3 ms·
Look at it from the other side of the coin. I bought a home. It was a responsible purchase, in line with my earnings. 30 years later, I pay the home off. I ret
by phamilton 11y ago
Look at it from the other side of the coin.
I bought a home. It was a responsible purchase, in line with my earnings. 30 years later, I pay the home off. I retire on a fixed income which accounts for the roughly fixed costs of my home and its upkeep.
Now a big company builds a campus next door. Home prices skyrocket. What do I do? If my property tax is bounded, I'm fine. If not, then suddenly I lose my home because my fixed income did not account for my property taxes skyrocketing.
Sure, Prop 60 accounts for that by transferring basis, but maybe I'm 54 when this occurs so it doesn't apply. Or maybe I'm not retired, but have 3 kids in the local school district and having to uproot my family because I can't afford my home is extremely disruptive.
One of the points in buying a home, rather than renting, is to guarantee that stability.
I agree that there are problems with prop 13, but fairness is a two sided coin. It is certainly not fair for my home (which I own) to suddenly become unaffordable due to external circumstances. Likewise it's not fair for a neighbor to pay double for roughly the same consumption of public services.
I don't know the solution. Possibly decoupling property tax from home values might be the answer. It certainly isn't a very good tracker for public good consumption.
- ghaff 11y agoI'd just add that, in many locales, property taxes largely go to fund school systems. So forcing a retiree to move because they can't afford increased property taxes is doubly unfair given that they're not getting the benefits of the higher taxes. As I said elsewhere, gentrification happens and I'd argue is largely a positive, but I'm very leery of forcing people out of property they own. And, in general, I don't think it's good for the community.
- vitd 11y agoI don't see how the fact that someone might be on a fixed income makes it fair for their children to inherit the house and tax-basis from 50 years ago. Also, I don't see why property tax increases for existing homes couldn't be capped in some way (say no more than inflation) to make this situation reasonable for people in the scenario you've laid out. But just saying, "Your taxes will never increase again as long as you stay in your home," hardly seems reasonable.
- phamilton 11y agoFirst, they do increase. Capped at 2%, correlated to inflation. Second, I agree on the inheritance piece. That is a problem.