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.
"Still hard to imagine my East Oakland home that is 60 years old and 1700 square feet will soon have a $1000 a month tax bill." posted by Ultrarunner
For that kind of a payment they should wash your car and cut your lawn weekly, plus a free pizza on Friday nights.
Just being curious, are there potholes in Oakland or the streets are all paved with marble?
Unfortunately... we do have potholes and some streets are on a 100 year paving schedule.
The street were I grew up was last paved in 1957...
Maybe being the hole is just the way government is run today?
Not necessarily a loss, but not as much as you may have been hoping.
A lot of homeowners are like me and bought some time ago and will see a gain either way.
But why sell? Then who will buy with higher taxes and a high selling price as the price will not drop. Yes they would se a gain but why sell? Unless you want to force people to sell????????
So you want to pay more and more and more because taxes should always go up and you should pay more and more?
Hmmm well thought out and articulated argument expat, I was directly responding to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr
And lastly, if that home is a rental, and the property taxes go up tenfold, do you believe it's OK for the property owner to increase rents to recoup that loss? If not, where are they supposed to get the cash to pay the higher taxes?
You don't agree that a landlord should be able to raise their rents if their property taxes go up 10x?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
(a) The full cash value means the County Assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under “full cash value,” or thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to the 1975-76 tax levels may be reassessed to reflect that valuation
Here we go again for the umpteenth time, this text does not state that property taxes are based on the value of the property. That's the whole frickin point of Prop 13, so when grandma's house triples in value she's not paying a 3X higher property tax rate. Key language: "when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment". You know this, you're just being obtuse.
Yeah I understand this Sleepy. I was responding to Ultrarunner's logic that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
The way property tax is administered was insidious... there has to be a gain or loss realized in just about every case EXCEPT for property tax... totally insane to be taxed based on a unrealized event.
...demonstrating that it's possible to reassess taxes based on a changing home value and actually not that "insane". If you can reduce the property tax based on a lowered home value you can increase it based on a higher value. Period. I would love to move past this silly semantics argument and actually discuss the merits of Prop 13 but we seem to be spending multiple pages telling personal anecdotes, complaining about taxes in general, and arguing that either Prop 13 taxes a persons house based on it's current value or that it's impossible to gauge the current value with any accuracy until it's sold. But hey, par for the course for this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
If you'd prefer to pay $30 K in annual property taxes (as my aunt and uncle do in another state), then by all means, do so.
Nobody wants to pay higher taxes. I just want a cleaner tax structure like many other states, especially for non primary residences and business properties. This is ideology, not personal interest. My taxes would personally go up if Prop 13 was removed for residential properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
Wow, the more you write, the less credibility you have.
You really have no idea what's going on.
I gave an example of how your tax structure failed in my out of state properties which you conveniently did not address but you did respond to other parts of that post. Guess that's what happens when you make a statement and get proven wrong. Instead I'd admitting it you just pretend no one sees it . Well done.
This is the second time I've asked you for your example and your point, I can't seem to find it in the older posts. Hang in there aslowdodge, we just might get to some productive discussion yet! Although honestly, if your point is that because you've personally been in a situation where no Prop 13 would have raised your taxes therefore a Prop 13-less system is unworkable then I don't really have a response. Because obviously many states manage a Prop 13-less system just fine and its more a matter of you complaining that you don't want to pay higher taxes because paying higher taxes sucks. Some real deep thinking there, sure to accomplish things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
How can California be running out of money when it is at the top when it comes to taxation and has abundant resources?
It's not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Sure it would not have the effect of raising housing prices
Cool, we agree that removing 13 would not raise house prices. High-five CR! Best for last! Is that a flying pig over there?
People think market actions like "repealing Prop 13" occur in isolation, the truth is they don't, and it's more like a row of dominos that touch and impact other market events.
Nuh-uh! The only thing that will happen is my taxes will go up and that's bad! Normalizing our property tax structure couldn't possibly have any other sort of impact on our state's housing supply and budget.
Prop 13 is tied to the value at the time of transfer...
So "Value" is integral and determined to a certainty... the certainty of Fair Market at that point in time...
It is not some estimation of value or a drive by guess...
Prop 13 provides for increased value... which happens to be capped at 2% annually.
Prop 13 provides for increased revenue requiring only voter approval... how democratic in that the those wishing to increase property taxes actually need to make the case to the voters...
Prop 13 has been litigated all the way to the US Supreme Court and stands...
Time to move on or as Governor Brown so eloquently put it... Prop 13 is settled Law and the Supreme Court reaffirms it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Prop 13 is based on the cost of acquisition... just like buying a car or buying a cell phone...
Why don't we get rid of property tax all together and have a simple Sales Tax apply to home purchases... like the 10% added to the purchase price for goods in my area?
Property owners are disadvantaged when it comes to taxation... it is not like you can pick up your property and relocate...
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-16-2018 at 09:32 PM..
Prop 13 is tied to the value at the time of transfer...
So "Value" is integral and determined to a certainty... the certainty of Fair Market at that point in time...
It is not some estimation of value or a drive by guess...
Prop 13 provides for increased value... which happens to be capped at 2% annually.
Prop 13 provides for increased revenue requiring only voter approval... how democratic in that the those wishing to increase property taxes actually need to make the case to the voters...
Prop 13 has been litigated all the way to the US Supreme Court and stands...
Time to move on or as Governor Brown so eloquently put it... Prop 13 is settled Law and the Supreme Court reaffirms it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Prop 13 is based on the cost of acquisition... just like buying a car or buying a cell phone...
Why don't we get rid of property tax all together and have a simple Sales Tax apply to home purchases... like the 10% added to the purchase price for goods in my area?
Property owners are disadvantaged when it comes to taxation... it is not like you can pick up your home and lot and relocated...
Another post that should be a sticky. And read by anyone who doesn't understand Prop 13.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlats
What example again? We have many examples of a Prop 13-less tax system. Look at the dozens of states that tax property as a percentage of the property's fair market value.
On post #722 you said: Silly like your constant evasion of a discussion through anecdotes and shifting the topic. There is a way to determine the value of a property with a good degree of accuracy and there is a way to tax that value instead of a previous value. That fact exists whether you like it or not.
Okay, I have rentals in areas where there is no prop 13 and they assess values often and taxes change. The neighborhoods are pretty consistant on the type of housing and size. I pay in some cases up to 50% more than my neighbor, so the system is not as bulletproof as you say it is.
I also wanted to ask you when you and your generation decide to vote out the benefits because you think it's too expensive and unfair to you, you're leaving the older people high and dry. When you become old, how will you fare since those benefits are gone? Will everyone in you generation have millions upon millions save to pay for health care?
If you have aging parents and they need help, if medicare and the like were to be voted away by your generation as you say you might do, then you have 2 choices:you personally pay to take care of them or you can let them suffer and die.
Which will you choose? The problem is your solutions aren't addressing what happens many steps after.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,569,440 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlats
Nuh-uh! The only thing that will happen is my taxes will go up and that's bad! Normalizing our property tax structure couldn't possibly have any other sort of impact on our state's housing supply and budget.
So what happens when it's repealed and values go down and people lose their nest egg? Not just the older people who you claim set this up to put you at a disadvantage. What about people in your generation that just bought in the last few years and if they go upside down? Think gen x and millenials will enjoy seeing the million dollar house they bought maybe drop to 600K yet they still have to pay the million dollars?
Prop 13 is tied to the value at the time of transfer...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Why don't we get rid of property tax all together and have a simple Sales Tax apply to home purchases... like the 10% added to the purchase price for goods in my area?
Property owners are disadvantaged when it comes to taxation... it is not like you can pick up your property and relocate...
Property has a continual impact and cost on the surrounding community. It was one of the first taxes America had after sales taxes, before income tax. Do you just not believe in the idea of property taxes? Do you want to eliminate property tax and increase sales and income taxes? If you want to reduce spending so we can all have lower taxes then that's a different discussion for another thread (that I'm happy to participate in).
Property owners are disadvantaged when it comes to taxation? Disadvantaged compared to who, renters? Renters pay the taxes their landlords pass through (damn, I thought we had made progress on that front).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Another post that should be a sticky. And read by anyone who doesn't understand Prop 13.
Well I think by 80 pages we all understand that Prop 13 is a California property tax law that says you are taxed based on your home's 1975 value, date of purchase, or date of new construction, with capped, modest yearly increases allowed. Now lets talk about whether the law should be changed and why or why not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
Okay, I have rentals in areas where there is no prop 13 and they assess values often and taxes change. The neighborhoods are pretty consistant on the type of housing and size. I pay in some cases up to 50% more than my neighbor, so the system is not as bulletproof as you say it is.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
I also wanted to ask you when you and your generation decide to vote out the benefits because you think it's too expensive and unfair to you, you're leaving the older people high and dry.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
Will everyone in you generation have millions upon millions save to pay for health care?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aslowdodge
If you have aging parents and they need help, if medicare and the like were to be voted away by your generation as you say you might do, then you have 2 choices:you personally pay to take care of them or you can let them suffer and die.
Which will you choose? The problem is your solutions aren't addressing what happens many steps after.
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?
So what happens when it's repealed and values go down and people lose their nest egg? Not just the older people who you claim set this up to put you at a disadvantage. What about people in your generation that just bought in the last few years and if they go upside down? Think gen x and millenials will enjoy seeing the million dollar house they bought maybe drop to 600K yet they still have to pay the million dollars?
We have a massive housing crisis in California aslowdodge. Prop 13 is but a piece of that. We need to drastically build more housing to accommodate the jobs that are being created, which will have the effect of lowering housing prices. No one enjoys the value of their house going down but we will not be able to live with the restriction of supply long term, which means these inflated values will have to come down.
For large problems like this you will always have anecdotes of people who will be disadvantaged. That's why it's not an easy thing, not black and white. Plenty of bank tellers lost their jobs when ATMs came on the scene. Families were destroyed in the rust belt when steel and cars started being produced en mass globally. Coal workers lost livelihoods as natural gas exploded onto the scene.
People lost their shirts when our housing bubble popped from 2007-2012; we can't run around trying to control everything and protect everyone. We can have sane, simple, efficient taxation, regulation, and administration though. And a good, effective, comprehensive safety net for those who get the short ends of these sticks.
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.
