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.
I am not a realator. My contention is that if my house is worth the same as your house and they are located in the same county, then we ought to be paying very close to the same taxes. What is so confusing about such a fundamental principle of fairness?
You knew about what your Taxes would be when you bought your house.
You made the decision to buy anyway.
If you had a problem with your taxes you could have walked.
What your neighbor who has been in their home for 20 years is paying in property taxes should not have any bearing on your Buy / Dont Buy decision.
And then to complain about it after the fact is just sour grapes.
Stay put in your home for 20 years and then you will be the one with the lower property taxes.
I totally don't understand your contention.
It is a Flaw to encourage someone to stay put?
Whats wrong with staying put?
Whats wrong with not wanting to take a 6% haircut off your net worth every time you sell a house?
Whats wrong with living in a stable neighborhood?
Whats wrong with putting down roots in a community.
Whats wrong with not trying to keep up with the Jonses and constantly moving up to the next trophy mcmansion house.
Whats wrong with living within your means and not wanting a big tax bill.
I think only a Realtor would feel this way.
because the fewer people moving around the fewer oportunities for commission.
Perhaps your reading comprehension needs a little work, as you are imputing to me a bunch of things which I not only did not say, but which I do not believe. Because I do not think it's the proper role of government to penalize buying a different property does not mean I think there is anything wrong with staying put, and does not mean I am against stable neighborhoods or putting down roots in the community. Specifically, I have always lived within my means and have never tried to keep up with the Jones'es. Your wild leaps of fantasy are truly inexplicable. Not only am I not a realtor, but I am the last person who could ever be successful at it.
You knew about what your Taxes would be when you bought your house.
You made the decision to buy anyway.
If you had a problem with your taxes you could have walked.
What your neighbor who has been in their home for 20 years is paying in property taxes should not have any bearing on your Buy / Dont Buy decision.
And then to complain about it after the fact is just sour grapes.
Stay put in your home for 20 years and then you will be the one with the lower property taxes.
Every single thing you said above is totally irrelevant to the issue which I raised. The issue of fairness in taxation has nothing to do with my personal situation as an individual. Why do you wish to personalize everything? Contrary to your assumptions, I have been in my current townhouse for 10 years and I plan to die here. I bought here gladly and there are no sour grapes, as I do not regret my decision. What is it you do not understand about principles of fairness? The discussion had to do with California's Proposition 13 (its pro's and con's) and I stated at the outset that there was much good to it, in addition to my objection.
Every single thing you said above is totally irrelevant to the issue which I raised. The issue of fairness in taxation has nothing to do with my personal situation as an individual. Why do you wish to personalize everything? Contrary to your assumptions, I have been in my current townhouse for 10 years and I plan to die here. I bought here gladly and there are no sour grapes, as I do not regret my decision. What is it you do not understand about principles of fairness? The discussion had to do with California's Proposition 13 (its pro's and con's) and I stated at the outset that there was much good to it, in addition to my objection.
OK I can see your point
I probably did take a giant leap.
When we bought a house in Texas in 1979 the prop taxes were low and an incentive to buy. By the time we sold in 2000 the taxes had tripled and insurance had also tripled. Our tax and insurance doubled our mortgage payment.
I'll grant you that Proposition 13 in California has served to keep property taxes from running wild, so to that extent I agree that it's a good thing. But it is deeply flawed in terms of fairness because it rewards staying put and penalizes buying a new place (in which case the assessment gets suddently raised to the purchase price level). I have friends who have been in their home since 1969. They love Prop. 13 because they have had only very modest increases in property taxes since its passage. But why should their behavior (staying put) be rewarded by government? It is no more meritorious than moving frequently and buying new houses.
One huge irony here is that California is a high-tax state except for property taxes. (And remember I am agreeing that the relatively modest property taxes are a good thing.)
Just a few comments...
Your friends having owned their home since 1969 has no bearing on Prop 13 because the law went into effect a decade later...
I bought near the peak of the last market about 7 years ago... so I should be set... right?
The people buying in my neighborhood now are locking in lower assessed values... so much so, I've seriously considered selling and buying another close by to lower my assessment.
The beauty of Prop 13 is the entire statute is only a few lines, it applies to all property equally and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this to be the case.
All property, whether is was bought 30 years ago or last week is subject to same annual increase limit of 2%.
That said... 55% voter approval is all that is necessary to raise school infrastructure taxes and 2/3 voter approval for everything else.
Prop 13 would have never come into being had the legislature simply indexed the Home Owner Exemption for inflation...
The voter ground swell was something Sacramento never anticipated...
Your friends having owned their home since 1969 has no bearing on Prop 13 because the law went into effect a decade later...
I bought near the peak of the last market about 7 years ago... so I should be set... right?
The people buying in my neighborhood now are locking in lower assessed values... so much so, I've seriously considered selling and buying another close by to lower my assessment.
The beauty of Prop 13 is the entire statute is only a few lines, it applies to all property equally and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this to be the case.
All property, whether is was bought 30 years ago or last week is subject to same annual increase limit of 2%.
That said... 55% voter approval is all that is necessary to raise school infrastructure taxes and 2/3 voter approval for everything else.
Prop 13 would have never come into being had the legislature simply indexed the Home Owner Exemption for inflation...
The voter ground swell was something Sacramento never anticipated...
I do not think you and I have any substantive disagreements about Proposition 13, and I appreciate your rational and well-informed comments about it. The point I was trying to make when I brought up the example of my friends was simply that since they purchased their home a very long time ago (whether 1969 - which was the actual purchase year - or 1979 when Prop 13 went into effect doesn't really matter for the sake of the argument), they continue to accrue tax benefits based on the lower property values which prevaled at the time and that those same benefits are denied to a neighbor buying a theoretical identical house in the same neighborhood much later.
Your own unenviable situation illustrates my point, but in the reverse direction; you are being penalized for having bought "too early" vis à vis a neighbor who bought a theoretical identical house next to you just a few short years later, after property values had fallen substantially.
All in all, I think you are right that the considerable merits of Prop. 13 probably outweigh its one basic shortcoming that I have been trying to point out in several posts here. In other states some seniors have been taxed out of their homes by out-of-control increases in property taxes. And that is unlikely to happen in California because local voters must improve any increase beyond the 2% per year, as you so cogently pointed out above.
Most people pay their property taxes through their mortgage company, and have no idea what their taxes are (I see it when I do a market analysis - they know the ballpark, but are not sure)
If people had to pay their property taxes as a separate item instead of part of the check written monthly to the mortgage company.
Same is true with income taxes - in most cases taxes are taken out of paychecks before we get them... as a Realtor, I get a gross check and have to pay taxes myself - so I know what I am paying.
Imagine a salaried worker who makes $100 a week, then has to write a check for $20 to the feds, $10 to his/he state, etc...
We know our brackets, but have no idea what we are paying in either case.
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.
NOOOOOOOOOOO 
