Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so busness property tax goes up & up more every year. (Sacramento: lenders, home)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

then when the house is sold or transferred to their children the estate pays the balance of the remaining taxes.

You've brought up transferring their property to children multiple times, which is not very common in California.

If property taxes were applied equally to all properties you would see a mass exodious from high demand areas and a lowering of prices as supply increases. After a few years the market will stabilize.

No, you'd have a massive homeowner revolt, just like we did in 1978.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You've brought up transferring their property to children multiple times, which is not very common in California.



No, you'd have a massive homeowner revolt, just like we did in 1978.

Yes, people get made when they lose their "preferred class" status.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

how could 1% be a 'detriment' to buyers? There are only 16 states with lower property tax, look at the link I posted. I lived in Nevada, their 'formula' is complex but it ends up being about 1.5% of the value of your home, the problem there is that the houses are reappraised every 5 years and the appraisers are given free reign to decide what your house is worth. The rate increase is capped at 3% but if your appraisal goes up 15% your property tax will increase by 3% every year for 5 years. Property tax on the house I bought there in 1999 started out at around $1600 a year, when I sold the house my property tax was almost $4,000. Does that sound fair to you?

If 1% isn't a detriment than everyone could pay the same amount.

Like a said, if the rate is too high, lower the rate so it is applied equally to everyone instead of our current system where some a screwed and others pay relatively nothing while enjoying all the same benefits.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

If 1% isn't a detriment than everyone could pay the same amount.

Like a said, if the rate is too high, lower the rate so it is applied equally to everyone instead of our current system where some a screwed and others pay relatively nothing while enjoying all the same benefits.

The tax is not on benefits, but purchase price.

That is fair to everyone. The price too high, don't buy it. Housing prices will fluctuate a bit but in So Cal for sure it won't drop much. Unless of course next year there is no water for anyone.

You see taxes as a way to cause prices to drop. Won't happen. The only solution is to .... make more money or move to where you can afford to buy, not punish those who make enough to buy.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Does rent control cause an increase in price for non rent controlled appar tents when supply is limited, like in San Francisco?

This is just basic economics.

Everyone is for a fair tax code until their tax break is being affected.

Yes as the ones not rent controlled cost ... more.

Prop13 is fair.It isn't taxes, that are increasing the cost of a home, it is totally supply and demand. If all taxes went to 2%, it would not change the value of a house. If older owned homes had to pay more in taxes, how would that cause any other home to sell for less???? It would not. Basic economics is supply and demand. No one is forced to buy or sell or rent, except by their own circumstances and ... supply.

[NoNansea]

There is so much homeowner turnover & so many homes have been built since 1978, there is really no room to blame Prop 13 for California's budget woes. Look who this article says wants to eliminate Prop 13. THAT is one of California's biggest budget problems.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NoNansea

There is so much homeowner turnover & so many homes have been built since 1978, there is really no room to blame Prop 13 for California's budget woes. Look who this article says wants to eliminate Prop 13. THAT is one of California's biggest budget problems.

That is correct. How many people actually now own a home bought in 1979??? I have owned since the 70's 4 homes (one for 9 years in CA) and one I was renting to own and decided to move. That is about one home every 7 years, not counting 6 rentals I lived in. Thanks to the last home in CA, I know own my current home free and clear. Plus I still own property in CA and it has appreciated about 40% since purchased in 2003. I could have whined about how expensive it was to buy there, but i didn't. I bought at a level I could, and not where I would have loved to again live (OC) but close enough. It paid off just fine and if I wanted (my wife would kill me) I could move to OC. I would have enough for a major down payment, bringing my mortgage to less than rent and live just fine. My wife is more important than where I live soooo........

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Yes, people get mad when they lose their "preferred class" status.

No, what homeowners of every age and of every length of ownership were upset about before Prop 13 passed was that their property taxes kept going up (without the owners ever having sold their property) and that they could not predict what their property taxes were going to be from year to year. People could not afford to stay in their homes when they had NO IDEA what they would be assessed from year to year.

I was a renter in L.A. in my early 20s when Prop 13 was on the ballot. It seemed as if everyone I knew (including my parents) who owned a home was scared, furious, and/or ready to put their house on the market...and many older retirees on fixed incomes had already sold and moved out of state.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

how could 1% be a 'detriment' to buyers? There are only 16 states with lower property tax, look at the link I posted. I lived in Nevada, their 'formula' is complex but it ends up being about 1.5% of the value of your home, the problem there is that the houses are reappraised every 5 years and the appraisers are given free reign to decide what your house is worth. The rate increase is capped at 3% but if your appraisal goes up 15% your property tax will increase by 3% every year for 5 years. Property tax on the house I bought there in 1999 started out at around $1600 a year, when I sold the house my property tax was almost $4,000. Does that sound fair to you?

This is a huge problem because property owners are forced to pay taxes on unrealized gain based on perceived or estimated value... how unfair is that?

Property Tax is different because it is a tax based on being... not on earning, not on buying, not on selling... simply for existing...

Sounds like Nevada has a lower rate than Oakland CA... I'm at 1.7% of Market Value.

The purpose of Government is to serve and somewhere along the line it's purpose has shifted... now it is the people's job to feed the beast.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

If 1% isn't a detriment than everyone could pay the same amount.

Like a said, if the rate is too high, lower the rate so it is applied equally to everyone instead of our current system where some a screwed and others pay relatively nothing while enjoying all the same benefits.

I would like to hear more and it sounds fair...

Each residential unit would be say assessed $4,000 per year... kind of a flat rate and each commercial unit could be assessed based on square footage...

If everyone paying the same amount ever gets traction... you can count me in.