7 ms·

Those house owning elderly you're feeling sorry benefitted from the biggest bull market it history. They may have saw 100x gains on their house while many youth

Those house owning elderly you're feeling sorry benefitted from the biggest bull market it history. They may have saw 100x gains on their house while many youth will are spending 30-50% of their income on housing if they're lucky to get a good job. If they do, they can look forward to paying entitlements to these elderly people while they themselves may never see the same turn done to them because the system will be bankrupt by then. I don't see why the elderly should be any more immune to economic realities than everyone else. If you can't afford to live in your house or city any more, at least you had an opportunity to roll the dice and make the best of your life there. Others won't even get that. What about the people who will never afford to, people who might have made a positive net improvement to the economy if we weren't so concerned with protecting people. If it gets too expensive, let them sell their house and go live out their lives very comfortably in a low cost city and open the room for people who are going to contribute to the economy that has to pay for their entitlements.

rayiner 11y ago
It's insane. The people who don't work live close to the business districts collecting social security paid for by the people who do work who have to commute in from afar for the privilege. Then the people who don't work vote themselves favorable property tax rules so they don't have to pay their fair share of keeping up the city.
- hvmonk 11y ago
  oligarchy at micro level, creating obstacle in path of hard working common people. Prop 13 was created by these very elderly people only, and they are now reaping its benefits while the new generation suffers. Not saying all old people are like that, but this is what it is.
  - thinkdoge 11y ago
    Don't worry, old people eventually die and we will be old.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I'm retiring to Savannah when I'm old.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  I disagree. If the housing costs shoot way up, why should those people suddenly pay more money? Did a real estate bubble suddenly make it more expensive to police the area? I don't think so. The city doesn't need more money, it needs to stick to its budget.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    It's not about raising more money, it's about fairly apportioning the tax burden. Why should two homeowners with the same value of property pay different amounts of taxes just because one is old and has owned the house a long time?
    - adiabatty 11y ago
      On the other hand, why should your tax bill go up simply because other people are willing to spend increasingly large amounts of money to buy a house like yours? It's not like income tax where your tax bill only goes up when you get more money to pay it with.
      - mahyarm 11y ago
        Because when their own bills go up, they have an incentive to vote for things that bring the cost of housing down. When they don't have to pay for the cost of housing, but instead personally benefit through increased housing value, they will of course vote for it.
      - greeneggs 11y ago
        One can argue that it should be the opposite of an income tax. If the value of your house goes up because you remodel the kitchen, then it seems fair that you should be able to pocket that value. You did the work, so your taxes should not increase. If the value of your house goes up because the government opens a new light rail station nearby, then you did nothing to earn this, so it seems fair that society should be able to get higher taxes from you. In a speculative bubble, you did nothing to earn the extra value, but---arguably!---neither did the government, so it is less clear cut.
DrScump 11y ago
<They may have saw 100x gains on their house> I can't imagine a single unimproved residence being anywhere in that neighborhood (even going all the way to 1978); examples are welcome.
- xyzzy_plugh 11y ago
  Not accounting for inflation, it's not hard to believe: Median Home Values: Unadjusted 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 California $211,500 $195,500 $84,500 $23,100 $15,100 $9,564 $3,527 The median alone is almost two orders of magnitude greater as of 2000, let alone 2016. I'm sure there is at least one bay-area home that has been untouched for 50 or 60 years that is now selling for well over a million. From: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/valu...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - DrScump 11y ago
    You realize that somebody who bought in 1940 or earlier is over 100 years old now, right? (assuming becoming a homeowner at age 25). Not a significant demographic. Beyond that, those numbers are fudged and do not reflect the changing value of the dollar. $3,537 in 1940 is $59,711 in 2015 dollars[0] (or $43,382 in 2000 dollars[0]), so your "two orders of magnitude" claim falls to a mere factor of less than 5 times, or < 5% of the "two orders of magnitude" claim. And again, that isn't even a level comparison given that housing construction costs are far higher (well beyond the rate of inflation) due to more features, stricter building codes, modern appliances, permits, ... [0] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940&year2=2000 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940...
- drfuchs 11y ago
  Parts of Palo Alto were very blue collar post WWII. I knew one nonagenarian who bought his house new in 1949 for $10k, and it sold, unimproved, for $2.2m on his death over a year ago. Also a centenarian still living in her original 1950 $10k house that Zillow now estimates at $2.3m. So, there's 220x gains. Clearly, all the value is in the land. Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases; both have new neighbors in newly-built $4m houses on same-size lots paying $40k tax.
pm24601 11y ago
You are attacking the wrong people. Prop 13 applies to business real estate as well. This is the true problem. Before Prop 13 business was paying 2/3 of the property taxes now business is paying less than 1/3. The problem isn't the elderly, the problem is that Prop 13 includes commercial properties
surfmike 11y ago
An expensive house doesn't make you richer unless you're selling it and live somewhere cheaper. And in our society it's a given that predictability of costs is one of the benefits you get from buying a house.
- vehementi 11y ago
  Okay, and? So they can and should go and do that. Are you insinuating it is a hardship that they have the option to liquidate and easily move to a cheaper area and pocket a million dollars?
  - surfmike 11y ago
    Yes, especially since it's not because of anything they've done. Being forced to leave where you've lived your life, where your friends and family is, because of money is definitely a hardship.
dghughes 11y ago
It's probably not as much as you think it is, what is the constant dollar difference? If a single-family home in Vancouver cost $150,000 in 1980 and now it's $1.8 million it looks like a difference of $1,650,000. But that $150,000 is equivalent to $411,000 in 2015 dollars so the real difference is $1,389,000 still a lot but it's nothing to scoff at.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
chrismcb 11y ago
So what you are saying is the person who just spent their entire life, 40+ years helping build the city they live in, should now move away to a small city that no one else wants to move to? And they should do that mainly because other people now want to enjoy the fruits of the elderly labor?
- rdlecler1 11y ago
  If they can't afford it, then yes, they should find other accommodations. How is that any different than the rest of us have to live? My wife lives in New York, while I live in SF because that's what we have to do.
ChristianGeek 11y ago
Nobody benefits from a bull market until they sell.

rayiner 11y ago

It's insane. The people who don't work live close to the business districts collecting social security paid for by the people who do work who have to commute in from afar for the privilege. Then the people who don't work vote themselves favorable property tax rules so they don't have to pay their fair share of keeping up the city.

hvmonk 11y ago
oligarchy at micro level, creating obstacle in path of hard working common people. Prop 13 was created by these very elderly people only, and they are now reaping its benefits while the new generation suffers. Not saying all old people are like that, but this is what it is.
- thinkdoge 11y ago
  Don't worry, old people eventually die and we will be old.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm retiring to Savannah when I'm old.
Grishnakh 11y ago
I disagree. If the housing costs shoot way up, why should those people suddenly pay more money? Did a real estate bubble suddenly make it more expensive to police the area? I don't think so. The city doesn't need more money, it needs to stick to its budget.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's not about raising more money, it's about fairly apportioning the tax burden. Why should two homeowners with the same value of property pay different amounts of taxes just because one is old and has owned the house a long time?
  - adiabatty 11y ago
    On the other hand, why should your tax bill go up simply because other people are willing to spend increasingly large amounts of money to buy a house like yours? It's not like income tax where your tax bill only goes up when you get more money to pay it with.
    - mahyarm 11y ago
      Because when their own bills go up, they have an incentive to vote for things that bring the cost of housing down. When they don't have to pay for the cost of housing, but instead personally benefit through increased housing value, they will of course vote for it.
    - greeneggs 11y ago
      One can argue that it should be the opposite of an income tax. If the value of your house goes up because you remodel the kitchen, then it seems fair that you should be able to pocket that value. You did the work, so your taxes should not increase. If the value of your house goes up because the government opens a new light rail station nearby, then you did nothing to earn this, so it seems fair that society should be able to get higher taxes from you. In a speculative bubble, you did nothing to earn the extra value, but---arguably!---neither did the government, so it is less clear cut.

DrScump 11y ago

<They may have saw 100x gains on their house> I can't imagine a single unimproved residence being anywhere in that neighborhood (even going all the way to 1978); examples are welcome.

xyzzy_plugh 11y ago
Not accounting for inflation, it's not hard to believe: Median Home Values: Unadjusted 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940 California $211,500 $195,500 $84,500 $23,100 $15,100 $9,564 $3,527 The median alone is almost two orders of magnitude greater as of 2000, let alone 2016. I'm sure there is at least one bay-area home that has been untouched for 50 or 60 years that is now selling for well over a million. From: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/valu...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- DrScump 11y ago
  You realize that somebody who bought in 1940 or earlier is over 100 years old now, right? (assuming becoming a homeowner at age 25). Not a significant demographic. Beyond that, those numbers are fudged and do not reflect the changing value of the dollar. $3,537 in 1940 is $59,711 in 2015 dollars[0] (or $43,382 in 2000 dollars[0]), so your "two orders of magnitude" claim falls to a mere factor of less than 5 times, or < 5% of the "two orders of magnitude" claim. And again, that isn't even a level comparison given that housing construction costs are far higher (well beyond the rate of inflation) due to more features, stricter building codes, modern appliances, permits, ... [0] http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940&year2=2000 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=3527&year1=1940...
drfuchs 11y ago
Parts of Palo Alto were very blue collar post WWII. I knew one nonagenarian who bought his house new in 1949 for $10k, and it sold, unimproved, for $2.2m on his death over a year ago. Also a centenarian still living in her original 1950 $10k house that Zillow now estimates at $2.3m. So, there's 220x gains. Clearly, all the value is in the land. Property tax in 2013 was about $1k in both cases; both have new neighbors in newly-built $4m houses on same-size lots paying $40k tax.

pm24601 11y ago

You are attacking the wrong people. Prop 13 applies to business real estate as well. This is the true problem. Before Prop 13 business was paying 2/3 of the property taxes now business is paying less than 1/3. The problem isn't the elderly, the problem is that Prop 13 includes commercial properties

surfmike 11y ago

An expensive house doesn't make you richer unless you're selling it and live somewhere cheaper. And in our society it's a given that predictability of costs is one of the benefits you get from buying a house.

vehementi 11y ago
Okay, and? So they can and should go and do that. Are you insinuating it is a hardship that they have the option to liquidate and easily move to a cheaper area and pocket a million dollars?
- surfmike 11y ago
  Yes, especially since it's not because of anything they've done. Being forced to leave where you've lived your life, where your friends and family is, because of money is definitely a hardship.

dghughes 11y ago

It's probably not as much as you think it is, what is the constant dollar difference? If a single-family home in Vancouver cost $150,000 in 1980 and now it's $1.8 million it looks like a difference of $1,650,000. But that $150,000 is equivalent to $411,000 in 2015 dollars so the real difference is $1,389,000 still a lot but it's nothing to scoff at.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

chrismcb 11y ago

So what you are saying is the person who just spent their entire life, 40+ years helping build the city they live in, should now move away to a small city that no one else wants to move to? And they should do that mainly because other people now want to enjoy the fruits of the elderly labor?

rdlecler1 11y ago
If they can't afford it, then yes, they should find other accommodations. How is that any different than the rest of us have to live? My wife lives in New York, while I live in SF because that's what we have to do.

ChristianGeek 11y ago

Nobody benefits from a bull market until they sell.