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)
 
Old 02-10-2019, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,333,718 times
Reputation: 8828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
It is fair because you left.



Now you do not have to move back. After all, you pay more for a lot of things than you did in the past.It is a choice.
So you all agree that a senior resident inferior to me in a number of parameters deserves a huge tax advantage simply because he continued to live in OC?

So it is agreed that this has nothing to do with being generous to senior citizens but only those who have remained as owners in CA. Note that if I remained in CA but rented I would be in the same place.

And if I decide to move back I should be punished with a much higher property tax because I did not remain a property owner?

Face it guys. This is all pretty much insane even if you all love it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2019, 04:58 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 835,153 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
So you all agree that a senior resident inferior to me in a number of parameters deserves a huge tax advantage simply because he continued to live in OC?

So it is agreed that this has nothing to do with being generous to senior citizens but only those who have remained as owners in CA. Note that if I remained in CA but rented I would be in the same place.

And if I decide to move back I should be punished with a much higher property tax because I did not remain a property owner?

Face it guys. This is all pretty much insane even if you all love it.
I'm not too concerned about what you think is insane. You had a choice, you decided to sell instead of hang on to your property and rent it out, and you knew what the rules were.

Tough luck.

I'm glad my senior neighbors that decided to stay are benefiting and that those moving in now (most of working age) with the opportunity to make substantially more are paying 1% of the acquisition price like everyone else had to. No one's got a gun to their head. If they don't like the system that was voted on by taxpayers, they don't have to buy a house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:00 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,194 posts, read 16,672,733 times
Reputation: 33311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Interesting in Washington State they had repeatedly tried to pass measures to build a new school and it always narrowly lost and this was due to a voting block of seniors... so the redid the bill and exempted seniors and it passed...

The seniors made the case they received no direct benefit and those with kids liked that at age 65 they would no longer be charged the tax either...
Let me understand this as I'm not quite understanding the last paragraph. When lawmakers decided to rewrite the Bill so it would pass, seniors couldn't vote on it but were exempt from paying the new tax when it passed? If that's so, then okay but if they still had to pay the tax but didn't get the right to vote, that's not right. Not at all. And people say California lawmakers are sneaky. hahaha That one takes the cake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:04 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 835,153 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
Let me understand this as I'm not quite understanding the last paragraph. When lawmakers decided to rewrite the Bill so it would pass, seniors couldn't vote on it but were exempt from paying the new tax when it passed? If that's so, then okay but if they still had to pay the tax but didn't get the right to vote, that's not right. Not at all. And people say California lawmakers are sneaky. hahaha That one takes the cake.
He's not saying they didn't get to vote on it. He saying they were exempted from paying the tax on the new bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,333,718 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII View Post
He's not saying they didn't get to vote on it. He saying they were exempted from paying the tax on the new bill.
Very representative of what goes on with P13.

Those who escape paying a tax love it.

And screw those who have to pay it...

This thought that those who do not benefit directly from a tax should not pay it is pretty much absurd.

Education has long been accepted as a long term good to the community. But for some reason in CA some should pay far more than others similarly fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:18 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 835,153 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Very representative of what goes on with P13.

Those who escape paying a tax love it.

And screw those who have to pay it...

This thought that those who do not benefit directly from a tax should not pay it is pretty much absurd.

Education has long been accepted as a long term good to the community. But for some reason in CA some should pay far more than others similarly fixed.
Yawn. Same dumb NIMBY argument typically made by those much more fortunate than others so they can "get theirs" and not have to follow the same rules everyone else had to. Welcome to the world of the income inequality lovers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:23 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,194 posts, read 16,672,733 times
Reputation: 33311
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII View Post
He's not saying they didn't get to vote on it. He saying they were exempted from paying the tax on the new bill.
Oh, okay. That makes sense. I thought he was saying they weren't allowed to vote on it. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 05:29 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 835,153 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
Oh, okay. That makes sense. I thought he was saying they weren't allowed to vote on it. Thanks.
Oh no. Thank you. And thanks for being you.

Because if you're not going to be you, then who is going to be you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 06:28 PM
 
28,113 posts, read 63,638,166 times
Reputation: 23263
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII View Post
Neighborhoods with good schools are usually better maintained, have lower crime, and the homes tend to be worth more. My kids haven't been to school in 20 years, and yet we used the increase equity in our home to buy an investment property and have been rewarded handsomely.
Well I live in East Oakland and there are next to no kids around... on my entire block of 19 homes only one has school age kids... two girls in High School.

The big problem facing Oakland Schools is declining enrollment... it has been all over the local news... parents protesting school closing...

Kids just don't live around here... very similar in SF.

Sure.... there are schools and thousands of kids but the number have dropped significantly... but taxes to support have increased with voter approved special assessments.

Moms entire neighborhood... where she has lived 50 years has two toddlers, and one school age child... that is it...

Enrollment down from 50,000 to 36,000 yet number of administrators and support remains nearly unchanged.

Pension Cost to triple over next 10 years and Prop 65 funds mostly went to pay raises and not to bolster pension...

12 reasons why Oakland Unified School District must slash $9M from budget mid-year - Story | KTVU
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2019, 06:32 PM
 
28,113 posts, read 63,638,166 times
Reputation: 23263
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch View Post
Nothing neutral about it. Simply favors those in place a long time outrageously over the new comer.

And I do not object to that except it should fade away in a couple of decades and should not favor commercial property.
You can't say this and mean it when people that bought across the State 2009-12 paid much less than those buying before... I can show you where the prices paid in East Oakland mirrored that of 20 years prior...

Yes... Real Estate fell 60 to as much as 80% from the peak in my SF Bay Area City for 400k+

Again... Prop 13 could care less WHEN YOU BOUGHT... only the market value at the time you did...

Too much reading and projecting when the entire Prop is only a few paragraphs and says nothing about length of ownership as a factor...
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:47 PM.

© 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