Hate CA? (appointed, renting, home)

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

Yes, TODAY.

Using my county as an example, the estimated property tax for a $400,000 home is 1.25% = $5,000 a year.

How much are Sonoma County property taxes? | Sonoma County Homes For Sale

A $400,000 home in Austin, Texas = $7,300.

Austin Texas Home Search | Homes for Sale in Austin TX

Really, you can look this stuff up yourself. Why do you expect others to do your homework for you? And for god sakes, if you're so convinced everywhere else is better GTFO!! It fails me why people sit on their thumbs miserable and whine on the internet about how awful their lives are and how everything sucks and how everywhere else is better. If that's how you feel, by god, do something about it. Life is WAY too short.

You didn't even read what I said did you?

The "$400,000 house" is equal to a much much CHEAPER house in another state, which will undoubtedly have an EQUAL or LOWER property taxes. Why would I even bother talking about the price of properties in California if I thought, "Gee, I sure bet people would love to have the California privilege of paying $400,000 in the midwest."

Lowest price available RIGHT NOW in Sonoma County:

1962 Barndance Ln, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 is For Sale | Zillow

$489,000, Property Tax: $3,877

Versus a house in Austin, TX:

6717 Doyal Dr, Austin, TX 78747 is For Sale | Zillow

$195,000, Property Tax: $3,657

Yes there are some lower priced homes that have some higher property taxes going upwards into $4,500/yr, but you picked the "California city of choice" Austin, which is grossly in demand now so the prices and property taxes are going to be a lot worse than other choices.

Another thing to point out is that even with a $500+ increase in property taxes, even in your cherry picking choice, is that in order to equal out to the home price DIFFERENCE initially paid, you only have to live for 300+ years to finally see the moment that the yearly increase in property taxes makes the house more expensive than the house you paid for in Sonoma County.

$489,000 - $195,000 = $194,000/$500 + yearly increase in property taxes = 300+ YEARS

Self-justification helps the disillusioned sleep at night.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

You didn't even read what I said did you?

The "$400,000 house" is equal to a much much CHEAPER house in another state, which will undoubtedly have an EQUAL or LOWER property taxes. Why would I even bother talking about the price of properties in California if I thought, "Gee, I sure bet people would love to have the California privilege of paying $400,000 in the midwest."

Lowest price available RIGHT NOW in Sonoma County:

1962 Barndance Ln, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 is For Sale | Zillow

$489,000, Property Tax: $3,877

Versus a house in Austin, TX:

6717 Doyal Dr, Austin, TX 78747 is For Sale | Zillow

$195,000, Property Tax: $3,657

Yes there are some lower priced homes that have some higher property taxes going upwards into $4,500/yr, but you picked the "California city of choice" Austin, which is grossly in demand now so the prices and property taxes are going to be a lot worse than other choices.

Another thing to point out is that even with a $500+ increase in property taxes, even in your cherry picking choice, is that in order to equal out to the home price DIFFERENCE initially paid, you only have to live for 300+ years to finally see the moment that the yearly increase in property taxes makes the house more expensive than the house you paid for in Sonoma County.

$489,000 - $195,000 = $194,000/$500 + yearly increase in property taxes = 300+ YEARS

Self-justification helps the disillusioned sleep at night.

You're talking about property values. This is a conversation about property taxes. Your comment was that California has higher property taxes than everywhere else. That is not true. In terms of property tax rates, California is something like 30th in the ranking of states.

If you want to argue that there are cheaper HOMES in other states, there have already been about 48,000 threads on this forum from people whining because property is expensive here. That argument has been done to death. And it always boils down to the same thing: You want cheap, move to Texas. They would love to have you. You can have a great big giant home, if that's the only thing that matters in your life. But don't sit here and expect everyone to lower their property value just so you can buy the home you want. In a free market society, that's not how things work.

I'm also sick and tired of the entitled whiners sobbing that to own a home in California today, you have to be a millionaire. That's complete BS. I live in a little subdivision ranch house that's 1,200 sq ft. It's 25 years old. It has no character, and is nothing to write home about. But it's in Sonoma County, and after living in 3 states (because I lived there, didn't like it and--here's a concept!!--moved!) this is where I want to be. And I'm willing to live in a smaller house than many of my family members in other states because I love this area. You see, that's what grown ups do. They make choices and accept the fact that everyone isn't going to change things just because I showed up and wanted to buy a house.

[znlwovuhrjw]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

You're talking about property values. This is a conversation about property taxes. Your comment was that California has higher property taxes than everywhere else. That is not true. In terms of property tax rates, California is something like 30th in the ranking of states.

If you want to argue that there are cheaper HOMES in other states, there have already been about 48,000 threads on this forum from people whining because property is expensive here. That argument has been done to death. And it always boils down to the same thing: You want cheap, move to Texas. They would love to have you. You can have a great big giant home, if that's the only thing that matters in your life. But don't sit here and expect everyone to lower their property value just so you can buy the home you want. In a free market society, that's not how things work.

I'm also sick and tired of the entitled whiners sobbing that to own a home in California today, you have to be a millionaire. That's complete BS. I live in a little subdivision ranch house that's 1,200 sq ft. It's 25 years old. It has no character, and is nothing to write home about. But it's in Sonoma County, and after living in 3 states (because I lived there, didn't like it and--here's a concept!!--moved!) this is where I want to be. And I'm willing to live in a smaller house than many of my family members in other states because I love this area. You see, that's what grown ups do. They make choices and accept the fact that everyone isn't going to change things just because I showed up and wanted to buy a house.

You mean: Any state that isn't California, Southern New England (Exception: Delaware), New Jersey, South New York, and D.C. are guaranteed to be cheap. What states have you actually been to? I wonder when you say "Go2Texas" and suggest it's the last bastion of "inexpensive" in the United States.

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So, if a house sells for 3 million you think the new owner should pay the same tax as the original buyer did 60 years ago? Revenue has to come from somewhere and if you did that it would be nice break for people who can afford a 3 million dollar house but the rest of us would have to make up for the difference in other taxes.

It's not a "break" at all. Why should someone who just moved into a neighborhood pay more for public services than their neighbors? If you're worried about people getting taxed out their homes as they did before Prop 13, cap valuations and allow only a modest annual increase. And don't allow government to reap a windfall when a property is sold.

Prop 13 isn't perfect. But when I bought in CA I sure knew what its effects would be. No whining here.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by tifoso

It's not a "break" at all. Why should someone who just moved into a neighborhood pay more for public services than their neighbors? If you're worried about people getting taxed out their homes as they did before Prop 13, cap valuations and allow only a modest annual increase. And don't allow government to reap a windfall when a property is sold.

Prop 13 isn't perfect. But when I bought in CA I sure knew what its effects would be. No whining here.

Because their neighbors who lived there a long time payed for infrastructure that the new owner does not have to, as it is finished and payed for. The new and old pay for current needs, so the old owner paid for things the new one does not. The new owner benefits without paying for what was done before they moved in. Maybe lower the value but the new owner pays older ones back for what was paid for and now the new owner uses?

Yep, Prop 13 was a good thing and still is.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by tifoso

It's not a "break" at all. Why should someone who just moved into a neighborhood pay more for public services than their neighbors? If you're worried about people getting taxed out their homes as they did before Prop 13, cap valuations and allow only a modest annual increase. And don't allow government to reap a windfall when a property is sold.

Prop 13 isn't perfect. But when I bought in CA I sure knew what its effects would be. No whining here.

Property tax has no bearing on services... it is a take for existing.

A studio apartment can exhaust police, fire and paramedics and have several people living in it...

A 3 million dollar home could be a vacation home in Malibu with no one living in it 99% of the time...

I went in eyes wide open and do not begrudge my elderly neighbors one bit who pay much lower property tax...

One of the beauties for Prop 13 is each transfer stands on it's own...

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Because their neighbors who lived there a long time payed for infrastructure that the new owner does not have to, as it is finished and payed for. The new and old pay for current needs, so the old owner paid for things the new one does not. The new owner benefits without paying for what was done before they moved in. Maybe lower the value but the new owner pays older ones back for what was paid for and now the new owner uses?

Sure! Since I don't have kids and thus don't use the school system, I should be exempt from paying property taxes for schools. But even I'm not so daft as to make that argument.

I hear 'ya on Prop 13, I really do. I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days where people were getting taxed out of their homes. While I understand your argument about the legacy costs borne by long-time owners, I just don't think it's logical that the burden for current government expenditures (be they for operating or for debt service purposes) fall so dramatically differently on similarly situated homeowners simply because they bought their homes at different times.

Just give me a few years of rapidly appreciating home values, though. I'll be the first one threatening to tar and feather anyone who even thinks about tampering with MY Prop 13-protected tax base

[Ultrarunner]

Most people that want Prop 13 changed think doing so will lower their taxes... at least those I know do.

I'm a good example of what is typical since my sellers were paying $1200 and it went to $8800 the day I closed escrow...

Frankly... the only way my sellers were able to stay in the home they build 50 years ago was because their taxes remained stable...

When you think about it... why are property taxes as high as they are in California anyway?

We have sales tax and income tax, cell phone tax, use tax, excise tax, utility tax... well you get the picture...

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

You didn't even read what I said did you?

The "$400,000 house" is equal to a much much CHEAPER house in another state, which will undoubtedly have an EQUAL or LOWER property taxes. Why would I even bother talking about the price of properties in California if I thought, "Gee, I sure bet people would love to have the California privilege of paying $400,000 in the midwest."

Lowest price available RIGHT NOW in Sonoma County:

1962 Barndance Ln, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 is For Sale | Zillow

$489,000, Property Tax: $3,877

Versus a house in Austin, TX:

6717 Doyal Dr, Austin, TX 78747 is For Sale | Zillow

$195,000, Property Tax: $3,657

Yes there are some lower priced homes that have some higher property taxes going upwards into $4,500/yr, but you picked the "California city of choice" Austin, which is grossly in demand now so the prices and property taxes are going to be a lot worse than other choices.

Another thing to point out is that even with a $500+ increase in property taxes, even in your cherry picking choice, is that in order to equal out to the home price DIFFERENCE initially paid, you only have to live for 300+ years to finally see the moment that the yearly increase in property taxes makes the house more expensive than the house you paid for in Sonoma County.

$489,000 - $195,000 = $194,000/$500 + yearly increase in property taxes = 300+ YEARS

Self-justification helps the disillusioned sleep at night.

You know you could move to Texas, no one here is trying to keep you from doing so.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by tifoso

It's not a "break" at all. Why should someone who just moved into a neighborhood pay more for public services than their neighbors? If you're worried about people getting taxed out their homes as they did before Prop 13, cap valuations and allow only a modest annual increase. And don't allow government to reap a windfall when a property is sold.

Prop 13 isn't perfect. But when I bought in CA I sure knew what its effects would be. No whining here.

You are aware that in other states, when you buy a home the tax is based on the current value, not what the value was when the home was built, right? When I first moved to Nevada, my property tax was around $2,000 a year, when I moved 14 years later, my property tax was almost $4,500. The buyer of my home will also pay $4,500. How is that fair?