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.
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.
seniors pay only 25% normal assessed tax. This would keep grandma in her home
Quigley saysseniors 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...
Grandma living in a house that she bought long ago, can't afford 20k in taxes.
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.
FortWayneIndiana saysGrandma 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.
Why is it other peoples problems to carry Granny on their backs because she didn't save enough throughout her lifetime
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysDo you read? TYPE and size. You must be a Prop13-humper.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!
DASKAA saysPrivilegedtobeWhite saysDo you read? TYPE and size.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!
OK, change it to "in the small city in the middle of Mojave desert". Better?No
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.
No one HAS to live in CA. If you can't afford it, get the fuck out.
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
Never insisted that about location. Why couldn't location play into it as well? So, type, size and location.
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.
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.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysHuh? 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?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.
Why is detaching from market price the “road to the 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
highest per-pupil spending in the nation and schools among the shittiest
shittiest roads
highest state income taxes and not much to show for them
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.
FortWayneIndiana saysBecause at old age people should pay less.
if prop 13 was gone
Quigley saysFortWayneIndiana saysBecause 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.
« First « Previous Comments 3 - 42 of 111 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.