Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2018, 05:44 PM
 
18,172 posts, read 16,318,208 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot View Post
Lots of older people really want and need to downsize but still want to stay in roughly the same location with their old friends, their doctors, etc. It's harder for older people to totally uproot than it is for young people. "Just leave the state" comes across as pretty unsympathetic.
Try self centered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2018, 06:17 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,655 posts, read 16,188,682 times
Reputation: 19738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harpaint View Post
But at 55 most are not downsizing yet. Many want a nice new house with lots of extras, things they didn't have while raising a family. I will offer my opinion. I think it is unfair to younger people, who as a group are having far more difficulties buying than we boomers did.
Respectfully disagree. Based anecdotally, most folks I know that raised kids are simultaneously burned out - and very much looking for simplified living that allows more freedom of movement and savings for recreation ... and medical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
7,826 posts, read 11,749,082 times
Reputation: 9045
How about my protections? I want to be protected against massive increases in my rent, why is that not fair? So it's fair for these rich greedy self centered individuals who have been fortunate to get real estate for pennies on the dollar and not contribute anything resembling fairness into the system and to continue to give them handouts at the expense of others? Prop 5 is probably about the biggest BS law that I can think of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
7,826 posts, read 11,749,082 times
Reputation: 9045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
Everybody should vote NO on this proposition -- especially new home owners or those wishing to purchase in the future. Voting in a proposition which allows those that got the biggest benefit of prop 13 to continue to get this benefit on a new property is completely insane. .
Yes, it is insane, but greed has no bounds and some of the richest people in our society are it's greediest. Pay the going rate, everyone else including new homeowners are doing so. If you are unhappy with it then sell it and move to Timbuk2... the rate is what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 07:00 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,655 posts, read 16,188,682 times
Reputation: 19738
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
How about my protections? I want to be protected against massive increases in my rent, why is that not fair? So it's fair for these rich greedy self centered individuals who have been fortunate to get real estate for pennies on the dollar and not contribute anything resembling fairness into the system and to continue to give them handouts at the expense of others? Prop 5 is probably about the biggest BS law that I can think of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
Yes, it is insane, but greed has no bounds and some of the richest people in our society are it's greediest. Pay the going rate, everyone else including new homeowners are doing so. If you are unhappy with it then sell it and move to Timbuk2... the rate is what it is.
Peculiarly amusing.

How do you arrive at your certainty that persons selling their California homes:

1. Are “rich”? ... no low-income folks own homes?

2. Got their homes for “pennies on the dollar”? ... no one bought homes in the past 20 years?

3. Don’t “contribute anything resembling fairness into the system”? ... all homeowners are absent morality and ethics? None contribute to their communities?

Neat crystal ball ya gots there!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 07:08 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,163 posts, read 16,577,858 times
Reputation: 33246
There are a number of counties that were already doing what is being described in Prop 5. And a few counties (if I remember correctly) did away with it. The only drawback with it was that you had to purchase a new home in the same county you are selling. I wouldn't work if you were moving from say Sacramento County to San Mateo County (examples)

Because it was eliminated in some counties, that may be the reason it's being taken to the state level. Personally, I think it's a good thing for those who may have to or want to move at some point.

As an example: A couple who are already seniors live in a two story home but due to a health issue, must move to a single level home. Or in another instance, one spouse dies and the other wants to move to be closer to their child(ren) or close friend. Someplace where they aren't so isolated. Instead of selling their home and renting, they choose to buy another home. Since they've lived in their current home for a while, their property tax base isn't at the level it would be if they were to purchase the same house in today's market.

By selling and moving something that fits their needs, they would face higher property taxes due to the price of the home. Not necessarily a larger home and quite possibly a smaller one but, again, because of the higher price of the home.

This proposition will allow them to transfer their tax base to the new home, wherever it is in the state and not isolated to the county in which they currently live.

This one I am voting yes on as I feel it's good for people who are older and may be on fixed incomes. It will also benefit the younger people who will someday be older, too, and face the same health issues and life circumstances that comes with aging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Riverside Ca
22,146 posts, read 33,361,229 times
Reputation: 35433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
Everybody should vote NO on this proposition -- especially new home owners or those wishing to purchase in the future. Voting in a proposition which allows those that got the biggest benefit of prop 13 to continue to get this benefit on a new property is completely insane. If they're downsizing then their profit from selling can be used to pay for future taxes at the new higher rate. You can't continue to expect everybody else to subsidize your property taxes.

Here's an idea for those age 55 and over that sell their property -- buy a new property in a different state. You can get a lot more house for your money just about anywhere except maybe NY and Hawaii and still pay less tax. You don't have to live in California if it becomes too expensive for you.
Here is another idea. Why don’t you come back and argue your point once you understand how Prop 13 is beneficial to ALL buyers of property in this state. How it will benefit you and your children. Why should someone who is 55 have to move? They paid their dues for all those years. They shouldnt have to relocate. Taxes are based on the amount of money paid for a property at the time of purchase. That’s the most fair way to tax. The reason p13 was passed was because the ****tards running the state could at whim raise taxes on homeowners. It’s probably the bes5 thing that was passed in this state. You need to understand the benefits of P13 instead of looking at it through your myopic view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 08:51 PM
 
Location: San Diego
50,144 posts, read 46,793,388 times
Reputation: 33983
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432 View Post
As I understand it, those over 55 can transfer their advantageous property taxes to a new house, so long as that house sells at or below the current price of their home. So if they bought 30 years ago at $50,000, and their house sells today for $500,000, and they buy a different house tomorrow for $500,000, then they can keep their lower tax rate from their old home, so they don't end up paying $3000-$4000 more per year in property taxes.

So prop 5 changes the rules so they can buy a more expensive house and still pay the taxes as if they were paying for their old $50,000 home (plus the subsequent years' tax increases).

This seems like a bill to let old rich people, who want to buy mansions, get out of paying their fair share of local taxes. Most seniors I know, who have owned their home for a long time, are quite well-off. Those who are thinking about moving to an even bigger and more expensive house are VERY well-off, compared to those making a sensible decision to downsize or move laterally into a modest house.

Considering that 55+ is the new 45+ (or maybe even 35+)This seems like a money-grab by wealthy older people trying to dodge paying into the property tax system that has benefitted them by improving/gentrifying their cities and towns, paying for schools, fire, police, etc. during their younger years.

I'm a solid "NO" on this proposition, and I don't even understand how it made it onto the ballot in the first place. Someone care to try changing my mind?
OOOORRRRRR they can continue to rent out their primary and still move to someplace cheaper. You'll get old too, maybe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
7,627 posts, read 4,547,700 times
Reputation: 12681
Voting no on this. Let's be real with ourselves here. This law will get gamed in 12 seconds by every extended family in the state, leaving our counties with less property tax money to support our current infrastructure. If support is wanted in this area, perhaps the way to go is to reduce property tax assessments in 55+ designated developments. If people buy into those, they can have reduced property taxes for all, not just those that bought 40 years ago.

This is poor legislation, consider voting no on this proposition even if you want to help senior citizens. There are better ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2018, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,813 posts, read 32,368,125 times
Reputation: 38573
Think about the alternative. Lots of baby boomers staying in huge homes that have one or two people in them, because they can't afford to sell it and move somewhere else.

Or - we let them take their tax benefit to a smaller home or condo, and free up large homes for young families.

So, which is better? Because if you say their only alternative, in order to keep the current tax benefit they have - is to stay in their huge home - why would they move?

So, what matters most to you? Dealing with a market with a bunch of old people living alone or with just one person in a large family home - or giving them a fair incentive to move into some smaller home, so that there will be a better market of available larger homes for young families?

You can call them greedy, if you want, but try to imagine that they are simply smart. Why should they move out of their huge homes, if it's cheaper for them to live alone in them?

This is a way to increase the available housing for families. The baby boomer generation is huge - and they have a commodity that is desperately needed. if you want what they have to give - you have to give them something in return.

And, as a senior, I can tell you that renting really sucks. if I had the money to own my own home, I would. So, saying they should give up their home and the control that comes with it as far as their monthly expenses and stability of not having to worry about losing your housing, etc. -- and simply become a renter - isn't reasonable. You need to offer them an incentive that is reasonable.

This seems like a really reasonable way to deal with the problem/situation for all involved. I haven't read the actual text of the law yet, so I reserve my final opinion until I have done so - but right now, this looks like a really fair, reasonable way to address the housing shortage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top