Prop 13 (megatopic) (Napa: transplants, home, buyer)

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I agree. Set a reasonable prop tax rate (like 1%) for everyone. As Prop 13 is now, it's "I was here first!!" and to hell with the rest of you.

Idea: impose retroactive Mello Roos taxes on homes built prior to Prop. 13. It seems fair to me if it's fair to new homeowners.

Furthermore, why should family members who buy the house of the original homeowner be grandfathered in re: their prop taxes? Once again, it's the "I was here first !!" cry baby talk.

It is 1% for everyone (at time of acquisition). What could be fairer? Why would someone like yourself deserve to pay 1970's pricing (or pick any decade you want)? Are you earning 1970's income? It has nothing to do with "I was here first!!". I don't begrudge the people prior to me that paid less for their houses and pay less property tax. Everyone is high at some point and everyone is low at some point. That's the beauty of Prop 13. Pretty much about the fairest thing you can do, and protect those that would be priced out from their homes otherwise. But yeah, hey, let's throw Grandma and Grandpa out. So humane of you.

[Pyramidsurf]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

It is 1% for everyone (at time of acquisition). What could be fairer? Why would someone like yourself deserve to pay 1970's pricing (or pick any decade you want)? Are you earning 1970's income? It has nothing to do with "I was here first!!". I don't begrudge the people prior to me that paid less for their houses and pay less property tax. Everyone is high at some point and everyone is low at some point. That's the beauty of Prop 13. Pretty much about the fairest thing you can do, and protect those that would be priced out from their homes otherwise. But yeah, hey, let's throw Grandma and Grandpa out. So humane of you.

The problem is homes were much more affordable 30 years ago in relation to income levels. Now homes in the same neighborhood will require 8K-10K per year in prop tax alone if someone new moves in. That's impossible for almost anyone but the very well off.



I don't begrudge those who have a good deal. But, let's be honest. That was luck and being in the right place at the right time which resulted in them getting in right at the start of Prop 13.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

It is 1% for everyone (at time of acquisition). What could be fairer? Why would someone like yourself deserve to pay 1970's pricing (or pick any decade you want)? Are you earning 1970's income? It has nothing to do with "I was here first!!". I don't begrudge the people prior to me that paid less for their houses and pay less property tax. Everyone is high at some point and everyone is low at some point. That's the beauty of Prop 13. Pretty much about the fairest thing you can do, and protect those that would be priced out from their homes otherwise. But yeah, hey, let's throw Grandma and Grandpa out. So humane of you.

Exactly, and it's those same people that want rent control for their elders so those renters won't be thrown out on the street, yet they want to abolish Prop 13. Almost, like it's ok to throw out elderly homeowners, but not elderly renters. I just don't get this mindset that has become of this state.

I can whine and complain all day about having to pay 1.68% in Alameda County compared to 1.15% anywhere else in the state, which results in an extra $500/mo on the same assessed value home. Or I can choose to not retire in Alameda County. Why can't lifelong renters make the same decision rather than complain about how unaffordable rents have become and they should be entitled to low rent instead of having to deal with "greedy" landlords.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

The problem is homes were much more affordable 30 years ago in relation to income levels. Now homes in the same neighborhood will require 8K-10K per year in prop tax alone if someone new moves in. That's impossible for almost anyone but the very well off.

I don't begrudge those who have a good deal. But, let's be honest. That was luck and being in the right place at the right time which resulted in them getting in right at the start of Prop 13.

Agreed with every word of this.

And guess what.

Too bad. "Sheet" happens. This is reality. Not everyone can-or SHOULD afford to buy in one of the most coveted and expensive markets in the world. Those that can, can. Those that don't, oh well.

Dats be the breaks.

Suck it up. Pony up or realign your wish list.

I mean really. Who dafuq do you think you are thinking you can ride in on your high horse demanding that you have a right to what isn't yours? And that includes an attempt to steal it through the referendum process.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

The problem is homes were much more affordable 30 years ago in relation to income levels. Now homes in the same neighborhood will require 8K-10K per year in prop tax alone if someone new moves in. That's impossible for almost anyone but the very well off.



I don't begrudge those who have a good deal. But, let's be honest. That was luck and being in the right place at the right time which resulted in them getting in right at the start of Prop 13.

Do the math and come back when you have an answer. I've posted the actual math many times on other threads. The answer is... it's not that much different than 30 years ago in 1989 given the 10% interest rates back then and starting salaries of only $25-$30k, compared to over $80k for recent undergrads.

And, by luck and in the right place, you mean having to fight in WWII, Korean, or Vietnam. Yeah, you're right those people were lucky to get to go to war without enlisting on their own. I'm sure they feel that way today.

[Pyramidsurf]

Originally Posted by TR95

Do the math and come back when you have an answer. I've posted the actual math many times on other threads. The answer is... it's not that much different than 30 years ago in 1989 given the 10% interest rates back then and starting salaries of only $25-$30k, compared to over $80k for recent undergrads.

Home prices in California in 1985: Roughly 125K
Median Household Income in California in 1985: Roughly 27
houses were about 5 times household median income.

2018:
Homes: 668K
Median Household Income: 70K

houses are now almost 10 times household income


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCAA646N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C...ign=categories


Looks like I have an answer and your argument doesn't work. 10% interest doesn't make up for the difference.

And, by luck and in the right place, you mean having to fight in WWII, Korean, or Vietnam. Yeah, you're right those people were lucky to get to go to war without enlisting on their own. I'm sure they feel that way today.

What the hell are you talking about. We're not talking about war. We're talking about buying a house and paying taxes on it.

[Pyramidsurf]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Agreed with every word of this.

And guess what.

Too bad. "Sheet" happens. This is reality. Not everyone can-or SHOULD afford to buy in one of the most coveted and expensive markets in the world. Those that can, can. Those that don't, oh well.

Dats be the breaks.

Suck it up. Pony up or realign your wish list.

I mean really. Who dafuq do you think you are thinking you can ride in on your high horse demanding that you have a right to what isn't yours? And that includes an attempt to steal it through the referendum process.

Well, do you expect young people and residents to sit around and get pushed out of their home state because Prop 13 is punishing those starting out to support those who bought 30 years ago? Be serious. Eventually people are going to get fed up having to pay 10K in taxes when their neighbor who inherited a house pays 1K.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

Well, do you expect young people and residents to sit around and get pushed out of their home state because Prop 13 is punishing those starting out to support those who bought 30 years ago? Be serious. Eventually people are going to get fed up having to pay 10K in taxes when their neighbor who inherited a house pays 1K.

The problem with this statement is that it's complete and total petulant BS.

First of all, nobody is owed or deserves anything.

Period.

Get that through your skull. Home state or not, no matter how bad you want "it", if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. You have no right to try and take it.

Second, will this same purported outrage still be there when todays buyers are still paying 10k when tomorrows will be paying 20k? That day WILL come.

And third, if you have a problem with the 1k vs 10k gap, why not lobby for everyone's to be lowered to 1, as opposed to forcing the 1k-ers to pony up an add'l 9?

[TR95]

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

Home prices in California in 1985: Roughly 125K
Median Household Income in California in 1985: Roughly 27
houses were about 5 times household median income.

2018:
Homes: 668K
Median Household Income: 70K

houses are now almost 10 times household income


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCAA646N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C...ign=categories


Looks like I have an answer and your argument doesn't work. 10% interest doesn't make up for the difference.

So wrong, try using some actual numbers with the actual PITI payment.

In the late 80s up until 1991 starting salaries were $25-$30k typically. Now, we pay undergrads close to $80k and in about 3-4 years they're pulling in close to $130-$140k.

First Scenario: Houses where we lived were around $300-350k in 89/90. So the PITI payment in 1989 with an annual average fixed rate of 10.3% was $2,547/mo, but income was only $2,500/mo on a $30k annual salary. So can this person afford that house?

Second Scenario: Today, on a $1.2M house with a 3.75% fixed rate (BTW could have been had at 3.5% just a year or two ago), the PITI is $5,696/mo, but someone making $80k has a gross monthly income of $6,666. Hmm, understanding basic math is a necessity....Again, as has been said the biggest obstacle nowadays is the down payment with 2x annual income needed for a down payment back in 1989 and 3x annual income today.

Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf

What the hell are you talking about. We're not talking about war. We're talking about buying a house and paying taxes on it.

You're trying to act like things were so rosy and the older generation was so lucky to have been at the right place at the right time. So what if it might have been easy to have bought a home back in the 70s, but along with that came many other negative things. So sorry, you can't comprehend that in your little millennial-entitled mind.

[Pyramidsurf]

Originally Posted by TR95

So wrong, try using some actual numbers with the actual PITI payment.

In the late 80s up until 1991 starting salaries were $25-$30k typically. Now, we pay undergrads close to $80k and in about 3-4 years they're pulling in close to $130-$140k.

Stopped reading right about here.

Apparently you like to just make up data points out of thin air. Median household income in 1990 was 33K. Median household now is 70K. Your idea that undergrads 3-4 years out of college make 130K is laughable. I provided sources. Feel free to provide some.

You're trying to act like things were so rosy and the older generation was so lucky to have been at the right place at the right time. So what if it might have been easy to have bought a home back in the 70s, but along with that came many other negative things. So sorry, you can't comprehend that in your little millennial-entitled mind.

I didn't say it was rosy.

And if you think millennials have it easy then go ahead. We've been at war for 18 years now so spare me. The older generation was in the right place at the right time to benefit from Prop 13. I'm not entitled. I own a house. I just think Prop 13 is ridiculous.