Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so busness property tax goes up & up more every year. (big house, housing)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Not always true mutt~ There are implications to passing on 100% of cost increases to consumers. When you do so you are 'guessing' that all competitors will do the same thing, if not then your sales might well decrease to the point where you are losing more than you would have by absorbing some or all of the increased cost.

Foundations of Economics: Businesses Cannot Simply Pass on Taxes to Consumers

Forgive my oversimplification ... but, ultimately, all costs are passed on to customers. Profit is what is achievable over expenses. If there is profit then: all costs have been passed on to customers.

The argument, then, isn't whether costs are passed on - they are, necessarily ... the question is: how much profit is achievable under whatever changing circumstances allow in a given time frame. It's always in flux.

I agree with all the points you have been making about pricing being the same in various states under varying taxations. But, at some point it all comes down to reasonable / acceptable levels of profitability.

It's not possible to remain in business if all costs aren't 100% covered by sales/services.

What I assume you are pointing out is that if a cost (such as taxes) goes up, and the market won't support increased pricing, then the business eats the increased cost. Which is true. But it can always afford to do so if its overall model is viable, until such time as prices can go up OR expenses can be altered. In any case, the customers are paying all costs if any profit remains.

[CA4Now]

An ambitious effort to raise commercial property taxes through revamping California’s Proposition 13 will no longer be aimed at earning a spot on this fall’s statewide ballot, supporters said on Friday.

The effort to raise taxes on commercial property by changing Prop. 13 delays push to 2020

[mgforshort]

I firmly believe property tax on a residence should not be based on the price of the property, but on the size of the property and the number of people living there.

For example:
A single woman living in a 900 sq.ft, million-dollar condo in San Francisco needs much less services than a family of eight living in a 4-bedroom, 4,000 sq.ft house in Bakersfield, which home can be purchased for a third of the price.
Services like roads, schools, utilities, calls to police or firefighters, and so fort.

Anything else is just a small, first step to Socialism. Oops, I think we are there already.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by mgforshort

I firmly believe property tax on a residence should not be based on the price of the property, but on the size of the property and the number of people living there.

That would be an administrative nightmare to monitor. Every time someone moved into the property or added square footage to their home, a new assessment would have to take effect. Impossible.

[SportyandMisty]

Well, modifying Prop 13 to allow a greater annual increase in property taxes actually levied will go a long way to solving California's housing shortage.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Well, modifying Prop 13 to allow a greater annual increase in property taxes actually levied will go a long way to solving California's housing shortage.

It would have no effect at all. The only effect likely would be a higher cost to buy overall. It won't drive prices down at all. Pricing really has no bearing on the housing shortage, if prices dropped fewer houses would go on the market, so the only solution is to build more and ... can't build fast enough to keep prices even level and what builder wants to build at the same cost and make less money????

The reality behind the opposition to Prop 143 is from people who want to drive people out of their homes through higher taxes, so they can buy. Not nice.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I think I made myself clear, businesses are using loopholes when they sell a property to avoid reassessment and it's rampant, so commercial properties change hands several times and they are never reassessed. If I sell my home the new buyer pays tax based on the price they pay for the property. I'm not supposed to be unhappy with that disparity?

And yes I own a home in California
PS I bought my home in California less than a year ago so when the property is reassessed I will pay almost 300% of what the previous owner was paying

It isn't a loophole, its just the way the system is designed to operate. So if you had your home in a corporation and sold your interest in the corporation that wouldn't happen.

In any case, the problem here isn't really Prop 13 at all. Its the ad valorem assessment method which is just the government rent-seeking on people's property.

Why do you all tolerate this? Why should the tax be based on what you pay for the property? That's arbitrary. It has ZERO to do with the amount of municipal services the residents of the property will consume...which is what should be charged.

The price is irrelevant. But the government wants to rent-seek....you allow them to do this, then have the gall to complain about how "unfair" the tax laws are. So either set up your situation so as to avoid them rent-seeking from you, or shut up, or change it.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

It isn't a loophole, its just the way the system is designed to operate. So if you had your home in a corporation and sold your interest in the corporation that wouldn't happen.

In any case, the problem here isn't really Prop 13 at all. Its the ad valorem assessment method which is just the government rent-seeking on people's property.

Why do you all tolerate this? Why should the tax be based on what you pay for the property? That's arbitrary. It has ZERO to do with the amount of municipal services the residents of the property will consume...which is what should be charged.

The price is irrelevant. But the government wants to rent-seek....you allow them to do this, then have the gall to complain about how "unfair" the tax laws are. So either set up your situation so as to avoid them rent-seeking from you, or shut up, or change it.

"rent-seeking"? That is the acquisition of resources without reciprocity. There is reciprocity with property tax, and I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise. What would you like property tax to be based on if not the value of the property?

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

It isn't a loophole, its just the way the system is designed to operate. So if you had your home in a corporation and sold your interest in the corporation that wouldn't happen.

In any case, the problem here isn't really Prop 13 at all. Its the ad valorem assessment method which is just the government rent-seeking on people's property.

Why do you all tolerate this? Why should the tax be based on what you pay for the property? That's arbitrary. It has ZERO to do with the amount of municipal services the residents of the property will consume...which is what should be charged.

The price is irrelevant. But the government wants to rent-seek....you allow them to do this, then have the gall to complain about how "unfair" the tax laws are. So either set up your situation so as to avoid them rent-seeking from you, or shut up, or change it.

Yeah, one owner moves out and another one moves in. The kind of services are exactly the same. But public employee unions are the ones in control, not the home owners. Be it the new gas taxes, car taxes, sales taxes, etc., they are the ones deciding how much CA residents have to pay.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by davidt1

Yeah, one owner moves out and another one moves in. The kind of services are exactly the same. But public employee unions are the ones in control, not the home owners. Be it the new gas taxes, car taxes, sales taxes, etc., they are the ones deciding how much CA residents have to pay.

How are public unions in charge? There are 2.5 million union members (public and private sector) in California, that is out of a total population of 39.54 million people, that is roughly 6% of the population. Seems like you are giving an awful lot of credit to a very small minority.