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.
The idea of encouraging housing as public policy is at odds with the prevalence of multi-generational households. Something obviously went awry because otherwise you'd see a decrease in that. People don't live in extended households because old people are a lot of fun - they do it only because of economic necessity.
Prop 13 encourages multi-gen households -- ppl don't want to move/sell and instead prefer to transfer it to family members who can keep the low tax rate
LOL. So you think that the state's population of 3M illegals is "highly productive human capital"?
They come with low levels of literacy, education, are poor, and largely unskilled.
I get that these days, trashing illegals is popular with some ppl, but:
1) my original point concerned ppl with college or advanced degrees, particularly in STEM and business fields; CA develops, trains, and attracts these ppl (as legal immigrants) in droves from all over the world and in higher numbers/quality than other states
2) as to illegals, while they may not be highly productive (as measured by GDP output or income), collectively, they perform essential work that the state depends on to survive and operate. Think construction, retail, restaurants and other food services, cleaning, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.
The idea of encouraging housing as public policy is at odds with the prevalence of multi-generational households. Something obviously went awry because otherwise you'd see a decrease in that. People don't live in extended households because old people are a lot of fun - they do it only because of economic necessity.
The property transfers from one generation to the next...
One of my coworkers has documents going back to the 1600's and going back to the 1800's is often the norm.
Part may be the way inheritance is taxed...
If I die and leave you my home... the tax is paid on the value of my death... and the tax is quite high.
The work around is to turn over the property at retirement age... with a Life Estate.
Here is how it works... when I reach 60, I deed the property to the next generation but retain a life estate... and often it means the receiver has to provide basics such as utilities...
The reason for this method is taxes... if I give you my house while I am still alive and retain the right to live out my life in the property... the "Value" of the gift is extremely low... the taxable value is often around 10% of market value had it been a sale... sometimes even less...
By house... these are fully functional large homes... either farm houses that ceased being farms or city row homes with each level having living quarters... it is not like you even have to see each other any more than a neighbor if that is what you want...
The American custom is to hang onto everything to your last breath... although a Life Estate is totally legal here too.
Prop 13 encourages multi-gen households -- ppl don't want to move/sell and instead prefer to transfer it to family members who can keep the low tax rate
Wrong... Prop 13 has zero to do with the Transfer to family members...
Not blaming you... it is another common Prop 13 misconception.
Prop 58 and Prop 193 enable property to to up and down the chain in certain circumstances and not trigger reassessment... also these are not automatic in that it must be applied for along with supporting documents for Assessor review.
It is the same with family transfer of vehicles... if one sibling gives another a car... it is not subject to the usual rules... including smog if required.
I get that these days, trashing illegals is popular with some ppl, but:
1) my original point concerned ppl with college or advanced degrees, particularly in STEM and business fields; CA develops, trains, and attracts these ppl (as legal immigrants) in droves from all over the world and in higher numbers/quality than other states
2) as to illegals, while they may not be highly productive (as measured by GDP output or income), collectively, they perform essential work that the state depends on to survive and operate. Think construction, retail, restaurants and other food services, cleaning, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.
Maybe under the table... I9 has been standard for a long time and the penalties are severe for willful violation...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 01-07-2018 at 09:31 PM..
The delta for tech worker pay is more like 20-25% anecdotally, so that is a no brainer. It is advantageous to take the Austin or ATL offer.
In what way is moving to ATLANTA to get paid less a no-brainer? I’ve lived there. A crime-filled backwards cesspool full of people who think the wrong side won the civil war, horrible infrastructure, worse traffic than the bay area and hours from the ocean. Hard pass.
Actually I own a house in Atherton, an eichler in Palo Alto, my original house in half moon bay, an Eichler in the San Mateo highlands, and multi family homes in San Francisco + Redwood City. Despite this I’m a middle class man through and through. I didn’t even buy my first luxury vehicle (a cadillac) until I bought my Atherton home (so I “made it”). I worked as a county clerk.
My neighbors live on pensions and rent from second properties throughout the Bay Area. We’re just modest middle class people I don’t see how we’re “wealthy”.
You lucked out and got to buy a home in one of the most expensive locations in the country when it was only a little bit more expensive than real estate in the rest of the country. You've benefited from all of the appreciation.
Today your Atherton home is worth 10x more than the median home in the US. The average Bay Area home is now about 4x more than it costs in the rest of the country.
For a median income earner, they need to spend 20 years saving up for a down payment. And that is only if they are lucky enough to have somewhat affordable housing costs.
In what way is moving to ATLANTA to get paid less a no-brainer? I’ve lived there. A crime-filled backwards cesspool full of people who think the wrong side won the civil war, horrible infrastructure, worse traffic than the bay area and hours from the ocean. Hard pass.
Because with your slightly lower than CA salary you can afford a way better quality of life, particularly if you have a family. You could actually afford a family-sized home with a reasonable commute.
Governor Brown is arguably the most informed and experienced politician bar none when it comes to Prop 13...
Governor Brown says Prop 13 is established law and not going anywhere... it is time to move on.
He has also said Prop 13 is the Third Rail of Politics... touch it at your own peril...
I guess each generation has to learn life's lessons for themselves.
Ultimately, this thread could have just ended with this. But like most threads that get into the topic of Prop 13, this one will probably go on for 50+ pages. We'll be treated to...1) posters that have no idea what point they're trying to make, move the goal post every time it's pointed out and proved to them that their logic is flawed, and continue on with their unsubstantiated conjecture, 2) posters who claim that everyone is out to get them with their "I got mine so screw everyone else" comments (more flawed nonsense), 3) The name callers yelling at everyone that they're NIMBYs and if only they'd let people build, all their troubles would be solved, and 4) posters yelling about corporations but have no justification as to why the government needs more money and have no answer for all the money they already waste...as though giving them more would be a good thing, lol.
All this BS about rescinding Prop 13, building to the moon, getting rid of rent controls are nothing but short term measures that are no solutions whatsoever. Ultimately, the only thing that will reduce demand is a recession. And as Ultrarunner aptly pointed out, we've had them multiple times (the last of course being after 2008). You could have gotten a house in Daly City back then for just over $500k (where were all these online complainers then?). Sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. They also could have done it during the Dot Com bust. I'm guessing many of them were telling homeowners how stupid they were and how they would never buy. I would say to those complaining now that you can't have it both ways. The unemployment rate in SF was just under 10% in 2009 and 2010 and all I heard from people was how they couldn't find jobs and how terrible it was. Fast forward 7 years and it's "OMG, it's so busy...it's so expensive". Yeah, duh! The population of San Francisco in the first 5 years of this decade matched the entire previous decade from 2000-2010. So guess what, things got crowded and more expensive. That's how it works. Apparently some people can't figure this out.
Prop 13 isn't going away so all your complaining in the world on a forum on the internet isn't going to change anything. And no, you don't have it any harder than someone that bought a home 20 something years ago (as much as you'd like to say things are so much harder for you). And no, you aren't being treated differently than people were treated back then either. You were charged the same percentage based on acquisition costs as someone was back then. But again...I guess each generation has to learn life's lessons for themselves..
Ultimately, this thread could have just ended with this. But like most threads that get into the topic of Prop 13, this one will probably go on for 50+ pages. We'll be treated to...1) posters that have no idea what point they're trying to make, move the goal post every time it's pointed out and proved to them that their logic is flawed, and continue on with their unsubstantiated conjecture, 2) posters who claim that everyone is out to get them with their "I got mine so screw everyone else" comments (more flawed nonsense), 3) The name callers yelling at everyone that they're NIMBYs and if only they'd let people build, all their troubles would be solved, and 4) posters yelling about corporations but have no justification as to why the government needs more money and have no answer for all the money they already waste...as though giving them more would be a good thing, lol.
All this BS about rescinding Prop 13, building to the moon, getting rid of rent controls are nothing but short term measures that are no solutions whatsoever. Ultimately, the only thing that will reduce demand is a recession. And as Ultrarunner aptly pointed out, we've had them multiple times (the last of course being after 2008). You could have gotten a house in Daly City back then for just over $500k (where were all these online complainers then?). Sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. They also could have done it during the Dot Com bust. I'm guessing many of them were telling homeowners how stupid they were and how they would never buy. I would say to those complaining now that you can't have it both ways. The unemployment rate in SF was just under 10% in 2009 and 2010 and all I heard from people was how they couldn't find jobs and how terrible it was. Fast forward 7 years and it's "OMG, it's so busy...it's so expensive". Yeah, duh! The population of San Francisco in the first 5 years of this decade matched the entire previous decade from 2000-2010. So guess what, things got crowded and more expensive. That's how it works. Apparently some people can't figure this out.
Prop 13 isn't going away so all your complaining in the world on a forum on the internet isn't going to change anything. And no, you don't have it any harder than someone that bought a home 20 something years ago (as much as you'd like to say things are so much harder for you). And no, you aren't being treated differently than people were treated back then either. You were charged the same percentage based on acquisition costs as someone was back then. But again...I guess each generation has to learn life's lessons for themselves..
Enjoy your 50 page thread
1) Again, it's this type of thinking and acceptance of the status quo -- "hey, it's just the way it is" or "it's always been that way" -- that's caused CA's housing and COL crisis in large part. It's as if they can't fathom some policy changes that would go partway to fixing the problems. (A lot of these policy changes would simply be adopting what other states with lower COL do.)
2) As for your accusations about moving goal posts, conjecture, and flawed logic -- read through the past posts. I made the same points about housing supply and COL and you responded with inappposite points about mortgage payments (that were completely unrealistic) and throwing ppl out of their homes. It's not conjecture but based on economic analysis from economists/experts in the field. As for flawed lobic, you haven't actually responded to most of the logic or explained why it's wrong and just ignored it entirely
3) Your proposal of just buying low during recessions and using recessions to reduce demand is wrong on numerous levels. To name a few, the issue isn't demand, it's supply that's restrained in part by Prop 13. And we don't want to force ppl to buy during recessionary periods; we want a properly functioning market where, when demand jumps up, supply is there to meet it so we can accommodate new entrants and buyers. This is how a properly functioning and efficient market would work and it would boost productivity/GDP and living standards in the Bay Area.
Last edited by checkup; 01-08-2018 at 09:28 AM..
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.
