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.
I just purchased a home so am paying the maximum possible rate. The way I see it is that those who got the benefit of huge property value increases and didn't have to pay the taxes based on these new values didn't "pay their dues". What prop 13 did was push the tax burden on to new buyers and forced them to subsidize the tax burden of those that purchased earlier. It's in effect a huge pyramid scheme that depends upon ever increasing property values to maintain. Prop 13 should be amended to keep the rate fixed but eliminate the protection of the assessment values so that it's like most other states. If the taxes get too high, sell your property and move to a less costly area of the country and be VERY happy that you made so much money on your sale.
I'll never believe that prop 13 is good for everybody. It's just great for everybody that's had huge property value increases. That's why the average property tax rate is .79% and I'm paying around 1.12%. Everybody should be paying the same rate and that rate should be VERY VERY difficult to change. A property tax system not based on current property values is inherently unfair because it means that one segment of the population has to subsidize another. Subsidies normally would just go to the poor but in California, they are just going to those that have gained the most.
Prop 5 just compounds the original Prop 13 problem by letting those getting the subsidies to continue to get them even if they sell their property. If you want the situation to be fair then you would want accurate property assessments and a lower property tax rate that everybody pays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you
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.
I just purchased a home so am paying the maximum possible rate. The way I see it is that those who got the benefit of huge property value increases and didn't have to pay the taxes based on these new values didn't "pay their dues". What prop 13 did was push the tax burden on to new buyers and forced them to subsidize the tax burden of those that purchased earlier. It's in effect a huge pyramid scheme that depends upon ever increasing property values to maintain. Prop 13 should be amended to keep the rate fixed but eliminate the protection of the assessment values so that it's like most other states. If the taxes get too high, sell your property and move to a less costly area of the country and be VERY happy that you made so much money on your sale.
I'll never believe that prop 13 is good for everybody. It's just great for everybody that's had huge property value increases. That's why the average property tax rate is .79% and I'm paying around 1.12%. Everybody should be paying the same rate and that rate should be VERY VERY difficult to change. A property tax system not based on current property values is inherently unfair because it means that one segment of the population has to subsidize another. Subsidies normally would just go to the poor but in California, they are just going to those that have gained the most.
Prop 5 just compounds the original Prop 13 problem by letting those getting the subsidies to continue to get them even if they sell their property. If you want the situation to be fair then you would want accurate property assessments and a lower property tax rate that everybody pays.
Sorry but Prop 13 is one of the best laws ever enacted. It protects YOU and everyone else who owns a home. Every home goes up in value and the next buyer pays more. Fine, they are driving the prices up so pay more. Once bought their payments slow. If it didn't exist, next year your property taxes could raise a $1000.00 dollars and do so year after year pushing you out of your home, which was what was happening to cause prop 13 to be enacted by ... the people. It controls that.
Your point about being difficult to change is what caused Prop 13 in the first place.
Most of that math doesn’t work. If for example I sold my last house I would have to take a loss of 30/40k in the sale price in to come in at or below my new house price. Yes I bought a bigger house for less than I would of gotten for a townhouse in Orange County. But I live further out now. Why the hell would I give up 30/40,000 to save 1500 a year in property taxes? Most older people downsize as their older years tend to cost money also. The ones who are moving in big mansions have plenty of money and tax deferred and loopholes.
You've got it backwards. If your OLD house sold for MORE than the NEW place you bought, you are ALREADY elegible to bring your tax-advantaged assessment with you to the new place. As you said, the rich guys buying mansions are the only ones who benefit from the change in the law. Downsizers already have this benefit.
All the "yes" arguments I see don't seem to understand the current law. If you downsize or move laterally within your county, you can already carry your tax benefit with you. If you move between counties, you have to see if your new county is on the list of counties that allow you to transfer in your old tax-advantaged assessment (my county is). This is only true if you buy a house that costs less or equal to a house that you sell. Also, I think you are limited to doing this once, and--of course--only if you are over 55.
So I still haven't seen anyone explain to me why someone over 55, who is upsizing/upgrading to a more expensive house--and thus is probably not at all financially challenged--should gain the same tax advantage as a senior who is financially challenged and wants to downsize. I'm pretty sure this was put on the ballot by wealthy seniors who want a free lunch at everyone's expense, and real estate agents who want to juice a few billion more dollars in transactional fees out of the higher-priced existing home sales they can get, if wealthy seniors get a tax dodge.
I MIGHT support a proposition to eliminate the county-dependent nature of the transferring of tax benefits (when the new house is cheaper) for true seniors--at least 65+, if not 75+--but probably not. The counties that don't allow it are usually cash-starved and can't afford to have otherwise-expensive properties suddenly grandfathered into ultra-cheap taxable status.
Even a watered-down version of this law that didn't confer tax advantages onto relatively-young millionaires would encourage a flood of seniors into cheaper areas. So you would get 55+ communities springing up in the poorest counties, who would then pay little in taxes to those counties, but heavily burden county services.
You've got it backwards. If your OLD house sold for MORE than the NEW place you bought, you are ALREADY elegible to bring your tax-advantaged assessment with you to the new place. As you said, the rich guys buying mansions are the only ones who benefit from the change in the law. Downsizers already have this benefit.
All the "yes" arguments I see don't seem to understand the current law. If you downsize or move laterally within your county, you can already carry your tax benefit with you. If you move between counties, you have to see if your new county is on the list of counties that allow you to transfer in your old tax-advantaged assessment (my county is). This is only true if you buy a house that costs less or equal to a house that you sell. Also, I think you are limited to doing this once, and--of course--only if you are over 55.
So I still haven't seen anyone explain to me why someone over 55, who is upsizing/upgrading to a more expensive house--and thus is probably not at all financially challenged--should gain the same tax advantage as a senior who is financially challenged and wants to downsize. I'm pretty sure this was put on the ballot by wealthy seniors who want a free lunch at everyone's expense, and real estate agents who want to juice a few billion more dollars in transactional fees out of the higher-priced existing home sales they can get, if wealthy seniors get a tax dodge.
I MIGHT support a proposition to eliminate the county-dependent nature of the transferring of tax benefits (when the new house is cheaper) for true seniors--at least 65+, if not 75+--but probably not. The counties that don't allow it are usually cash-starved and can't afford to have otherwise-expensive properties suddenly grandfathered into ultra-cheap taxable status.
Even a watered-down version of this law that didn't confer tax advantages onto relatively-young millionaires would encourage a flood of seniors into cheaper areas. So you would get 55+ communities springing up in the poorest counties, who would then pay little in taxes to those counties, but heavily burden county services.
Good points about it applying State wide for equal or lower cost home purchases.
However I suspect the desire to allow it to apply to a more expensive home, is many over 55 wanting out of the small 50's/60's style home and get into a bigger newer one in a new neighborhood.
I knew there was something on the books regarding this but I couldn't put my finger on it until I did a little more research. There are already two previous propositions after Prop 13 that voters approved regarding this issue. Prop 60 (1986) and Prop 90 (1988)
Still not sure why this silly thing is on the ballot again. I don't know what it will change except to expand the benefit from county to county.
For those who aren't aware of those two Propositions, you can read them here.
I don’t offer an opinion about whether this is a good thing or not ... but I will point out that most older folks are downsizing, not upsizing. It seems that as we age, we sometimes begin to realize that “MORE” and “BIGGER” isn’t “better” ... just more work and expense.
I'm in my early 20s, and it took me moving to California to realize this, here you can really understand the value of living in a smaller home it's hard for one back east to really understand this.
I just purchased a home so am paying the maximum possible rate. The way I see it is that those who got the benefit of huge property value increases and didn't have to pay the taxes based on these new values didn't "pay their dues".
First want to congratulate you on your new home purchase. It's a nice feeling to know you don't have to ask permission to paint a wall purple (if you wish).
As for your comment about someone like me not paying my dues, I've been paying property taxes for 46 years. That doesn't mean I own the same home as I did then but I'm still paying. I wish my property taxes were based on the same rate as that first home, but they aren't. I guess I could complain about having to pay property taxes for schools when I no longer have children in school but I don't. I still pay property taxes for parks even though I don't utilize them because they aren't safe any longer. Same for roads I don't use that are supposed to maintained with those same taxes but aren't - which is why we're having to pay more tax for those.
So when you say that "us older people" haven't paid our dues, you really aren't thinking very logical. Property tax is the one thing that, even after your home is paid for, you must continue to pay until you die. When someone's been paying those taxes for 30, 40, 50 or more years, you can hardly say they haven't paid their dues.
Do these people not stop and think about what wages were 40 years ago? We paid one heck of a lot more % in property taxes than anyone does today. That's why 13 was created.
Well, s/he can say it ... s/he just doesn’t have a clue what s/he’s talkin ‘bout ... that’s all.
Indeed. And truth be told I've probably been paying property taxes longer than that person's been alive.
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.
