Proposition 13 and how it has affected California (sale, rent)

[Ultralight]

Now one should have to bear the cost of having to susidize someone elses housing and land ownership espacialy not young first time housebyers who havent really established them self in the proporty market yet with little money and with little experience in property ownership a fair market price based on land value is their to help these poeple to establish them self and make their own future based on their own income.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Also your average 60 year old is at the top of his life time earnings potentiality so most of them do have the ability to pay.

Don't forget that they've been paying since they first owned their own homes.

Why is it a young couple age 25 should subsidize people who make 2-3 times what they make?

Our 90-year-old next door neighbors have paid about $40/year in property taxes, while we've paid more than ten times that. As it should be; they've paid their dues for over 65 years of home ownership. Prop 13 was to protect the elderly on fixed incomes from skyrocketing property taxes.

Also, even for homeowners who've been in the same home for many years, whenever one remodels or upgrades, property taxes reflect the increase in property value....you get your supplemental prop tax bill within weeks of the project's completion. So even if you were paying X amount in, say 1989, you're probably paying at least X times 2 today.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

,,, Prop 13 was to protect the elderly on fixed incomes from skyrocketing property taxes.,,,.

prop 13 is/was to protect everyone from runaway taxes. The state needs to learn to spend within the budget. Not increase the burden to the public on impulse. I have a friend in a different state that got a $20,000 bill for one year because that state just needed more.

I would like to see a lot of free programs get dumped. Years ago we voted in a bill to reduce programs to illegal's, it was over turned in hours.

[Ultrarunner]

Prop 13 was to stop the Legislature from using Property Owners as their own no limit Credit Card to finance any whim they might dream up.

As someone that bought at the peak of the Real Estate Boom... I'm here to say that I'm thankful for Prop 13

True, I pay more than my neighbors and knew that going in... I also intend to stay in my home forever and enjoy the exact same benefits my long-term neighbors have now... I'm willing to pay my higher share now in exchange for property tax predictability in the future

The brilliance of Prop 13, besides being simple and easy to understand, IS THAT IT TAXES CAN BE RAISED WITH VOTER SUPPORT!!!

Anyone that believes taxes should be higher has the opportunity to take it to the voters.... we should not even be having this discussion.

All it takes is 55% for a new school bond... come on, 55%

Anything else gets passed with 2/3 vote...

Don't say it doesn't happen... it happens way to often as far as I'm concerned.

Again... the Legislature opted NOT TO ACT so the voters did.

Had the legislature simply indexed the Home Owner Exemption for inflation... Prop 13 would have never been necessary....

Politicians beware... supporters of Prop 13 walk precincts and consist of all races and nationalities.

[Ultralight]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

prop 13 is/was to protect everyone from runaway taxes. The state needs to learn to spend within the budget. Not increase the burden to the public on impulse. I have a friend in a different state that got a $20,000 bill for one year because that state just needed more.

I would like to see a lot of free programs get dumped. Years ago we voted in a bill to reduce programs to illegal's, it was over turned in hours.

Proposition 13 leads to higher spending as property tax revenus fall spending increases it does not mather how much or how little the state spend but as revenues fall spending will increase regardles.
Property tax need to be based on land value only the can their be enough of revenues collected even suprlus reveneus wich mean that spending then can then be be cut.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Ultralight

Property tax need to be based on land value only the can their be enough of revenues collected even suprlus reveneus wich mean that spending then can then be be cut.

Often the value of the land accounts for less than 25% of a property's total value.

It's the improvements that make up the lion's share of value.

[Ultralight]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Prop 13 was to stop the Legislature from using Property Owners as their own no limit Credit Card to finance any whim they might dream up.

As someone that bought at the peak of the Real Estate Boom... I'm here to say that I'm thankful for Prop 13

True, I pay more than my neighbors and knew that going in... I also intend to stay in my home forever and enjoy the exact same benefits my long-term neighbors have now... I'm willing to pay my higher share now in exchange for property tax predictability in the future

The brilliance of Prop 13, besides being simple and easy to understand, IS THAT IT TAXES CAN BE RAISED WITH VOTER SUPPORT!!!

Anyone that believes taxes should be higher has the opportunity to take it to the voters.... we should not even be having this discussion.

All it takes is 55% for a new school bond... come on, 55%

Anything else gets passed with 2/3 vote...

Don't say it doesn't happen... it happens way to often as far as I'm concerned.

Again... the Legislature opted NOT TO ACT so the voters did.

Had the legislature simply indexed the Home Owner Exemption for inflation... Prop 13 would have never been necessary....

Politicians beware... supporters of Prop 13 walk precincts and consist of all races and nationalities.

Young first time homebyers shouldent have through the regressive taxation put on them to carry the burden to have to subsidize older more affeluent and expericed homowners.
Today California is chasing away an ever larger number of able bodied young couples away from the state as the burden of Proposition13 taxation is mounting up on them.
Fewer younger people chose to stay in California and move to other states where property taxation is much more logical fair and less regressive for younger couples.
States where Property taxation is based on land value rather than on tax exemption and where the costs are evenly distrubuted not just put on younger and on first time homebyer.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Ultralight

Young first time homebyers shouldent have through the regressive taxation put on them to carry the burden to have to subsidize older more affeluent and expericed homowners.
Today California is chasing away an ever larger number of able bodied young couples away from the state as the burden of Proposition13 taxation is mounting up on them.
Fewer younger people chose to stay in California and move to other states where property taxation is much more logical fair and less regressive for younger couples.
States where Property taxation is based on land value rather than on tax exemption and where the costs are evenly distrubuted not just put on younger and on first time homebyer.

My experience is contrary... almost everyone I know that has relocated away from California are retired people... looking to stretch their nest egg and pensions in lower cost areas.

Same point could also be made the Older homers in their twilight years after nearly a lifetime of paying to build the infrastructure shouldn't have to carry the burden for young first time home buyers.

Again, California bases Property tax in the combined value of the Land and Improvement at the time of sale... California Property Tax is based on Property Value... the more you pay for your home, the more you will pay in Property Tax.

I've heard the same arguments when I was a young first time home buyer... and it didn't stop me... but, then, I've been paying into Social Security since I was 12 years old...

[Ultralight]

Property tax if its going to be logical able to collect revenues has to be based on land value and then on Property value. Thats the main problem with Calfornia and the sitution that its economy is in Calforinia has extremly valueble land whose value is wasted in the abscene of a fair market and land value based property taxation system.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Ultralight

Young first time homebyers shouldent have through the regressive taxation put on them to carry the burden to have to subsidize older more affeluent and expericed homowners.

They're not subsidizing anyone. Do some research.

Today California is chasing away an ever larger number of able bodied young couples away from the state as the burden of Proposition13 taxation is mounting up on them.

There are other factors besides property taxes that are causing young people to be "chased away" from this state. Cost of living, unemployment rate, prices of homes, etc.

Fewer younger people chose to stay in California and move to other states where property taxation is much more logical fair and less regressive for younger couples.

We have relatives in Illinois who pay twice what we do in property taxes (approximately same property value of home). There the tax rate is determined locally.