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.
When you peruse the Retirement Forum and the State Forums for many high tax (IL), northeastern states (NY, NJ, MA, PA, MD) and typical retirement destinations (FL, SC, NC, GA, TN, others), it is very common for those nearing retirement to talk about leaving their high tax states and moving to low tax states.
We don't have as much chatter about that for those approaching retirement in CA -- and some of that is because of Propr 13.
If Prop 13 had never been implemented, many retirees would have followed their NY compatriots and headed to lower tax AZ, NV, FL, etc).
With fewer households chasing the same housing stock & rental stock, prices and rental rates would be lower than they are today.
If Prop 13 had never been implemented, many retirees would have followed their NY compatriots and headed to lower tax AZ, NV, FL, etc).
What about Texans? Don't they need their version of Prop 13? Why isn't there a daily flood of out of staters posting in the Texas forum about how screwed up their property tax system is and how it's pushing out older Texans who can't afford some of the nation's highest rates? Go forth and evangelize!
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlats
Lol, let me answer one more time: ....at the time of transfer. Why add those 5 words if it's simply tied to the value? You must not be a lawyer.
So unless you think your property is up to 50% nicer than your neighbors then it sounds like you (and Ultrarunner) believe that appraisals aren't accurately estimating the value of a property, right? Is that your point, Prop 13 should exist because appraisals can't do a good enough job of ascertaining a property's value?
Personally, I will put quite a bit of effort into maintaining our social safety net. Hopefully we can expand Medicaid or Medicare into a true public option for all ages instead of just the elderly and other disadvantaged populations (low income seniors, children, disabled). Social security is a valuable tool for keeping extreme poverty at bay and the benefit dollars flow back into local communities and the economy as they are spent.
But if the current generation(s) in power continue to do nothing to fix our structural budget issues and further delay paying for our obligations, then we will all find ourselves in a mess in the coming decades. Because raising taxes and appearing weak on the military is so politically toxic we could very well follow the path of least resistance and "reform" entitlements instead of returning to a saner taxation system and reducing our bloated military.
Why didn't people in the 1960s have money saved for their own healthcare in old age? Why was Medicare even necessary? There was a lot less administrative bloat back then, right? So why couldn't everyone save for their own personal health care? Some people wanted to get their healthcare paid for by taxing others. Socialism.
Haven't you been paying into Medicare your whole life? I'm assuming you think you will use less health care than you've paid for so why not transition Medicare to a system where you receive every penny of your and your employer's Medicare payroll taxes plus interest and no more. You can buy private insurance with that money or spend it fee for service at whichever doctor will accept you. If you get cancer and your insurance has a lifetime cap or your savings won't cover full treatment then too bad, right?
Suffer and die? Were you one of those people who complained about the left's use of that language when we were fighting to pass the ACA? Be honest now
Because that was the position on the right with regards to people shut out of the health care markets before 2009, just like it was the "conservative" position back when Medicare was up for a vote. Have you ever seen the Reagan ads railing against Medicare as a socialist takeover and terrible for the country? Do you think Reagan wanted seniors to "suffer and die"? Or are you just for socialism for the elderly and no one else?
The point was that you said it was a simple system as an absolute that was used everywhere else. I was pointing out it was not. My place was not 50% better or more valuable. At that quality of housing it's really square footage and basic condition that determines value.
I do agree that our systems cannot continue as they are, but just saying your generation will cut spending on it and not giving me an explanation of how it would actually work led me to believe you were just being idealistic
Suffer and die was just using a left wing tactic
I am mostly playing devils advocate and I quite realize how new buyers have an incredibly big obstacle with high property taxes while long time owners have an unfair low tax rate, but the system has been in pace for awhile. How would you propose to eliminate prop 13 which would help some but do so without hurting others, in some cases catastrophically?
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlats
What about Texans? Don't they need their version of Prop 13? Why isn't there a daily flood of out of staters posting in the Texas forum about how screwed up their property tax system is and how it's pushing out older Texans who can't afford some of the nation's highest rates? Go forth and evangelize!
A lot of people from the northeast retired to Florida for the lower COL, but rising property taxes forced some out. I would imagine some Texans might experience the same thing.
Here in my county they do have a nice provision that when you turn 62 your property taxes drop to about 1/3 because you no longer have to pay for school taxes. That makes sense as your kids have mostly finished school
A lot of people from the northeast retired to Florida for the lower COL, but rising property taxes forced some out. I would imagine some Texans might experience the same thing.
Here in my county they do have a nice provision that when you turn 62 your property taxes drop to about 1/3 because you no longer have to pay for school taxes. That makes sense as your kids have mostly finished school
FL has a law like Prop 13 and it limits the amount it can be raised plus they have a homestead arrangement that drop property tax even more. Then in most parts of FL, except maybe wealthy areas like parts of Miami, etc, the housing costs are far lower than CA, so the property tax is lower. People move constantly from the North East to FL, to get away from the ridiculous property taxes in those States. CA has problems because even with Prop 13 the State income tax and the ridiculous fees make it expensive to live there. FL is vastly different than CA when it comes to COL.
The point was that you said it was a simple system as an absolute that was used everywhere else. I was pointing out it was not. My place was not 50% better or more valuable. At that quality of housing it's really square footage and basic condition that determines value.
Ahhh but I said taxing the value of the house is as simple or simpler than taxing at transfer. Your quibble is that it is hard to ascertain the value properly. That's why you can appeal or get a second appraisal. Like you said, it's really just square footage and basic condition, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
I do agree that our systems cannot continue as they are, but just saying your generation will cut spending on it and not giving me an explanation of how it would actually work led me to believe you were just being idealistic
Suffer and die was just using a left wing tactic
I didn't want to get into too much of a derail but I can give you concrete examples of both how we could shore up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid or how we could cut spending on all three. The path we choose is up to the voters, and raising taxes to help these systems sustain the baby boom demographic bulge might be politically unpalatable, especially since we've internalized 'no new taxes!' for so long now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
I am mostly playing devils advocate and I quite realize how new buyers have an incredibly big obstacle with high property taxes while long time owners have an unfair low tax rate, but the system has been in pace for awhile. How would you propose to eliminate prop 13 which would help some but do so without hurting others, in some cases catastrophically?
This is what I'm talking about, great paragraph! There are a few things: Let's repeal the the cap on people's third homes or businesses and above. We'll give everyone a two house and two business property exemption. Let's repeal the cap on business properties when the business has over $5 million/year in profit. Let's not apply it to properties owned by foreign buyers or anyone not living or working in California. If you're a foreigner buying a condo in San Francisco and leave it vacant simply to act as a real estate investment then you should probably be paying taxes on that full amount.
Here is another good example (from you!):
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
Here in my county they do have a nice provision that when you turn 62 your property taxes drop to about 1/3 because you no longer have to pay for school taxes. That makes sense as your kids have mostly finished school
There are many different things we can do, it's finding the right mix that's tough, and that's why we need to talk about it. But we gotta do something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
there are so many ways to cover for the shortfall in prop tax revenue if that is the problem.
There would be more tax revenue coming in if we started taxing property more. If people dislike the idea of overall taxes being raised then California can shift that revenue towards lowering income tax (to be more like Texas), or towards reducing other local taxes and fees.
This is just plain false, Trump was one of the driving forces to cap the deductions instead of eliminating them entirely because of the optics of raising taxes. Same as congress-critters from higher tax and higher home value states. It was only to save their own necks that they retreated on it. Trump had very little do do with the structure of that legislation lmao. He's not what some would call a policy wonk.
If you're a homeowner in California worried about your property taxes going up due to the value of your house going up then chances are you are middle class. What about the poor (sometimes elderly) people who rent and will never be able to realize Prop 13 benefits but instead have to deal with high sales and local taxes to pay for your property tax cap? We could repeal 13 but grant you an exemption on account of your age or fixed income. Again the little old lady in an appreciated house example is just a small part of 13 and the idea surrounding reforming it, not a defense against the whole shebang.
This entire thread is turning into a chorus of retirees who have owned property in California for a long time and don't want their gravy train to end. Human nature I guess but still.
Reminds me of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
...except substitute salary with property tax.
The irony too is that 13 would have a much better chance at standing if we could fix our housing shortage but the same people railing against changing 13 are those that don't want any development in their cities because they don't like the increased congestion or density. Shooting themselves in the foot.
It's fix it now or wait until the millenials take over and we'll fix it for you and you'll have much less say in the reform. You've left us a mess.
I am the youngest home owner in my neighborhood with the oldest home and smallest home and pay more in property tax than any of my neighbors...
The couple that built my home in 1957 moved to a retirement home... they paid $1200 annual property tax and the day it became mine the tax went to $8800 and now is pushing 11k
I don't begrudge any of my neighbors... some 40 to 50 years older than I am and most are widowed...
Taking the long term view of things has served me well... and I fully intend to be in their property tax situation when I have as many decades in the neighborhood.
Myself and others like me are not losing anything because others are paying less...
It is time for the next generation to pick up the slack...
What about Texans? Don't they need their version of Prop 13? Why isn't there a daily flood of out of staters posting in the Texas forum about how screwed up their property tax system is and how it's pushing out older Texans who can't afford some of the nation's highest rates? Go forth and evangelize!
Ahhh but I said taxing the value of the house is as simple or simpler than taxing at transfer. Your quibble is that it is hard to ascertain the value properly. That's why you can appeal or get a second appraisal. Like you said, it's really just square footage and basic condition, right?
It costs to file and appeal and the assessment appeal board has 2 years to act and during that time all taxes billed must be paid...
I have appealed and won every time and 26 to 28 months later I get my Alameda County refund check...
If Assessors were that good... no one would every win an appeal... right?
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.
