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 taxes aren't based on age in principle, but they are certainly in practice. Length of home ownership is highly correlated with age...so no its not a moot point.
Length of ownership can be a factor as is timing... given the two... I will pick timing over length...
The old adage of buy low... sell high.
Unfortunately, I didn't follow this advice... I bought 7 years ago what I can buy for 65 cents on the dollar for today... in my case... length of ownership has proven very detrimental.
Quote:
Why? You can get your taxes adjusted downward. But this is pretty sick too...Your advice to young families is for them to wait around for a depressed market before they buy a family home?
You can "Try" to get your taxes adjusted downward... I'm in the process right now...
First you must fill out a form offering justification and pay a fee. In the interim, you must pay all taxes billed in full. The county has 24 months to decide and the kicker is that the decision if favorable only applies to the single year...
Yes... I strongly advise anyone to carefully weigh the cost/benefit and timing is everything... this is especially true for young families...
Quote:
I'm sure all landlords would make that case...but this would just lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor/mid income folks.
I have never understand why "Owning" a home should subject one to a lifetime of taxation... have a sales tax and be done with it... this would also take care of one issue you have raised by eliminating property tax consequences from the hold/sell decision... sounds like a win/win.
There was a time when property taxes were tied to property specific services... fire protection, law enforcement, roads... etc. why home owners are on the hook for sports stadiums, youth sports, public transit, county health department... etc., is beyond my comprehension... unless you look at the real reason... and that is because property owners are sitting ducks... you can't just pick-up your home and move it...
I know a few that have successfully opted out from the system and have a fantastic quality of life... they are permanent nomads... either land or sea based.
The land based ones cashed out and bought a luxury motor home in Oregon... no sales tax and low license fees... they travel North America, almost with out a care... about a year after buying their home they moved their mailing address to Washington... no Income taxes there.
Others are liveaboards... they pay birthing fees than is about it...
Quote:
But I get it, you own properties and you want low property taxes. After all how exactly does one justify property taxes that don't even keep up with inflation? You could make one simple change to prop 13 that would solve most of the problems:
- Allow annual increases of the greater of 4% or the current annual rate of inflation. If the home owner is over 65 restrict the annual increase to the rate of inflation.
This would prevent spikes in taxes but would also allow taxes over time to adjust to current values.
A property tax system that allows one person to pay $700 and another to pay $3,000 is just plain absurd.
Yes... I think each purchase needs to make sense for the parties involved... If someone wanted to offer me what I paid for my home... I would be elated...
It comes down to paying your dues... my one and only Union job had me sweeping the floors when things were slow... it was all based on seniority... didn't have a problem with it because, even then... I realized everyone has to pay their dues.
Just of kicks... why should someone pay taxes on a yearly basis that exceed the purchase price of the property?... absurd on the face of it, but true.
What it really means is there really isn't ownership in the true sense of the word when it comes to Real Estate.
Right now I'm trying to help friend with a median strip that is 5' by 300' that was all that remained after a city condemnation to widen the road... the city couldn't take all the property because of the utilities involved... the remaining strip is valued at fair market at $400... the annual property taxes are $700... of which $6 is property tax and $694 in special assessments for library, public transit, schools and 23 others... the way the county is set up... he cannot add the property to his home... so it remains a separate taxable parcel...
Back to your original reply... my answer is Prop 13 provides a modicum of stability and a framework prevent temporary politicians from forcing people from their homes through confiscatory taxation without voter approval...why should someone be at risk of loosing their home through the actions of others?
Just because many got caught up in the mass hysteria that property had no where to go but up and prices rose to astronomical levels... why should that negatively impact Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner minding their own business?
Quote:
Huh? Of course they are...for example housing has the highest weight. Anyhow, here is the math:
As for transferring wealth from younger, newer workers to the aging population -- and glib responses: Yeah? So? The older generation, far from perfect in its own youth, has managed to put in its time which brings us to where we are today -- which place is where the newer generations take their shot.
Yes it brings us where we are today.... Because the older generations failed to properly fund the services that they utilized with taxes the state's debt (indeed the nations) has skyrocketed. So older generations have created large obligations that the youth will have to pay....of course if anybody young says anything about the situation being unbalanced they get "Yeah? So?".
Honestly...I like the glibness in the older generations...ultimately the youth are in the driving seat and can force brutal austerity on older generations..they just have to find the motive....
In terms of "owning it". Sorry, when I'm older I'm not going to selfishly advocate for policies that create unbalanced distributions of wealth between generations. Just as I don't support policies that create unbalanced distributions of wealth between socioeconomic groups. But the boomers, like the wealthy in this country, feel rather brazen.
But as I said before, I don't think the youth are going to put down their iphones and do anything about it. Just as I don't think the proles are going to raise up against the elite. Instead American society will just become more miserable across the board for anybody that tries to play "by the rules".
Perhaps a clear definition of older generation is needed?...
Just about anyone can do what I did if they choose... there was nothing special about it.
I wanted to own a home, it was important to me and I realized the only home I could afford was coming up for condemnation... the estate had no luck selling the 700 square foot cottage built in 1910 after 18 months of trying... I made an offer and got it accepted.
There are similar opportunities in the same East Oakland neighborhoods this very moment...
It helped that I had been gainfully employed and paying into social security since age 12... so I had 9 years of savings to "Invest" and make my dream a reality...
No one handed me anything and family and friends did everything to dissuade me... my Step Grandfather even suggested walking away when he saw what I had done...
My friends did similar things... none of us growing up in East Oakland were trust fund kids... we all bought all clunker cars and kept fixing them...
Kids today expect things handed to them... I have friends that won't even venture into areas where homes are affordable... and yet... they complain their kids will never be able to have a home...
Well, time for a reality check... when you get down to it... it really is a question of priorities and living within you means.
For me... that first home was my pride and joy... right down the roses I planted... it also gave me a firm financial footing... by transforming it... I was building equity and later I was able to tap some of that equity to buy another home and start the process all over again...
Oh... that co-worker lamenting about her kids not being able to afford a home... thought nothing about giving her a $20,000 Honda and sending her out of State of school...
Don't forget the "Boomers" of which I am too young to be... paid a price that my generation was never asked... they were drafted off to fight in wars... anyone that discounts this has no standing to complain.
Yes it brings us where we are today.... Because the older generations failed to properly fund the services that they utilized with taxes the state's debt (indeed the nations) has skyrocketed. So older generations have created large obligations that the youth will have to pay....of course if anybody young says anything about the situation being unbalanced they get "Yeah? So?".
Honestly...I like the glibness in the older generations...ultimately the youth are in the driving seat and can force brutal austerity on older generations..they just have to find the motive....
In terms of "owning it". Sorry, when I'm older I'm not going to selfishly advocate for policies that create unbalanced distributions of wealth between generations. Just as I don't support policies that create unbalanced distributions of wealth between socioeconomic groups. But the boomers, like the wealthy in this country, feel rather brazen.
But as I said before, I don't think the youth are going to put down their iphones and do anything about it. Just as I don't think the proles are going to raise up against the elite. Instead American society will just become more miserable across the board for anybody that tries to play "by the rules".
Heh ... poor youth: has to inherit the messes of the generation before: who had to inherit the messes of the generation before them: who had to inherit -- well, you get the idea. Yes, each generation leaves its mistakes behind to a considerable degree ... yours will as well. And yes, that's 'buying in' to your spot. As Ultrarunner has pointed out several times: the Boomers had their burdens -- some really nasty ones -- cost plenty of lives as well as dollars. And the so called "greatest generation" before had it even worse.
Despite the errors and disasters, it seems that each generation has a somewhat easier path, regardless. Anyway, all this debt is a red-herring, as you well know. You simply love to argue. Debt needs to be managed -- and much better than it is now. But the danger of government debt is really only in its ratio to revenue generated by earnings of the economy. Though we struggle now, historically the cycles always eventually reassert posterity. And among the things Boomers leave the following generations, along with the struggles, is a clear map of how to better manage budgets, spending, market oversight, and more -- so that in the next cycle of posterity, the debt can be put back into healthy perspective.
You're welcome for the gifts we have bestowed on you. Think nothing of it. Glad we could be of help. (You bunch of whiny self-absorbed brats.)
A two class system is actually fuel for the fire, welcomed by the Communists. They hate societies with strong middle class situations. Those are hard to crack. But a two class society? Manna from heaven, for the Communist revolutionary (and the community organizer).
A healthy, traditional class system has: a) multiple classes; b) multiple criteria such as family heritage, non-economic achievement, intelligence, culture, and wealth/income; and c) geographical integration. The modern two-or-three tiered class system, which is purely a function of wealth/income, and where each class gets its own city or region is a recipe for disaster.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,684,265 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
A two class system is actually fuel for the fire, welcomed by the Communists. They hate societies with strong middle class situations. Those are hard to crack. But a two class society? Manna from heaven, for the Communist revolutionary (and the community organizer).
Sometimes you amaze me. Where are those commies? Where is that revolution?
Huh, Community organizers, Food Bank, Rotary Club, Elks Club. Volunteer Fire Departments and their commie crab feeds. Cracks me up to hear people complain about community organizers, as if they were the Commie vanguard. They only do this because they apply a distinct and erroneous definition to the term.
Sometimes you amaze me. Where are those commies? Where is that revolution?
Huh, Community organizers, Food Bank, Rotary Club, Elks Club. Volunteer Fire Departments and their commie crab feeds. Cracks me up to hear people complain about community organizers, as if they were the Commie vanguard. They only do this because they apply a distinct and erroneous definition to the term.
I always felt a "good" community organizer should be able to arrange a great BBQ. Too many communities need that sort of thing. It brings the community together for the common good! It surrounds us and binds us together!!!
Heh ... poor youth: has to inherit the messes of the generation before: who had to inherit the messes of the generation before them: who had to inherit -- well, you get the idea.
Except of course that the previous generation (the boomers) didn't inherit any mess....instead they inherited the strongest economy in US history and slowly destroyed it.
Note: I'm talking about economics....in other aspects society wasn't so great in the 50's and 60's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo
Anyway, all this debt is a red-herring, as you well know. You simply love to argue. Debt needs to be managed -- and much better than it is now. But the danger of government debt is really only in its ratio to revenue generated by earnings of the economy.
Firstly, there is no red-herring. Secondly, though you may have the right idea in mind the terms you're using are gibberish. The relevant ratio is debt to GDP, "earnings of the economy" makes no sense.... But if you look at the debt to GDP ratio you'll find that its at historic highs.
Regardless, growing public debt represents an obligation to current workers/retirees to be paid by future workers and the natural progression is for the debt to be paid by increased taxes which will result in a transfer of wealth from future workers. So called "austerity". Of course austerity is not the only means to pay the debt, younger generations can insist on other methods that don't transfer wealth away from them...or even methods that transfer wealth to them.
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.
(You bunch of whiny self-absorbed brats.)
