Explain Why I shouldn't Vote "NO" on Proposition 5 (Orange: sale, mortgage)

[wac_432]

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?

[Tulemutt]

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.

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by wac_432

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?

Because when you retire you will be able to do the same thing. If you qualify. Money grab.....Jesus Christ that’s the most retarded thing I read in a long time. What money grab? Most seniors live on a fixed income. There are plenty of seniors who should be retired but still work. They may have some additional money from a investment.

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.
My taxes on the property in OC isn’t exactly peanuts. Is about 4,000 a year. So I’m paying 1000 less than thenguy that just bought today. Wooptie doo. I paid taxes in that area for 24 years. You think I didn’t pay my fair share? I’m somehow getting away with something?

The tax system that has benefitted them?.......Who do you think paid taxes all those years to support the same fire, police, schools, roads, utilities that we all use today. Oh yeah.....the property taxes they were paying back then throughout all the years you weren’t there owning a home. Let’s not get into the how much money they made back then. People are so fing worried about everyone paying their fair share they dont stop and think someone had to pay for all the things before they were born and mommy and daddy put that silver spoon in their mouth.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

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.

Folks aren't downsizing, they're staying put so they don't have to pay astronomical taxes on a smaller house.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

Folks aren't downsizing, they're staying put so they don't have to pay astronomical taxes on a smaller house.

Oh that too, sure. But my point is: as folks age into retirement, it usually is NOT the case that they “upsize” ... if they move, it is usually to “downsize” and simplify.

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh that too, sure. But my point is: as folks age into retirement, it usually is NOT the case that they “upsize” ... if they move, it is usually to “downsize” and simplify.

If they can even do that. This is all assuming that the house they lived in for xx years is paid for. And in a lot of cases it isn’t. Because they put kids through school, maybe refi/cashout mortgages to get some money out to pay for a operation etc. and if it’s paid for and they have a bit lower taxes so what? I guarantee you most worked their ass off to get that 30 year mortgage paid for. So they pay a little less tax in their retirement years so what. It’s not that much less. It’s not like theire paying $50a year while you’re paying $4,000

Regardless all this is conjecture that all these rich old people are somehow screwing the system which is far from the truth. There aren’t millions of old people running around buying mansions. Mansions... in So Cal 500,000 dollars gets you a townhouse in Fullerton. Yeah theire living it up for sure. I don't know anyone who is older that hasn’t worked their asses off to get what they have today. Whatever that may be.

It’s a good idea for OP to not vote since you don’t understand what you’re voting for or against.

[Sparrow_temp]

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.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp

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.

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.

[marcopolo666]

I won't try to sway you one way or another on Prop 5.

But if you are going to base your vote on comments on a forum on the internet, I pray that you will not vote at all.

[Harpaint]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh that too, sure. But my point is: as folks age into retirement, it usually is NOT the case that they “upsize” ... if they move, it is usually to “downsize” and simplify.

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.