Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [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 04-18-2016, 11:47 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,391,831 times
Reputation: 23222

Advertisements

There are always winners and losers...

All depends on perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 08:42 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,378,100 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
There are always winners and losers...

All depends on perspective.
I don't want anyone to lose. Win-win situations are the goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 12:15 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,391,831 times
Reputation: 23222
Win or lose it is many times how things are perceived.

How does one neighbor lose when someone buys the same house on the block at a lower tax rate... yet, the one with a higher rate may feel as it they lost...

Laws change... some people have the best luck with timing and some don't.

My brother and I owned a rental... he wanted to sell as he was relocating... so we sold... he put his money into a rental near to where he moved... a couple of years later got married and moved into the rental and 5 year after that sold the rental now his home of 5 years and got a windfall tax wise as his entire gain was not taxable which was due to his now married 500k exemption and being able to covert a 1031 rental to his personal home for a sufficient time to shelter the gain.

For me... I lost... had a taxable gain and had to pay taxes on it... did buy another rental but was overseas working so I was not able to find/do a 1031 exchange.

I don't begrudge my brother at all... I am a little envious in that he always comes up smelling like a rose...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 08:53 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,378,100 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Win or lose it is many times how things are perceived.

How does one neighbor lose when someone buys the same house on the block at a lower tax rate... yet, the one with a higher rate may feel as it they lost...

Laws change... some people have the best luck with timing and some don't.
Lower tax rate, yes, but higher—much higher—purchase price than before the bubble. Should new buyers have to pay $800,00 for something that was just $500,000 a few years ago?

Those people pay property taxes on the assessed value of the $500,000 purchase price plus 2% per annum, and that's lower than the $800,000 purchase price buyer who bought the same house last week. (We know the answer to that one.)

Proposition 13 rewards people who stay in their homes for a long time, and that was its intended purpose. It should never have been allowed for any kind of profit-making business.

The more I think about it, perhaps all counties should permit inter-county tax transfers within the State of California to eligible seniors one time on their single, homesteaded property, to properties that are within the purchase limits maximums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 09:10 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,391,831 times
Reputation: 23222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
Lower tax rate, yes, but higher—much higher—purchase price than before the bubble. Should new buyers have to pay $800,00 for something that was just $500,000 a few years ago?

Those people pay property taxes on the assessed value of the $500,000 purchase price plus 2% per annum, and that's lower than the $800,000 purchase price buyer who bought the same house last week. (We know the answer to that one.)

Proposition 13 rewards people who stay in their homes for a long time, and that was its intended purpose. It should never have been allowed for any kind of profit-making business.

The more I think about it, perhaps all counties should permit inter-county tax transfers within the State of California to eligible seniors one time on their single, homesteaded property, to properties that are within the purchase limits maximums.
Prop 13 is based on fair market at transfer... I know that my base is forever tied to what I paid on Dec 31 2003 just as my neighbor is tied to what he paid in 2012.

So using your logic I should be sitting pretty having owned 3 times longer than my neighbor?

The fact is my home is 1958 and 1725 square feet and paid 598k for it...

Their home is 2001 and 3,000 square feet with lots of high end finishes and appliances etc... they paid 450k...

Just one example of length of ownership matters not and is not even mentioned in the few short paragraphs that are Prop 13.

The intended purpose of Prop 13 is to cap annual property tax increases at 2% max and require voter approval for new assessments.

What it did is let each transaction stand on it's own... matters not if some fool is willing to pay some unstainable price for the home next door and go into foreclosure in a few years because his/her foolishness has no effect on you.

I have managed a lot of property in low income areas... these are areas where the bulk of city services are spent... police, fire, emt, etc...

The proof is in the Police Beats for my city... a vast area comprising about a third of the land mass of Oakland with very expensive homes is only a single police beat...

The other parts of the city have dozens of police beats... talk about allocation of resources vs taxes paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 08:01 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,378,100 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Prop 13 is based on fair market at transfer... I know that my base is forever tied to what I paid on Dec 31 2003 just as my neighbor is tied to what he paid in 2012.

So using your logic I should be sitting pretty having owned 3 times longer than my neighbor?

The fact is my home is 1958 and 1725 square feet and paid 598k for it...

Their home is 2001 and 3,000 square feet with lots of high end finishes and appliances etc... they paid 450k...

Just one example of length of ownership matters not and is not even mentioned in the few short paragraphs that are Prop 13.

The intended purpose of Prop 13 is to cap annual property tax increases at 2% max and require voter approval for new assessments.

What it did is let each transaction stand on it's own... matters not if some fool is willing to pay some unstainable price for the home next door and go into foreclosure in a few years because his/her foolishness has no effect on you.

I have managed a lot of property in low income areas... these are areas where the bulk of city services are spent... police, fire, emt, etc...

The proof is in the Police Beats for my city... a vast area comprising about a third of the land mass of Oakland with very expensive homes is only a single police beat...

The other parts of the city have dozens of police beats... talk about allocation of resources vs taxes paid.
There are some significant errors in your above post; however I do not feel like taking the time to educate you about all of the details of Proposition 13, how declines in market value affect a property's assessment, etc.

You and your neighbor do not own equivalent properties. Far from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 08:48 PM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,391,831 times
Reputation: 23222
Exactly... my neighbor owns a far superior property in every way... 40% larger, over 30 years newer and superior finishes in every respect...

Yet, I paid more because I bought in an appreciating market... he bought at rock bottom during the foreclosure market colapse...

I have 3 times longer than he did and I have the higher property tax...

Proving length of ownership is not a factor... only the Fair Market Value at the time of transfer...

In case anyone is wondering I did pay for and file Formal Assessment Appeals with Alameda County which still required me to pay the property tax in full as billed...

My appeal went all the way to hearings taking about 2 years... and YES... I did win both and received a refund based on a temporary market value reduction...

It was not free money.... the filing fees plus the many hours of putting together comps, pictures, market data and taking to half days from work to get my TEMPORARY reduction...

Now that market has more than recovered my Assessed Value has gone back the Maximum permitted which is now $701K on a home I paid 600K for on December 31 2003.

So this my saga on how I fought for a lower value due to Decline in Market Value which was a fight spanning 3 years for 2 back to back appeals... which only applied to the individual years in question.

Had I been smart... I should have bought that home in foreclosure in 2012 and then sold mine or rented it.

Over the years I have NEVER lost an appeal to the Alameda Tax Assessor going back to my first in 1983... it is just now the owner has to pay a fee to even file a formal appeal... which is crummy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 11:02 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,378,100 times
Reputation: 16101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
It was not free money.... the filing fees plus the many hours of putting together comps, pictures, market data and taking to half days from work to get my TEMPORARY reduction...
The filing fee is only $50, and if your income is low enough, you can get even that measly amount waived in Alameda County, yet the amount of time the county has to work on your case takes a lot of work hours, far more than the fee covers, which includes research, document processing, etc.

Decline in Value relief (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 51) is specific to the January 1 fair market value and does not allow for relief pertaining to other dates.

As to the time you personally took to prepare your own documents for your assessment appeal, I doubt that it took more than the time, photos, case preparation, etc. for me to defeat my one and only radar speeding ticket, arguing against a a motorcycle traffic cop in the courtroom. I fought the ticket, argued why I should not have been ticketed, and I won (not in the courtroom, though. I think the judge did not want the officer or courtroom spectators to know he found me "not guilty", so he said he'd take it under advisement and then I received the "not guilty" in the mail a couple of days later.) Two attorney friends had told me that "no one ever beats a radar speeding ticket around here, unless the officer does not show up, and they always do." (Did I gloat? Yes, to my attorney friends, I did, indeed. )

You can be happy that you prevailed at the AAB. Not everyone does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 12:35 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,391,831 times
Reputation: 23222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
The filing fee is only $50, and if your income is low enough, you can get even that measly amount waived in Alameda County, yet the amount of time the county has to work on your case takes a lot of work hours, far more than the fee covers, which includes research, document processing, etc.

Decline in Value relief (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 51) is specific to the January 1 fair market value and does not allow for relief pertaining to other dates.

As to the time you personally took to prepare your own documents for your assessment appeal, I doubt that it took more than the time, photos, case preparation, etc. for me to defeat my one and only radar speeding ticket, arguing against a a motorcycle traffic cop in the courtroom. I fought the ticket, argued why I should not have been ticketed, and I won (not in the courtroom, though. I think the judge did not want the officer or courtroom spectators to know he found me "not guilty", so he said he'd take it under advisement and then I received the "not guilty" in the mail a couple of days later.) Two attorney friends had told me that "no one ever beats a radar speeding ticket around here, unless the officer does not show up, and they always do." (Did I gloat? Yes, to my attorney friends, I did, indeed. )

You can be happy that you prevailed at the AAB. Not everyone does.
I closed on my home on December 31 and missed the arbitrary cut off year in Alameda County by one day for the automatic Decline in Value the county initiated...

My neighbor that bought a few months later got an automatic reduction... I had to pay $50 and it took more than 2 years.

I met a person at the appeal hearing and he had an interesting theory and his livelihood is assessment appeals.

He told me the county simply needed to preserve revenue so it purposely initiated the $50 filing fee and dragged out appeals to the maximum permitted by law as a stop-loss... and why not as the county doesn't even have to pay interest on the refunds.

As to the fee... I was told when I paid it that Alameda was being inundated with appeals... well duh... if the values are too high I would expect many appeals...

Never in the county's history has it charged to appeal... if the Assessor provided accurate values it would not have been inundated.

My brother is heavily involved in Real Estate as a portfolio manager... he was able to handle huge requests simply over the phone with Contra Costa... one was a reduction in value of almost a million dollars and all it took was a few telephone calls and one fax...

Simply because the county can play hardball in the face of overwhelming evidence doesn't mean it should... again... 2+ years and I filed AGAIN for the next year and also won that...

Can't speak to traffic tickets... have had the good fortune of never getting one.

I have gone to court in tenant landlord cases... mostly small claims and also have never lost... The last time the judge said it was the best prepared case he has seen in small claims and asked if I had a legal background... I am State Certified to hear Lemon Law Arbitration Cases... not a lawyer and not law school.

Prop 13 is the one bright spot in taxation in California that comes to mind... if for nothing else than it adds predictability and also the ability for voters to approve additional assessments.

Countries that permit base value swaps do so voluntarily... there is no obligation to do so and I believe the number today is the lowest it has ever been.

I came across a new home subdivision and all the tax assessments were similar except for one... turns out it was a homeowner that had sold their Santa Clara home bought new in 1958 and bought a similar size new home in Eldorado County and why not?

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-22-2016 at 12:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2016, 12:55 PM
 
10,513 posts, read 5,110,615 times
Reputation: 14056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
Prop 13 is the one bright spot in taxation in California that comes to mind... if for nothing else than it adds predictability and also the ability for voters to approve additional assessments
Prop 13 is a bad law and is grossly unfair to younger homeowners. When the Supreme Court upheld Prop 13 they said Prop 13 is "distasteful and unwise" and despite their opposition to it they were forced to uphold it because they had no Constitutional basis to overturn the will of the voters.

Just because a law is popular does not make it good. It's a bad law because it breaks the relationship between the tax charged and the cost of services rendered. A young family just starting out with a starter home has to pay a disproportionate amount of tax compared to their neighbors and that's wrong.

There are other mechanisms that could be used to keep seniors from losing homes due to swings in the real estate market that would be more equitable than Prop 13. Regardless, it is what it is and I don't see it changing any time soon.
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 > Sacramento

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