Reduce State Property Taxes? (Sacramento, Oakland: bank owned, foreclosures, insurance)

[Oakformonday]

Originally Posted by Racer46

Or TN, which has no income tax and where I had family living, the property tax was @ 1.5% on 1/4 the value of the property. Wayyyyy below CA for a same priced home. Plus a sales tax about the same as CA. Car registration was under $30.00 per car regardless of make, model or age.

How do the local municipalities function with no revenue? People must be paying somehow, right?

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

How do the local municipalities function with no revenue? People must be paying somehow, right?

They do not spend as much as CA does for normal activities, yet have excellent assistance. I have had to call many State Government offices due to work. TN has been one of the easiest to reach someone one at and get help from. CA has been the worst. I would say TN was $1, Idaho #2, NV and TX #3, NC #5, IL $6, FL tied with ID, SC, KS, AL, LA, MI, SD, IN and the others all pretty good. Now the above is just a personal opinion as a business consultant, but my experiences. It isn't the money they receive it is how they spend it that makes the difference for States, Counties, Cities, etc..

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by likealady

Lucky you. Meanwhile your neighbors are paying through the roof to make up for the funds the state is losing from your property.

And those same homeowners you are in a stink over were probably living there and paying property taxes before you were out of grade school. AND, not moving around, buying up, causing their taxes to rise every time they purchased a newer home.

[Ultrarunner]

Many businesses here rent space with triple net leases and the property tax is a direct passthrough to the tenant...

I don't have to imagine the fallout when the eatery or tool rental place or tire shop is hit with a trippling or more of property tax.

In my case the property tax my sellers paid of $1200 jumped to $8800 so about a 7 fold increase in one hit... talk about being a victim of circumstance had this not been on my home.

[mgforshort]

I wish property tax would be based on the size of the home, regardless of the value or purchase price. The base amount could be adjusted by -30% or + 30 % depending on the cost of living in that Zip code. Then again the base amount could be adjusted, plus or minus, according to the number of residents living there. More people need more government services.

When I hear "we need more tax revenue for the children" I always think "sure, and even more for the pensions." Not for mine, not for yours, for theirs, whoever is asking for more taxes.

[Ultrarunner]

The beauty of Prop 13 is it is simple... Fair Market Value at the Time of Transfer with a 2% annual inflation cap and the provision voters can add more assessment with 2/3 approval or 55% for school infrastructure.

No armies of tax assessors, volumes of tax code, constant reappraisals... etc.

A few short and simple paragraphs written in plain English.

The greatest benefit is providing some predictability in Real Property Taxes... no more double digit year over year increases without voter approval.

I live in Oakland CA and the voters have been most generous in approving additional assessments... midnight basketball, multiple school and park measures, etc...

Prop 13 makes the politicians at least work a little harder to raise taxes.

Of all taxes, Property Tax is the worst for it just happens... Prior to Prop 13 it was we decided you owe this much, now pay up or else.

Sales Tax, Income Tax, etc... all require specific action on the part of the individual...

Why don't we treat Real Property like Cars? You know exactly what it costs going in and it declines every year from then to a minimum unless Sacramento gets involved... remember what happened to one Governor with License Fees... he was removed.

In 2006 my then boss bought a new Ford GT for 160k... he enjoyed the car for 5 years and sold it for 210k... and each year his tag fees went down as the value of his car went up...

As a side note... Real Estate values go up and down... East Oakland home that sold in 2007 for 510k in East Oakland sold foreclosure in 2009 for 100k... how is that for decline and I can show not a block in East Oakland escaped 50 to 80% declines?

There would never have been a Prop 13 had the Home Owner Exemption remained meaningful... a 7K exemption on a 15K home was meaningful... a 7K exemption on a 600k home means next to nothing.

Sacramento was all to willing to let the voters decide and they did! At the eleventh hour the State even floated a competing bill but voters were to smart to fall for it... I only wish I had been old enough to vote then.

One last point... in addition to double digit tax increases during terrible financial times, graft and corruption in Assessor offices which led to jail and suicide... people resented Sacramento power grab of local school tax dollars... it was one thing to pay high taxes for the local school and another thing when local money was siphoned off ending up hundreds of miles away...

I will always remain passionate about the roof over my head...

[Oakformonday]

Originally Posted by Racer46

They do not spend as much as CA does for normal activities, yet have excellent assistance. I have had to call many State Government offices due to work. TN has been one of the easiest to reach someone one at and get help from. CA has been the worst. I would say TN was $1, Idaho #2, NV and TX #3, NC #5, IL $6, FL tied with ID, SC, KS, AL, LA, MI, SD, IN and the others all pretty good. Now the above is just a personal opinion as a business consultant, but my experiences. It isn't the money they receive it is how they spend it that makes the difference for States, Counties, Cities, etc..

Interesting. I wonder if part of the issue is that CA is the size of a small country and many of the states on your list are much smaller? I would guess these other states also receive more revenue from the Feds. Or, they have less regulation and red tape. It's hard to say unless someone audited the different systems. Who knows. But, you know what works best for you.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

There would never have been a Prop 13 had the Home Owner Exemption remained meaningful... a 7K exemption on a 15K home was meaningful... a 7K exemption on a 600k home means next to nothing.

You're right. At one time, it meant something but not anymore. In 2007, the HJTA sponsored an Assembly Bill (AB293) brought forth by Assembly Members Audra Strickland (Ventura/North Los Angeles counties) and John Benoit (Riverside County), asking to increase the exemption for homeowners. It didn't go anywhere because 2008 happened and the bottom fell out of the RE market, causing home prices to plummet. But, that's all changed now and RE prices are at record highs all across the state.

No mention, not a single peep about increasing the exemption now. There are states that receive more of an exemption than California and those homes aren't nearly as expensive as in this state. A few of them receive as much as a 20% exemption on the value of their home.

There's been no adjustment to this exemption since the early 70's. The Howard Jarvis Tax Assoc. sponsored a Bill, AB293, in 2007 but when the RE market crashed the next year, this Bill was all but forgotten. Now that home prices are up again and have exceeded those prices from then, it's time to re-introduce this Bill.

I found the original article from March 2007 on the HJTA site which shows just how things have changed since 1972.

https://www.hjta.org/california-comm...ers-exemption/

Although California has a homeowners exemption it has been "inflated away" to such an extent that it is virtually non-existent. It remains a mere $7000 — the same amount it has been since 1974. So what does a $7000 homeowner’s exemption mean for homeowners? Because of Proposition 13’s 1% flat rate exempting $7000 of a home’s value translates into a $70 tax break.

It's is hard to believe that in 1972 the median home price was $34,610. Today a homeowner could scarcely remodel a closet for that amount as the median home price has increased to $550000 while the exemption remains unchanged. With fees assessments and local bond debt (none of which falls under Proposition 13’s two percent annual increase cap) continuing to increase the $70 exemption taken off your property tax bill every year is wholly insufficient to maintain the level of protection Californians have enjoyed for the last quarter century.

Assembly Bill (293) was going to be introduced asking the amount to be increased to $22K from its current amount of $7K.

AB 293 would set the new exemption at $22000 and index it to the HPI. Our analysis indicates that if this bill had passed two years ago the exemption today would be approaching $29000. This would result in a $220 savings for every homeowner.

The article is pretty interesting and I think it's time for the HJTA to get on this again because our tax and spend legislature certainly isn't going to do anything about it. Might just have to sign one of their petitions to get this thing going again.

Although, the governor did sign a AB 1885 in September which increases the creditor homestead exemption for personal residences. That's a whole different beast and does nothing for the homeowner in relation to the property taxes they pay each year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadki...h=7a53d89e197d

[BobPhipps]

I'm happy for my neighbors and tenants that Prop 15 failed. I'm not into displacing people that just want to continue to live in their neighborhoods. The Bay Area shouldn't only be for the 1 percenters.

[nobodysbusiness]

The post is misleading.

Of course no one wants to pay taxes or wants their taxes reduced.

But what is the tradeoff?

What is affected?

You forgot to note that, OP.