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'm pretty sure they are --- this is what they want. California democrats love poverty so much they want to import pretty much unlimited amounts of poverty from the third world nations. Remember -- a large chunk of that poverty is imported poverty.
I'm pretty sure they are --- this is what they want. California democrats love poverty so much they want to import pretty much unlimited amounts of poverty from the third world nations. Remember -- a large chunk of that poverty is imported poverty.
Unlike the massive poverty that is all attributed to native born population in the red states.
This is a totally distorted view of Prop 13... and one that simply is not true.
The ONLY way your premise "Could" be true is if Property Values never declined and we know this is simply not true and never has been historically...
I was too young to have voted for Prop 13... even I have seen several market declines in my tenure in Oakland California.
No where in Prop 13 few short sentences is there any reference to length of ownership or age of the property owner.
Prop 13 is merely a tax based on acquisition... the more you are "Willing" to pay the more your property tax burden.
ANYONE looking at Real Estate Prices can easily see it is the folk that recently bought enjoying the lower property taxes... in my city... those buying now are typically paying 1/3 LESS in taxes than those that bought 8 years ago...
It is time to stop the old/young class warfare...
How about homeowner/renter class warfare? If I acquired my rental home 30 years ago, Prop 13 affords me no protection from assessment increases when my landlord sells. Prop 13 says it's wrong to tax homeowners out of their homes but perfectly okay to tax renters out of their homes.
I thought illegals and diversity are boons that make society stronger?
They definitely make the welfare offices more crowded.
Illegals aren't exactly the creme-de-la-creme back in their own country, there's a very good reason their own countries don't want them ever coming back.
Mexico's middle class is growing -- it's cost of living is much much lower. To join Mexico's middle class, one generally must finish his/her education through what is the equivalent of our high school, avoid having babies at very early ages, marry before having babies and limit family size to what one can afford.
If you cannot show that kind of self-control and responsibility, of course the answer is to come to the USA where you will be given a very nice standard of living and the government will pay you to have babies. Not only free housing, completely free health care, free food, free utilities, free meals at the free schools -- how much better can it get?
Those people are taxed to death and the poor just voted on a 13% tax on the rich. That tax increase is in addition to the increase in taxes that the rich will have to pay if the bush tax cuts expire for the rich. Why would any rich person live in california
The rich are leaving California. It will be interesting to see who the poor try to soak.
California is an experiment for what is to come to the rest of the U.S.
Nothing we can't solve with throwing more money at it, and throwing more money at it, and throwing more money at it, and throw................
.................and printing more money, and printing more money, and pri..................
Do you guys actually have some kind of strategy for how to alter this? Do you think it's Prop 13 that's at fault? I don't understand what just saying liberal or whatever does in terms of finding a plan to reform this mess.
Most new buyers are left with little recourse but to grumble that their property taxes are many times higher than those paid by longstanding residents and businesses. Recent buyers in every California city are subsidizing their neighbors. But corporations with no overriding desire to shell out millions in taxes do have options — and access to sharp legal minds. The definition of what constitutes a change of control of corporate property allows for remarkable leeway in avoiding a reassessment, shrinking needy cities' tax hauls by billions. Assessors awaiting deeds as a result of mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions may wait forever.
A business selling 100 percent of its real-estate interest without triggering a reassessment isn't hypothetical — or even an oddity. "These kinds of transactions are being done all the time," says USF law professor Dan Lathrope. "Anyone doing a big real-estate transaction knows what triggers reassessments." It's all perfectly legal — companies can effectively change hands many times over, but never in a way resulting in a deed heading to the assessor's office, and buildings' tax bases remain at levels from the Carter administration.
How about homeowner/renter class warfare? If I acquired my rental home 30 years ago, Prop 13 affords me no protection from assessment increases when my landlord sells. Prop 13 says it's wrong to tax homeowners out of their homes but perfectly okay to tax renters out of their homes.
That has nothing to do with the unfairness of Prop 13.
Prop 13 fairness has already been adjudicated at the highest level... the US Supreme Court.
Prop 13 is specific to Real Property Taxation... nothing more or less.
My city and neighboring cities based in large part the existence of Prop 13 for the passage of Rent Control measures... "Fairness" was one of the arguments made.
How a simple measure passed by a groundswell of voters against massive government opposition at all levels and against a last minute government sponsored competing measure continues to be so misunderstood almost 35 years later is incredible...
California has almost every possible tax and many at record or near record levels... strange how neighboring States attract Californians without California Taxes...
Oregon, no State Sales Tax, Washington and Nevada no personal Income Tax...
Are you aware there are States with NO Income or Sales Tax?
Most new buyers are left with little recourse but to grumble that their property taxes are many times higher than those paid by longstanding residents and businesses. Recent buyers in every California city are subsidizing their neighbors. But corporations with no overriding desire to shell out millions in taxes do have options — and access to sharp legal minds. The definition of what constitutes a change of control of corporate property allows for remarkable leeway in avoiding a reassessment, shrinking needy cities' tax hauls by billions. Assessors awaiting deeds as a result of mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions may wait forever.
A business selling 100 percent of its real-estate interest without triggering a reassessment isn't hypothetical — or even an oddity. "These kinds of transactions are being done all the time," says USF law professor Dan Lathrope. "Anyone doing a big real-estate transaction knows what triggers reassessments." It's all perfectly legal — companies can effectively change hands many times over, but never in a way resulting in a deed heading to the assessor's office, and buildings' tax bases remain at levels from the Carter administration.
I think you answered the question... each homeowner needs to set up ownership under a Corporation.
As the article states... it is perfectly legal and not in violation of any law.
I do take exception that new owners subsidize others...
This conveniently overlooks the fact that long term existing owners paid for existing infrastructure...
In 2005, I was the new owner in my neighborhood... one of the reasons I decided to buy was I like buying in an established neighborhood with many long time, mostly retired home owners... most also built the homes they live in...
All the bonds were long ago retired... I do have a street maintenance fee to pay each year... my neighbors actually paid to have the streets built in the 1950's and they kept paying for 40 years to retire the bond...
So, I guess I'm the one getting the free ride because those before me paid for the the improvements I enjoy...
Sometimes, I think my generation and those younger are simply acting like spoiled brats...
Everyone of my neighbors were drafted into military service... several were wounded in combat in WWII...
The talk about long term residents being subsidized by the young is pure selfishness...
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.
