Median price of a single family home in San Diego: $612,750 (homebuyer, schools)

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by snpdragr

Why is that? Basically the newest homeowners are subsidizing the taxes of long time residents and commercial properties. So they are big losers in prop 13.

Not sure exactly where the crossover lies, but I'm guessing maybe 10years

You are clueless as to property taxes and you sure as hell have no idea how prop 13 actually works. The reason people try to blame P13 for the high housing costs is because they don’t know what they’re talking about. And most likely do not own property

Most houses in California have been sold many times over so your argument Hornsby hold water. The amoun5 of homeowners who never sold is a lot less tan those who sold. I own houses in a few cities in OC and mos5 houses in m6 neighborhoods have been sold a few times over. My propert6 taxes go up every year. The difference is a few hundred bucks between current taxes and buying the same house today.

I just bought a house two years ago. I’m paying taxes on the purchase price. If you bought a house today your property is protected by P13

[Ultrarunner]

^^^ I find this too often the case...

Prop 13 is only a few short paragraphs and so misunderstood.

The telling item is to hear property owners say they don't have Prop 13...

The reality is all taxable property comes under Prop 13.

[snpdragr]

Originally Posted by Electrician4you

The reason people try to blame P13 for the high housing costs is because they don’t know what they’re talking about. And most likely do not own property

You are attributing an argument to me that I never made.

All I am saying is that if you collect the same amount of property tax as currently collected under prop 13 but base it on market values instead of purchase price (with a floating rate to get the same total amount of tax), new home owners would generally pay less, long time home owner more. That's just the way the math and distribution of prices work.

This is why a new home owner might not like prop 13. However there are other aspects of prop 13 that homeowners may like -- I am not denying that.

Edit: If you look at effective tax rates (tax paid / market value), in some cities in California the median rate is around 0.5%. That means that a new homeowner paying at 1% is going to be paying 2x more under prop 13. On a million dollar home that's an extra 5k per year. This is why I said new homeowners "lose".

[Ultrarunner]

^^^ The problem is what Sacramento gives it can take away.

We had a system for a long long time of meaningful Home Owner Exemption...

Business and Expensive homes paid more and the modest homes received a break.

The legislature refused to index so the value means almost nothing today... less than a tank of gas for my truck... but in 1960 it was half the value of a modest home if not more.

Prop 13 is a constitutional Amendment... many fought all the way to the US Supreme Court... one was Governor Brown who has repeatedly said it is settled law.

[snpdragr]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Prop 13 is a constitutional Amendment... many fought all the way to the US Supreme Court... one was Governor Brown who has repeatedly said it is settled law.

I have no expectation that prop 13 will change, at least for residential housing. I would like to see the commercial loophole fixed though.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by snpdragr

I have no expectation that prop 13 will change, at least for residential housing. I would like to see the commercial loophole fixed though.

Anything is possible but California's constitution prohibits Split Assessment Rolls.

This is one reason having a larger Home Owner Exemption would have been the simple way to keep most happy... but this was too much for our legislature to do...

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by snpdragr

You are attributing an argument to me that I never made.

All I am saying is that if you collect the same amount of property tax as currently collected under prop 13 but base it on market values instead of purchase price (with a floating rate to get the same total amount of tax), new home owners would generally pay less, long time home owner more. That's just the way the math and distribution of prices work.

This is why a new home owner might not like prop 13. However there are other aspects of prop 13 that homeowners may like -- I am not denying that.

Edit: If you look at effective tax rates (tax paid / market value), in some cities in California the median rate is around 0.5%. That means that a new homeowner paying at 1% is going to be paying 2x more under prop 13. On a million dollar home that's an extra 5k per year. This is why I said new homeowners "lose".

If prop 13 went away all taxes would skyrocket. The State, Counties and Cities want all the money they can get. This is why Mello Roos came about and then HOA's. In the past the city took care of the streets, parks, etc and with your property taxes. Now you pay for the streets, parks, etc with a Mello Roos or HOA.

In effect property taxes have gone up for everyone buying now. Another reason why older houses are popular.

[metoque]

Originally Posted by expatCA

If prop 13 went away all taxes would skyrocket. The State, Counties and Cities want all the money they can get. This is why Mello Roos came about and then HOA's. In the past the city took care of the streets, parks, etc and with your property taxes. Now you pay for the streets, parks, etc with a Mello Roos or HOA.

In effect property taxes have gone up for everyone buying now. Another reason why older houses are popular.

You just made the argument as to why Prop13 is so wildly unfair. So many long-time homeowners are vastly underpaying their fair share of property taxes each year, that Mello Roos had to be invented to screw new homeowners even more in order to make up for the lack of tax revenue from the long-timers.

[lostsoul359]

Most people move so this issue is not an issue. In your head it bothers you.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by metoque

You just made the argument as to why Prop13 is so wildly unfair. So many long-time homeowners are vastly underpaying their fair share of property taxes each year, that Mello Roos had to be invented to screw new homeowners even more in order to make up for the lack of tax revenue from the long-timers.

There is no "Underpayment" because if any property owner underpaid property tax they would loose the property.

Property taxes must be paid in full.

Mello is a fee willingly paid by those wanting to buy newer homes in developments... it has a sunset and is established by the builder to amortize infrastructure costs over time... the alternative is to pay the full cost upfront... as you would if you bought a lot and built a home... all costs would need to be paid at the time of construction.

Don't forget... the buyer is in the driver's seat and chooses to buy or not.... the decision to buy is a personal one.

What we have is a lack of understanding or worse... those simply going into a tantrum because they want what someone else has and not be willing to put in the time...

Again... I am a "Long timer" compared to my neighbor, having bought before the market tanked... my neighbors bought a foreclosure which in 45 years newer and nearly twice the home and their tax is less than mine.

Prop 13 isn't that hard to understand... the tax is based at Fair Market Value at the time of transfer...

Poster act like Property NEVER goes down in price... if anyone really believes this they need to jump in feet first and buy because today's high price will be looked back as a bargain...

For your premise to be accurate... my neighbor should be paying a lot more in taxes than I do... and this is not the case... even though I bought years before they did... and they have the bigger and newer home.

They bought a foreclosure when the market hit rock bottom... I bought 7 years prior when the market was going up...

When did you buy?