Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a massive housing crisis in California aslowdodge. Prop 13 is but a piece of that. We need to drastically build more housing to accommodate the jobs that are being created, which will have the effect of lowering housing prices. No one enjoys the value of their house going down but we will not be able to live with the restriction of supply long term, which means these inflated values will have to come down.
For large problems like this you will always have anecdotes of people who will be disadvantaged. That's why it's not an easy thing, not black and white. Plenty of bank tellers lost their jobs when ATMs came on the scene. Families were destroyed in the rust belt when steel and cars started being produced en mass globally. Coal workers lost livelihoods as natural gas exploded onto the scene.
People lost their shirts when our housing bubble popped from 2007-2012; we can't run around trying to control everything and protect everyone. We can have sane, simple, efficient taxation, regulation, and administration though. And a good, effective, comprehensive safety net for those who get the short ends of these sticks.
BS, there is no reason except envy that anyone would want to see long term residents forced out of their home which is what would happen if prop 13 were repealed. Prop 13 benefits everyone who buys a home and wants to keep it for several years. I lived in Nevada before they passed a law limiting property tax increases to 3% a year and it was crazy, the appraiser could double your tax bill simply by looking at your home on a map and value it because they thought it had a view, even if it didn't. There was a tax revolt started by a number of Incline Village homeowners suing the state and they won. In 2005 the State passed a law limiting tax increases to 3% a year for residential, owner occupied properties. https://tax.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/tax...n(2)%20(4).pdf
BS, there is no reason except envy that anyone would want to see long term residents forced out of their home which is what would happen if prop 13 were repealed. Prop 13 benefits everyone who buys a home and wants to keep it for several years. I lived in Nevada before they passed a law limiting property tax increases to 3% a year and it was crazy, the appraiser could double your tax bill simply by looking at your home on a map and value it because they thought it had a view, even if it didn't. There was a tax revolt started by a number of Incline Village homeowners suing the state and they won. In 2005 the State passed a law limiting tax increases to 3% a year for residential, owner occupied properties. https://tax.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/tax...n(2)%20(4).pdf
And THAT is the very same reason Californians voted Prop 13 in back in '78. The only difference is we're capped at 2% a year but it always adds up to more when you add in bonds and other assessments. Still not a bad deal. I think other states have adopted similar measures but I couldn't list them since they aren't relative to my life. But I applaud them for doing it. Residents have to speak up about being bulldozed by higher taxes when it isn't clear what that tax money will go towards.
BS, there is no reason except envy that anyone would want to see long term residents forced out of their home which is what would happen if prop 13 were repealed.
Envy? That's like saying the only reason people want pension reform is because they're envious of public sector retiree's pensions. It may be a factor but it's not the only thing driving the reasoning. I get that you would personally be affected and you don't like that feeling; I would also be personally affected (my house is twice the value of my purchase price), but that doesn't mean there are no other considerations.
One of the reasons we have higher taxation in other areas is due to the revenue deficits caused by keeping 13. So if I'm a renter I get my landlord charging me market rates for rent even if they're paying property taxes on a third of the building's current value. And then I have to pay increased sales and other local taxes to make up for the tax break the landlord is getting.
By the way, many people are falling back on the little old poor homeowner defense. We could easily repeal 13 and grant abatements for primary residences, seniors, and low income homeowners if we want to.
The only difference is we're capped at 2% a year but it always adds up to more when you add in bonds and other assessments.
That's the whole point. You still end up with a similar overall tax burden because the piper still needs to be paid. Tackle spending if you want lower taxes. Making the property tax system more complicated allows for more loopholes and gaming the system, more complex administration between all of the various Mello Roos and other fees created to back-fill the lost revenue, etc. It's better to have a simpler system.
It's like with this recent federal "tax reform" bill where the Republicans wanted to do away with mortgage interest deductions and state and local tax deductions. Some people will have higher tax bills as a result but it normalizes the system instead of keeping the current distortions.
Prop 13 exists because the Legislature failed to prevent it... which would have been easy... simply index the Homeowner Exemption and call it a day...
Even this was too much and officials where more than happy to leave it to the voters never thinking it had any chance... how could it with every Union, Teachers, Elected Officials Public Sector Employees, etc spending money to defeat it... the predictions were there would be no California if Prop 13 passed.
Interesting in that 40 years later California is still here... the rumors of its demise exaggerated to put it mildly.
No discussion is complete without Serrano Decision... the State took away local public school tax dollars to redistribute... one thing to pay higher taxes for local schools and another when the dollars leave the district.
A lot of my friends are Law Enforcement... they will be the first to tell you the pensions are some of the best anywhere.... 12 of my friends went to OPD with 2 year Admin of Justice degrees... not a one retired with less than 100k retirements at 30... ages 52-54... some a lot more like 180k and all with lifetime benefits.
How anyone can justify a 5 million pension liability for a Oakland Police Officer and think taxpayers should keep quiet isn't grounded in reality...
As for tenants paying property taxes... guess that would depend if they have rent control or not... plenty in SF, Berkeley, Oakland are paying a fraction of market rent... in some cases a third or less... add to that Oakland's Just Cause Eviction Statute, Business Tax, Rent Board Fees... I would say tenants are well protected.
Prop 13 applies equally to every taxable property in the State...
Just remember VALUE at the time of transfer... just like any other purchase...
Only need to add that Prop 13 immensely simplified Real Property Taxation... volumes of Tax Code replaced by a few short paragraphs... cadre of Assessor Employees reduced and the pension liability that went with them.
How anyone can justify a 5 million pension liability for a Oakland Police Officer and think taxpayers should keep quiet isn't grounded in reality...
You're just envious because you're not a police officer with a safety pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Only need to add that Prop 13 immensely simplified Real Property Taxation... volumes of Tax Code replaced by a few short paragraphs... cadre of Assessor Employees reduced and the pension liability that went with them.
Lmao I suggest you check out the thousands of pages of California property tax codes:
As for tenants paying property taxes... guess that would depend if they have rent control or not... plenty in SF, Berkeley, Oakland are paying a fraction of market rent... in some cases a third or less... add to that Oakland's Just Cause Eviction Statute, Business Tax, Rent Board Fees... I would say tenants are well protected.
Renters protected by rent control is a small fraction of California's renter population. Anyways, you're barking up the wrong tree, rent control is also a distortion that hurts more than helps and I would prefer to get rid of it. And this is speaking as someone who has personally benefited from rent control.
The point still stands though, and if a landlord gets a new tenant they are most certainly charging market rate and not passing their tax break onto the tenant unless they're trying to undercut other landlords in the area on price.
That's the whole point. You still end up with a similar overall tax burden because the piper still needs to be paid. Tackle spending if you want lower taxes. Making the property tax system more complicated allows for more loopholes and gaming the system, more complex administration between all of the various Mello Roos and other fees created to back-fill the lost revenue, etc. It's better to have a simpler system.
It's like with this recent federal "tax reform" bill where the Republicans wanted to do away with mortgage interest deductions and state and local tax deductions. Some people will have higher tax bills as a result but it normalizes the system instead of keeping the current distortions.
The only distortions are in corporate loopholes. Homeowners shouldn't be considered part of that problem. We have no loopholes. We have a measly little exemption that amounts to $75 a year. BFD That barely fills a gas tank these days.
You say some will have a higher tax bill but who? Someone like me? A single senior citizen that worked 38 years and retired with a meager little retirement (that I contributed to, btw) and my late husband's social security. I'm not even in the middle class yet because I bought a fixer at a lower price to have a lower property tax bill, did the repairs myself and now have a small home (little over 1K sq ft) but I should be forced to pay 5K a year in property taxes? BS I will never vote to repeal Prop 13. Even Jerry Brown said it's political suicide to even try.
Oh and to be clear, it wasn't all republicans who wanted to do away with mortgage interest rate deductions or even property tax deductions. It was Trump who thought up that brilliant idea. And the spineless toads that brown nose him went along with it. They'd sell their grandmother's teeth if Trump asked them to. Fools. All of them.
Oh and to be clear, it wasn't all republicans who wanted to do away with mortgage interest rate deductions or even property tax deductions. It was Trump who thought up that brilliant idea. And the spineless toads that brown nose him went along with it. They'd sell their grandmother's teeth if Trump asked them to. Fools. All of them.
This is just plain false, Trump was one of the driving forces to cap the deductions instead of eliminating them entirely because of the optics of raising taxes. Same as congress-critters from higher tax and higher home value states. It was only to save their own necks that they retreated on it. Trump had very little do do with the structure of that legislation lmao. He's not what some would call a policy wonk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
You say some will have a higher tax bill but who? Someone like me? A single senior citizen that worked 38 years and retired with a meager little retirement (that I contributed to, btw) and my late husband's social security. I'm not even in the middle class yet because I bought a fixer at a lower price to have a lower property tax bill, did the repairs myself and now have a small home (little over 1K sq ft) but I should be forced to pay 5K a year in property taxes? BS I will never vote to repeal Prop 13. Even Jerry Brown said it's political suicide to even try.
If you're a homeowner in California worried about your property taxes going up due to the value of your house going up then chances are you are middle class. What about the poor (sometimes elderly) people who rent and will never be able to realize Prop 13 benefits but instead have to deal with high sales and local taxes to pay for your property tax cap? We could repeal 13 but grant you an exemption on account of your age or fixed income. Again the little old lady in an appreciated house example is just a small part of 13 and the idea surrounding reforming it, not a defense against the whole shebang.
This entire thread is turning into a chorus of retirees who have owned property in California for a long time and don't want their gravy train to end. Human nature I guess but still.
Reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
...except substitute salary with property tax.
The irony too is that 13 would have a much better chance at standing if we could fix our housing shortage but the same people railing against changing 13 are those that don't want any development in their cities because they don't like the increased congestion or density. Shooting themselves in the foot.
It's fix it now or wait until the millenials take over and we'll fix it for you and you'll have much less say in the reform. You've left us a mess.
This is just plain false, Trump was one of the driving forces to cap the deductions instead of eliminating them entirely because of the optics of raising taxes. Same as congress-critters from higher tax and higher home value states. It was only to save their own necks that they retreated on it. Trump had very little do do with the structure of that legislation lmao. He's not what some would call a policy wonk.
It's not false. It was in his tax plan. But this isn't about Prop 13 or anything related to it. So I'll stay on topic.
It's not false. It was in his tax plan. But this isn't about Prop 13 or anything related to it. So I'll stay on topic.
It was a tax plan created by Republicans in Congress and signed by Trump. A bit different. He didn't have a tax plan, or healthcare plan, or ISIS plan, or infrastructure plan, or opiate crisis plan. There is really no topic here since no one is discussing the point and instead we have to wade through dozens of pages of anecdotes about people's personal residences and their desire to not pay more taxes. Well, I don't want to pay taxes that go to ill advised war in the Mideast but sometimes life is unfair, huh? Sometimes people vote to raise your taxes, whether explicitly or implicitly. That's democracy. Sure would have liked those trillions we spend overseas to have gone to some infrastructure but I got outvoted.
It's not like Texas or the Dakotas have a massive homeless issue because people can't afford their property taxes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And THAT is the very same reason Californians voted Prop 13 in back in '78. The only difference is we're capped at 2% a year but it always adds up to more when you add in bonds and other assessments. Still not a bad deal. I think other states have adopted similar measures but I couldn't list them since they aren't relative to my life. But I applaud them for doing it. Residents have to speak up about being bulldozed by higher taxes when it isn't clear what that tax money will go towards.
That barely fills a gas tank these days. 
I will never vote to repeal Prop 13. Even Jerry Brown said it's political suicide to even try. 
