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.
Ultrarunner. All things considered, California has a high COL but property taxes aren't the worst in the nation. New Jersey is the worst. In fact, a few of the New England states are far worse, based on income.
I do agree with what userid said about real estate though.
Quote:
Perhaps a more interesting conversation would be the sort of things younger generations can do on a personal level to prevent some of the theft. Avoiding overpriced real estate seems like an obvious one
What happened in 2007 should never happen again in the United States. Real estate prices were crazy and particularly sad was that in 2005 only 3% of the people living in California could afford to buy a house. That's just nuts! There were people who sold their homes at the peak and got out while others bought homes and lost their shorts. In all my years of buying and selling real estate, I never saw anything like it. Each county lost money because tax revenues fell. That spurred cities to suffer as well as foreclosures grew, leaving neighborhoods in peril. Ugly, ugly times. I hope people learned from this and will use sound reason when buying a house. Further, I hope banks will require the proper information when qualifying someone for a loan. As for property taxes? With bonds and assessments counted, most areas pay about 1.25-1.50% of the sale price of the home. Depending on the size of house, it seems fair. Smaller, less expensive house, lower taxes. Larger, higher priced homes, higher taxes. I'd say that's pretty well balanced.
I like how you avoided the question. The fact that you continuously support prop 13 here on city-data says it all, you support it because it gives you unfair tax subsidy at the expense of younger Californians. I don't blame ya....but at least own up to your self interest.
We have gone round and round... Yes.. I am a dyed in the wool supporter of Prop 13 even though it was passed years before I could vote.
It's not complicated and it is a cornerstone of California's Real Estate.
What I find truly amazing is there are always people that don't have a clue how it works... even people that own homes
I admit not a week goes by without someone on the job asking me about Prop 13... I work in a Hospital so there are always lots of new people around.
I can't count the number of times I've heard intelligent people.. even Nurses and Doctors say they just bought a home and "Don't have Prop 13"
Does anyone realize how stupid a statement this is?
How can someone make the biggest purchase in a lifetime and not have a clue about how it is taxed?
Anyway... a few minutes of conversation and giving them a copy of Prop 13 in it's entirely is all it takes to educate...
Even some of the most obstinate have come back years later and said I was right and they just didn't realize how important it is to them personally.
Why should owning real property be different than owning a car or owning stock or owning anything else?
Almost everything is taxed based on the purchase price and or profit realized when it is sold.
For some reason some people think a home should be taxes based on whatever many dollars the government happens to need at the time and it should be taxed yearly in perpetuity...
I like how you avoided the question. The fact that you continuously support prop 13 here on city-data says it all, you support it because it gives you unfair tax subsidy at the expense of younger Californians. I don't blame ya....but at least own up to your self interest.
I know this question comment wasn't directed to me but I'd like to ask you how you figure it's an unfair tax subsidy. Prop 13 is very clear in it's calculations. It plays no favorites. The tax assessed is based on the purchase price of the home. Direct assessments and bonds are added to that tax bill, based on the county and city in which you live.
Where is the subsidy? Please. I'm curious and would like to know.
Ultrarunner. All things considered, California has a high COL but property taxes aren't the worst in the nation. New Jersey is the worst. In fact, a few of the New England states are far worse, based on income.
I do agree with what userid said about real estate though.
What happened in 2007 should never happen again in the United States. Real estate prices were crazy and particularly sad was that in 2005 only 3% of the people living in California could afford to buy a house. That's just nuts! There were people who sold their homes at the peak and got out while others bought homes and lost their shorts. In all my years of buying and selling real estate, I never saw anything like it. Each county lost money because tax revenues fell. That spurred cities to suffer as well as foreclosures grew, leaving neighborhoods in peril. Ugly, ugly times. I hope people learned from this and will use sound reason when buying a house. Further, I hope banks will require the proper information when qualifying someone for a loan. As for property taxes? With bonds and assessments counted, most areas pay about 1.25-1.50% of the sale price of the home. Depending on the size of house, it seems fair. Smaller, less expensive house, lower taxes. Larger, higher priced homes, higher taxes. I'd say that's pretty well balanced.
The whole bubble mentality caught me by surprise... it was the Dot Com all over again.
Many otherwise intelligent people got caught up in it... the simplest explanation I have is there was a huge fear of now or never or just being left behind...
The bagger at my local Safeway bought 4 homes in two years... he was 24. I asked him how was he going to pay for them and he said he didn't have to worry about that because he would flip them...
Well, he lost all 4 and filed BK... he really couldn't afford them no matter how it was looked at.
Then there were all the folks that could easily afford their payments... mostly professional with good incomes deciding on strategic defaults... they would often buy the replacement home and then simply walk away from the first home.
Then there were serial Home Equity borrowers... the family across from my parents bought in 1999 for 200k and walked away owing 780k on a home the Bank sold for 350k
The old timers literally asked him if he had found a money tree in the backyard... new cars all the time, expensive vacations a large cabin cruiser that barely fit on a three axle trailer... life was good for a while as long as he could refi... what was really despicable was just before he walked he was selling parts of his home... the furnace, the kitchen cabinets and even the windows and doors... I called the police and was told he owned the home and could do what he wanted...
The only tragedy is the majority that didn't cheat, lie or scam have to pay for those that did.
Each generation has their own challenges... no one in my generation was drafted off to war or died from Polio and yet every generation thinks they are getting short shrift.
We have gone round and round... Yes.. I am a dyed in the wool supporter of Prop 13 even though it was passed years before I could vote.
Yes you are.....because you benefit from the tax subsidizes it provides. Whether or not these subsidize hurt young families, whether they are bad for the state....none of that matters to you. You got yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
For some reason some people think a home should be taxes based on whatever many dollars the government happens to need at the time and it should be taxed yearly in perpetuity...
Who are these people? Certainly nobody in this thread. The problem is that Prop 13 gives older residents (like yourself) a tax subsidy at the expense of younger residents.
I couldn't rep you again for your post but will say that your stories are the same as what I saw here. People just walking away from their homes, owing hundreds of thousands of dollars. It wouldn't have been so bad if the prices dropped to reasonable amounts but the bottom just fell out. All those years of building equity, just gone. Yes, it was thanks to those who bought homes they couldn't afford, lied about their incomes, banks who didn't bother to ask for income verification and simply inflated prices. Not just here but all over the country. CA, NV, AZ and FL were the hardest hit, though. It was unbelievable. I will say that the current market isn't too bad. Prices are somewhat reasonable, unless you live in the richest parts of the country. I can't believe the prices in Seattle, Chicago, New York, to name a few.
Seriously, though. I'd be filing a suit against the county against the assessor. Our assessor's office did their own temporary cut due to the lower prices. You should have received the same. Eventually, as the market grows, the taxes would return to their original levels but while values are still low, all homeowners should be receiving lower rates. Still can't believe people in New Jersey are seeing higher tax rates even though the value of their home decreased. Shameful.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off topic. This thread isn't about California property taxes but in no way is it the boomers' fault this happened.
I know this question comment wasn't directed to me but I'd like to ask you how you figure it's an unfair tax subsidy. Prop 13 is very clear in it's calculations. It plays no favorites. The tax assessed is based on the purchase price of the home.
Of course it plays favorites, it favors those that have owned longer. Go to a residential street in California that was built 2 decades or more ago and you will find that the residents pay wildly different tax rates. That makes no sense, why should people that use the same public services (same schools, etc) pay wildly different property tax rates?
I know many people both with personal residents and/or rental properties paying $700~$1,000 on properties worth $500+ today. The owners of the rental properties are receiving thousands of dollars at the expense of other tax payers. Its robbery and it should be stopped.
Regardless, Prop 13 is just one example of policies that transfer wealth from younger generations to the boomers. Though in the case of Prop 13 the older generations (older than the boomers) benefited as well.
Who are these people? Certainly nobody in this thread. The problem is that Prop 13 gives older residents (like yourself) a tax subsidy at the expense of younger residents.
No, it doesn't. I'm sorry but you are really misinformed, userid. Anyone who buys a house in California is taxed by the standards of Prop. 13. If someone buys a house and lives in it for 30 years, their taxes still go up. The max is 2% a year.
If two people both bought a house on the same block in the same week, for the exact same price and one was 25 years old and one was 60 years old, they would both pay the identical property tax. I don't know where you are getting your information but it's not correct.
Quote:
Of course it plays favorites, it favors those that have owned longer. Go to a residential street in California that was built 2 decades or more ago and you will find that the residents pay wildly different tax rates. That makes no sense, why should people that use the same public services (same schools, etc) pay wildly different property tax rates?
That's a good reason not to buy and sell houses every five years, don't you think?
No, it doesn't. I'm sorry but you are really misinformed, userid. Anyone who buys a house in California is taxed by the standards of Prop. 13. If someone buys a house and lives in it for 30 years, their taxes still go up. The max is 2% a year.
Misinformed on what? All you've done is say that when someone buys a home in prop its taxed by the "standard of prop 13". Well duh........
The 2% max makes little sense, in most years that is below the rate of inflation so California home owners get to pay less and less (in real terms) property taxes each year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
If two people both bought a house on the same block in the same week, for the exact same price and one was 25 years old and one was 60 years old, they would both pay the identical property tax. I don't know where you are getting your information but it's not correct.
Yep....and when did I suggest otherwise? The problem with prop 13 is that it subsidize the tax rates of long-term owners at the expense of new owners. The age bias comes into play because long-term owners are....older. You see, its difficult to purchase real estate before you're born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars
That's a good reason not to buy and sell houses every five years, don't you think?
So you then you agree, Prop 13 benefits long-term owners (older residents) at the expense of new owners (mostly younger residents)?
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.
Ultrarunner. All things considered, California has a high COL but property taxes aren't the worst in the nation. New Jersey is the worst. In fact, a few of the New England states are far worse, based on income. 
