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.
If you were in most other states, including "low tax" Texas you'd be paying 4%-5% per year. Remember that especially since you get a sweetheart deal on your property evaluation which lets you skate while some of us are forced to pick up the extra slack because you older folks want a discount for yourselves. I still find the huge tax bill disparities on the same block in the same model of homes to be a fundamentally unfair thing which needs to change. There is no reason for me to be pay several times the couple across the street who own the exact same model as I do.
Someone is freeloading here and sure as hell isn't me.
If you were in most other states, including "low tax" Texas you'd be paying 4%-5% per year. Remember that especially since you get a sweetheart deal on your property evaluation which lets you skate while some of us are forced to pick up the extra slack because you older folks want a discount for yourselves. I still find the huge tax bill disparities on the same block in the same model of homes to be a fundamentally unfair thing which needs to change. There is no reason for me to be pay several times the couple across the street who own the exact same model as I do.
Someone is freeloading here and sure as hell isn't me.
As already stated... I pay the highest tax for the oldest and smallest home on my block...
Last year, a couple bought a bank foreclose 8 year old home and all that goes with it, double pane windows, full solar electric, 3,000 square feet, designer kitchens and baths for about the same price I paid for my 1700 square feet and Formica 1957 counter tops...
Oh, please! Now you're claiming the wealthest single group (baby boomers in their 60's) are "the most vulnerable members of society"?
Why should young people who are just starting out be subsidizing older people in their peak earnings years who have much higher personal incomes? No one should get a break and instead it should be based on current market price evaluations with no discounts for large politically connected groups.
Today's young people are tomorrow's old people. It seems like yesterday I was 18. Forty years has a way of flying by quickly. Quit whining and start saving. You'll be older quicker than you can imagine.
On the other hands... there is now way two retired 80 year olds could have paid $9,000 property tax... nothing fair in that...
Your argument is the exact same one used by supporters of rent control in NYC and it's a terrible argument for the exact same reason. If people are going to live in an given area then they need to pay the current market rate for what they use. If they can't afford to do that then they need to move to a cheaper place where they use less resources. Doing this helps to prevent the misallocation of resources.
For instance, In cities with rent control it is not uncommon to see one elderly little old lady living in a giant 4-5 bedroom house which she rents for less than $100 per month because she's been living there since the late 1940's or early 1950's so even though her kids are long grown up and moved out, her husband is dead, and she's in that giant home all by herself she stays because there is no way she can get such a sweetheart deal any where else. Meanwhile a family of four are stuck in a 1 bedroom paying $3500 per month because they can't possibly find another place to live because the little old ladies are hogging all the 4-5 bedroom for $100 per month.
The single best way to sort out these misallocation problems in economics is to let the market sort it out. Make everyone pay current market rate and then watch as the market sorts itself out. Those who can't afford it will move else where and those who can will find increased supply and so getter choice and lower prices on average.
Nickelsburg and other economists said the tech-oriented South Bay and the San Francisco-San Mateo-Marin regions will continue to enjoy robust job gains in the coming year or two. Recent gains have been strong enough to make Silicon Valley and San Francisco the two best employment markets in the entire country.
"That whole slow-recovery, sluggish-growth scenario doesn't apply in the Bay Area," said Jeffrey Michael, director of the Stockton-based Business Forecast Center at University of the Pacific.
"There is a long way to go in this tech boom and job boom in Silicon Valley," added Mark Vitner, a senior economist and managing director with San Francisco-based Wells Fargo Bank. "We are still in the early stages of this tech expansion, when you look at the demand for tablets, smartphones, social media, social gaming."
I'm curious if anyone can point to particular legislation passed by the new super majority in the CA legislature that is related to CA's economy or Budget, that wouldn't passed because of Republican opposition. Krugman referenced new taxes that were passed. I believe the taxes he is referring to were passed by the voters via a proposition, not the legislature.
I'm expecting the Budget process to go smoother this year in CA, both because of the recovering economy and because of the super majority, but the Budget hasn't been passed yet.
Which amounts to a grand total of $5500 per year on an income of $100000 before deductions and exemptions. Plus people earn more in California so when you balance it against the higher property taxes and the higher energy costs because you have to run your AC or heater practically year round in Texas it's pretty much a wash. Oh, and we get a hell of a lot more in the way of services than people in Texas plus we get to live in a very nice place while people in Texas have to live in... Well... Texas.
Your argument is the exact same one used by supporters of rent control in NYC and it's a terrible argument for the exact same reason. If people are going to live in an given area then they need to pay the current market rate for what they use. If they can't afford to do that then they need to move to a cheaper place where they use less resources. Doing this helps to prevent the misallocation of resources.
For instance, In cities with rent control it is not uncommon to see one elderly little old lady living in a giant 4-5 bedroom house which she rents for less than $100 per month because she's been living there since the late 1940's or early 1950's so even though her kids are long grown up and moved out, her husband is dead, and she's in that giant home all by herself she stays because there is no way she can get such a sweetheart deal any where else. Meanwhile a family of four are stuck in a 1 bedroom paying $3500 per month because they can't possibly find another place to live because the little old ladies are hogging all the 4-5 bedroom for $100 per month.
The single best way to sort out these misallocation problems in economics is to let the market sort it out. Make everyone pay current market rate and then watch as the market sorts itself out. Those who can't afford it will move else where and those who can will find increased supply and so getter choice and lower prices on average.
My argument is they have already paid their dues... the neighborhood is desirable precisely because the now old people made it so.
Rent Control argument doesn't work for me... because the SF Bay Area has some very strict rent control laws and my city is one of them...
There are few things I am as passionate about as I am about the roof over my head.
Do you really think doubling or tripling my neighbors taxes will make mine go down?
Prop 13 came about for two reasons... Double digit annual tax increases and the Serrano Decision that took local school tax dollars and sent them to the State to allocate.
Prop 13 would never have come into being if the legislature would have acted... simply indexing the Home Owner Exemption would have stopped Prop 13 cold...
Instead, the Legislature grossly underestimated the will of the people and the grass roots support that propelled Prop 13 into law...
And the thing which you're ignoring is that prop 13 will still demand that young people just starting out in life will still be asked to subsidize the older people in their peak earnings years who are in much higher income households. That's a wealth transfer from the poorer young people to richer old people and there is something fundamentally wrong with that whole system. The wealthier old people should either have to pay the current market price evalutions or, if they can't afford to do that, they should move some where else. Pay what you owe or get out and make the resource available for someone who can pay the current market rate.
My argument is they have already paid their dues...
That's a load of horse dung. They paid their property taxes in the past but they also consumed the services paid for in the past. There is absolutely no difference between this and going into a restaurant and ordering $100 worth of food then demanding you should only pay $20 because "I've been coming here for years!"
They're using those services and they need to pay current market rate or they need to consume less no matter how long they've been hanging out at the restaurant. That's just the bottom line.
And the thing which you're ignoring is that prop 13 will still demand that young people just starting out in life will still be asked to subsidize the older people in their peak earnings years who are in much higher income households. That's a wealth transfer from the poorer young people to richer old people and there is something fundamentally wrong with that whole system. The wealthier old people should either have to pay the current market price evalutions or, if they can't afford to do that, they should move some where else. Pay what you owe or get out and make the resource available for someone who can pay the current market rate.
Fortunately the electorate of California doesn't agree.
Property tax is already insidious because it is a tax that just happens/
Unlike sales tax that requires a purchase and income tax that requires income... property tax is the tax that just keeps taking and this is fundamentally wrong.
I lived and worked over seas for a short period of time... property taxes were very modest because it was public policy not to tax people from their homes... Prop 13 doesn't go far enough, but it is what we have.
Taxing something just because it exists is the problem...
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.
