Need help deciding in two areas outside SD (low income, sales)

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Prop 13 applies equally to every taxable property in the State and when you bought has ZERO to do with age.

Prop 13 is a tax based on acquisition price plus voter approved special assessments which can be substantial.

Anyone following real estate knows those buying now are getting the deal because property has dropped dramatically... at least in my city.

I bought in 2005 and the folks that recently bought on my street got twice the house and a lower tax base then I have buying 8 years ago... and I am older than they are.

All true, but all off-topic.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Prop 13 applies equally to every taxable property in the State and when you bought has ZERO to do with age.

I bought in 2005 and the folks that recently bought on my street got twice the house and a lower tax base then I have buying 8 years ago... and I am older than they are.

A bit of a red herring.

My neighbor pays 700/yr in property taxes, bought their home in the mid 80's. The only people who "benefit" are the people who got in so early that the tax basis is low, i.e. people who bought their houses before the big price runups in the 90's and 2000's. Prop 13's problem is it taxes the new homeowner, young family, to pay for the older homeowner's share of services. It's typical of CA's tax structure that relies on the wealthy and dwindling upper middle class tax base to pay for services as opposed to just taxing everyone (see prop 30)

Anyway

Kearny Mesa is a very central place but If you are looking for new(er) housing it will be hard to find in that immediate area. The closest area is 4S ranch but it is expensive, as is some of the new developments east of Scripps Ranch. Sabre Springs might be a sweet spot. I think commuting up from Chula Vista would be a worse than San Marcos, which would be pretty bad on it's own.

[sdhkshdcny09]

I wonder how much we could close the CA state budget gap if everyone actually paid the correct amount of taxes based on their home's current value.

Maybe I am naive, but why do we allow people to pay so little in property taxes merely because they have lived in their home for so long?

[Ultrarunner]

Maybe there is a different way to rephrase...

Prop 13 is based solely on the Fair Market Value at the time of transfer...

Any relationship to being old or owning for a long time is only coincidence.

There are buildings in my part of East Oakland that are worth much less than 20 years ago...

If a person were to buy one of these properties today... they would pay less in taxes.

The same can be said for homes... I personally know of a lot that sold for 800k in 2005... the buyer had plans to subdivide and develop... just isn't going to happen, environmental and zoning changes no longer allow the property to be divided... the land has been for sale for 300k for over a year and no takers...

The problem is too many people still believe property only increases in value... when in fact, Real Estate is cyclical and plenty of places in California have experienced severe property value declines.

It all goes back to location, location, location.

There are just too many examples of property values declining to make the case old age or owning for a long period of time guarantees low taxes...

San Diego is desirable... so appreciation is a greater factor.

I know a group that owns several high rise buildings in San Bernardino... they would love to recoup the money invested over the last 15 years... the reality is the properties today are worth significantly less...

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by rhanifin

I wonder how much we could close the CA state budget gap if everyone actually paid the correct amount of taxes based on their home's current value.

Maybe I am naive, but why do we allow people to pay so little in property taxes merely because they have lived in their home for so long?

We allow people to pay taxes based on the purchase price, plus an inflation factor, plus voter approved assessments...

I was not old enough to have voted for Prop 13. I am thankful those before me did because it is the one thing in California taxation with a little predictability...

Remember, if enough voters feel otherwise... it can be changed.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by rhanifin

I wonder how much we could close the CA state budget gap if everyone actually paid the correct amount of taxes based on their home's current value.

Maybe I am naive, but why do we allow people to pay so little in property taxes merely because they have lived in their home for so long?

Ask why we also apply it to commercial property, inherited property?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Ask why we also apply it to commercial property, inherited property?

California Constitution prohibits split tax rolls... so same rates apply to all assessable property, less the Home Owner or other special exemption as in Blind or Disabled Vet.

Inherited Property is not covered under Prop 13... it was many years later the voters enacted two Props that deal with Parent/Child transfer and Grandparent/Grandchild transfer in the case of deceased parents.

I helped a family apply for the latter... the only child granddaughter lost her father in Vietnam shortly after she was born and her mother died from cancer 19 years later.

The grandmother owned/lived in a small dilapidated home in east Oakland from the turn of the century... Christmas in April volunteers put a new roof on the house because it was that bad...

Sometimes it is just people with modest means like Social Security trying to hang on and keep the family home in the family.

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by rhanifin

I wonder how much we could close the CA state budget gap if everyone actually paid the correct amount of taxes based on their home's current value.

Maybe I am naive, but why do we allow people to pay so little in property taxes merely because they have lived in their home for so long?

So that people on fixed incomes don't lose their homes to property taxes, and find themselves impoverished and homeless to boot.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by oddstray

So that people on fixed incomes don't lose their homes to property taxes, and find themselves impoverished and homeless to boot.

There's gotta be a middle ground in there somewhere. Right now disproportionately few are paying multiples to keep other people's taxes down Seems like another scheme by the baby boomers to create a protected class. A system set up to extract maximum revenue from a small group of high-income, young homeowners seems like an good way to eviscerate the most core element of your tax base.

Either everyone pays or no one does, I'm generally for the former.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by oddstray

So that people on fixed incomes don't lose their homes to property taxes, and find themselves impoverished and homeless to boot.

Prop 13 came about because property tax was going up by double digits and the State via the Serrano Decision took over funding for local schools...

Voters demanded the legislature act and nothing happened till the eleventh hour when a competing measure was put on the ballot.

Prop 13 would have never occured had the Homeowner Exemption simply been indexed for inflation...

At one time, the exemption was about half the cost of a modest home... a hundred dollar savings doesn't mean very much when taxes on a modest home in my city were $6,000