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.
High property taxes lead to abandoned properties that no one will buy. Look at Detroit -- you can pick up homes for pretty cheap but who wants them when it's just going to be a bunch of taxes to pay. Then they get no taxes being paid and the house still sits empty.
Taxes have to be kept reasonable -- it's reasonable to have a tax stay stable after you buy a house so you don't end up broke after just a few years. Not everyone has a fast rising income.
As far as which tax I myself prefer -- none as I end up paying income tax, property tax AND sales tax. My money gets gone every time I turn around through taxes, it doesn't really matter how it's gone, it's gone.
If I had property and no income, I'd prefer the income tax, but if I had high income and not much property, I'd prefer property taxes.
I have no property and little income - which tax should I prefer?
It's not just the old folks that benefit from Prop 13. Anyone who buys a home benefits because they can buy a house they can afford and then not end up seeing their taxes go up year after year after year.
??? so if you can't afford to buy a house, you get to pay rent on a house where the taxes go up every time the landlord sells it...I bet in California, renters pay egregiously more for housing than homeowners, and how is that sustainable?
For starters, the population of LA County grew a microscopic 3.1% between 2000-2010 according to the US Census Bureau; Harris County, TX, which includes Houston, saw an EXPLOSION in its population of 20.3%, so let's get our facts straight, shall we?
Maricopa County, AZ, which includes Phoenix, grew by 24.2%; now that's explosive growth for you.
The stream of Hispanics crossing the bord into California has slowed dramatically thanks to our horrendous economy, which isn't about to be fixed with a Democrat in the governor's mansion who suckered the electorate to vote themselves a tax increase from which he expects income into Sacramento's coffers to soar by $6,000,000,000, but which will miss that rosy figure by $5,000,000,000 or thereabouts.
Prop. 13 has NOTHING to do with California's current financial quagmire; our governor has been a radical, open-space loving environmental zealot for over FORTY years; he single-handedly stopped the massive construction boom of the 60s and early 70s which his father utilized brilliantly, including the building of Interstate 5 between Bakersfield and the SF Bay Area.
Democrats have been blaming the existence of Prop. 13 for the state's economic malaise, including the loss of more than 3,500,000 residents to other states over the past 20 years according to Joel Kotkin, which in turn has led to a devastating plunge in the birth rate within this state as millions of folks have left for states such as UT, CO, TX, TN & elsewhere to start families and pursue the American dream, which the Democrats have single handedly destroyed in California over the past 30-40 years.
$4.00/gallon gasoline here in CA vs. $3.25/gallon or less in Texas, Tennessee & other middle-class friendly states is yet another example of Democratic ineptitude as it relates to creating an environment which encourages entrepreneurs to stay and embraces the launching of new businesses as opposed to stonewalling their creation with reams of regulations.
When the CEO of Carl's Jr./Hardees told the WSJ recently that negotiating the permitting process to build a new restaurant takes 285 days in California as opposed to 60 days in Texas, guess which state will be getting 400+ new restaurants over the rest of the decade?
Then there's our President, who keeps eliminating funds of various private school programs in DC despite a 97% graduation rate as opposed to the 55% graduation rate in DCs public schools as the WSJ pointed out today.
How is his party's total capitulation at the altar of teachers unions and the rest of those unions beneficial to ANYBODY, including millions of blacks who've been stuck in horrible inner-city schools for over 40 years thanks to his party's priorities?
And you wonder why blacks have been getting obliterated by he and his party's economic policies nationwide, as well as the DC politicians who shot down WalMart's plan to build three new stores thanks to their ludicrous mandate of a minimum wage of $12.50?
The NIMBYs out here certainly haven't helped the housing situation at all, but 35+ years of rampant environmental extremism and a stranglehold on Sacramento by the slow-growth and no-growth zealots including our governor deserve far more blame for the wild swings in our housing market and the rest of our economy through various boom-and-bust cycles, and not. Prop. 13, which prevented MILLIONS of homeowners from being taxed out of their homes.
I work a few blocks from the proposed development in the OP. The area is a traffic nightmare now. It does't need more density. There are already a lot of apartments in this area, as well as office buildings. The single family homes have fairly small yards (generally speaking). We don't need more cars on these streets. And I don't care what anybody says, LA is not public transit friendly. Even if the rapid transit line does eventually make it to Santa Monica, it's still of limited use to anyone who doesn't live right on a rapid line because if you have to take a combo of bus+subway, it take forever. LA is just too spread out to make a subway very viable. For it to work for most of us, it would have to be expanded in a way that is simply not financially feasible. There is just too much land to cover.
The NIMBYs out here certainly haven't helped the housing situation at all, but 35+ years of rampant environmental extremism and a stranglehold on Sacramento by the slow-growth and no-growth zealots including our governor deserve far more blame for the wild swings in our housing market and the rest of our economy through various boom-and-bust cycles, and not. Prop. 13, which prevented MILLIONS of homeowners from being taxed out of their homes.
Perhaps you can answer a question I have had for decades:
Why is it perfectly okay to tax renters out of their homes while taxing homeowners out of their homes is political suicide in California?
My community and neighboring communities have Rent Control...
Not aware of these renters being taxed from their homes.
Doesn't rent control allow landlords to increase rents to cover property tax increases? Under Prop 13, property is reassessed to market value upon sale, so undoubtedly there have been rental property buyers who got a big shock from the assessor, and who presumably raised rents to cover the property tax increase.
Landlord generally may request rent increase above annual adjustment factor due to increase in operating cost...
May or may not be accepted plus there are provision for disabled, low income, and seniors...
Didn't Prop 13 supporters say that people shouldn't be taxed out of their homes?
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.
