4 ms·

Prop 13 is really great and really bad. My grandparents own a home in Livermore they've had from 1925. Livermore is now a very costly place to live in, and mo

Prop 13 is really great and really bad. My grandparents own a home in Livermore they've had from 1925. Livermore is now a very costly place to live in, and modern property taxes would make it impossible for them to live in a city they saw grow up around them. I do think Prop 13's protection should be eliminated for businesses - most definitely. If you're a landlord, perhaps it would make sense to allow up to 2 x Prop 13-protected [low-density] properties, and all those after would have unfixed property tax. The problem here is landlords will simply pass this along to renters, so it seems 'sane' to just eliminate Prop 13 for commercial and not residential properties. We lose billions of dollars in tax money from corporations because of Prop 13. :(

mahyarm 11y ago
Then make prop 13 a 65+ only law that can only apply to your main residence.
- JonFish85 11y ago
  Why only 65+? What about not forcing families to uproot and move because they can't afford the taxes?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - muzz 11y ago
    The only way this would happen is if the property appreciates. At current property tax rate of 1.1%, a half-million dollar appreciation would result in $5500 yr additional property tax. I would gladly trade spots with those who have to uproot themselves because they've had such massive home price appreciation.
- coroutines 11y ago
  Final answer: Residential only, not commercial/business property. Seniors aren't the only ones who need this. I also want to add that what sucks so hard about businesses being protected by Prop 13 is that businesses can live much longer than people. Disney might keep its decades-old fixed property tax for more than a hundred years.
  - malandrew 11y ago
    No one needs prop 13. Lots of people want and benefit from it, but no one needs it. You may need it to stay in your current home, but you don't need to stay in your current home. You can get another home elsewhere if the place where you live has outgrown you. Yes, it's possible for people to outgrow a place and also for a place to outgrow people. It's not even like they are economic losers. They bought into a place and it appreciated in value and they got to upside from the increased housing value. When they sell the home, they'll be cash rich and be able to easily afford a new home in a place that was just like 1925 Livermore. If you want to live in 2016 Livermore, which is a wholly different place from 1925 Livermore, then you should pay property taxes commensurate with supporting a 2016 Livermore. Yes, it's true, they may not be able to afford the property taxes there today under prop 13, but under some alternate universe without prop 13, the property taxes would be lower than they are today. The only reason they are as high as they are is because those that bought a home recently are paying way more in property taxes to make up for how little others pay in property taxes. Basically, if you're paying 1925 property taxes, you're freeloading while others that were born later make up the tax difference necessary for a community to function. Prop 13 is nothing more than a form of wealth transfer from the mostly young to the mostly old. Furthermore, there are good paying jobs in and around Livermore that require people to live near Livermore. If people are subsidized so they can occupy space near those jobs at the expense of the people qualified for those jobs, you're doing economic harm to the city, county, state and country in which Livermore resides, especially when those jobs are of the variety that are valuable for economic prosperity at the national level.
    - coroutines 11y ago
      I think the appreciating value in housing far outpaces inflation - and I wouldn't expect retirees on a fixed income to have planned for such increases 30 years ahead of time. We need cheaper housing - desperately. Poor. fucking. city. planning. with mediocre transit systems is not doing enough for us. I hear talk all the time about how we should be moving out of the cities and building the needed infrastructure in more urban areas. I think the first way to make that attractive to younger generations or even retirees would be to improve on transit to get to those areas. Make "the country" easy to get to and from. Anyway - I don't know the answer here. I don't know if it's justified whether prop 13 should exist for individuals. Ethically or logistically I don't know. I sure as hell know businesses don't need prop 13 - they don't retire. To me "if we should have prop 13" sounds like an argument against people being able to retire. I'd be happy to let it go entirely (business + residential) if property taxes were factored into social security. ;p
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  That was my argument back when they passed the thing (17 year old me argument). You can do either of two things. Either limit property tax increases on a retired persons primary residence. Or allow retired people accept a tax lien in lieu of taxes.
rayiner 11y ago
Why should we care more about grandparents than businesses?
- coroutines 11y ago
  Personally I would rather have no income tax or property tax - just very high sales tax. IMO, sales tax has a much larger tax base than any of the others - as income tax requires you to have a job/be a citizen; and property tax requires you to... own property. But that's not the reality we live in. Property taxes fluctuate too much in California - you might be paying everything you can toward your mortgage to decrease the interest you owe, but still effectively pay the same with rising property taxes. A fixed property tax is really, really necessary. It's just abused too heavily by corporations...
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Sales tax is regressive and thus should not be the main source of tax revenue, we cannot push this burden onto the shoulders of people who already have the least.
    - coroutines 11y ago
      I think we currently suffer from a tax system that enables double-taxation by default - unless you're fairly good filing your taxes and know where to claim deductions. My parents raised me to be knowledgeable of what's a work expense, and things have gotten easier with Turbo Tax - but it still surprises me how many of my friends and relatives file a 1040EZ. Personally I think it's strange that we start at 10% income tax on people making so little.
    - paulddraper 11y ago
      You're technically correct, though I've found regressive always makes it sound like poor people pay more, when in reality poor people pay less. Anyway, most high sales tax proposals come with a post capita rebate.

mahyarm 11y ago

Then make prop 13 a 65+ only law that can only apply to your main residence.

JonFish85 11y ago
Why only 65+? What about not forcing families to uproot and move because they can't afford the taxes?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- muzz 11y ago
  The only way this would happen is if the property appreciates. At current property tax rate of 1.1%, a half-million dollar appreciation would result in $5500 yr additional property tax. I would gladly trade spots with those who have to uproot themselves because they've had such massive home price appreciation.
coroutines 11y ago
Final answer: Residential only, not commercial/business property. Seniors aren't the only ones who need this. I also want to add that what sucks so hard about businesses being protected by Prop 13 is that businesses can live much longer than people. Disney might keep its decades-old fixed property tax for more than a hundred years.
- malandrew 11y ago
  No one needs prop 13. Lots of people want and benefit from it, but no one needs it. You may need it to stay in your current home, but you don't need to stay in your current home. You can get another home elsewhere if the place where you live has outgrown you. Yes, it's possible for people to outgrow a place and also for a place to outgrow people. It's not even like they are economic losers. They bought into a place and it appreciated in value and they got to upside from the increased housing value. When they sell the home, they'll be cash rich and be able to easily afford a new home in a place that was just like 1925 Livermore. If you want to live in 2016 Livermore, which is a wholly different place from 1925 Livermore, then you should pay property taxes commensurate with supporting a 2016 Livermore. Yes, it's true, they may not be able to afford the property taxes there today under prop 13, but under some alternate universe without prop 13, the property taxes would be lower than they are today. The only reason they are as high as they are is because those that bought a home recently are paying way more in property taxes to make up for how little others pay in property taxes. Basically, if you're paying 1925 property taxes, you're freeloading while others that were born later make up the tax difference necessary for a community to function. Prop 13 is nothing more than a form of wealth transfer from the mostly young to the mostly old. Furthermore, there are good paying jobs in and around Livermore that require people to live near Livermore. If people are subsidized so they can occupy space near those jobs at the expense of the people qualified for those jobs, you're doing economic harm to the city, county, state and country in which Livermore resides, especially when those jobs are of the variety that are valuable for economic prosperity at the national level.
  - coroutines 11y ago
    I think the appreciating value in housing far outpaces inflation - and I wouldn't expect retirees on a fixed income to have planned for such increases 30 years ahead of time. We need cheaper housing - desperately. Poor. fucking. city. planning. with mediocre transit systems is not doing enough for us. I hear talk all the time about how we should be moving out of the cities and building the needed infrastructure in more urban areas. I think the first way to make that attractive to younger generations or even retirees would be to improve on transit to get to those areas. Make "the country" easy to get to and from. Anyway - I don't know the answer here. I don't know if it's justified whether prop 13 should exist for individuals. Ethically or logistically I don't know. I sure as hell know businesses don't need prop 13 - they don't retire. To me "if we should have prop 13" sounds like an argument against people being able to retire. I'd be happy to let it go entirely (business + residential) if property taxes were factored into social security. ;p
Gibbon1 11y ago
That was my argument back when they passed the thing (17 year old me argument). You can do either of two things. Either limit property tax increases on a retired persons primary residence. Or allow retired people accept a tax lien in lieu of taxes.

rayiner 11y ago

Why should we care more about grandparents than businesses?

coroutines 11y ago
Personally I would rather have no income tax or property tax - just very high sales tax. IMO, sales tax has a much larger tax base than any of the others - as income tax requires you to have a job/be a citizen; and property tax requires you to... own property. But that's not the reality we live in. Property taxes fluctuate too much in California - you might be paying everything you can toward your mortgage to decrease the interest you owe, but still effectively pay the same with rising property taxes. A fixed property tax is really, really necessary. It's just abused too heavily by corporations...
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Sales tax is regressive and thus should not be the main source of tax revenue, we cannot push this burden onto the shoulders of people who already have the least.
  - coroutines 11y ago
    I think we currently suffer from a tax system that enables double-taxation by default - unless you're fairly good filing your taxes and know where to claim deductions. My parents raised me to be knowledgeable of what's a work expense, and things have gotten easier with Turbo Tax - but it still surprises me how many of my friends and relatives file a 1040EZ. Personally I think it's strange that we start at 10% income tax on people making so little.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
    You're technically correct, though I've found regressive always makes it sound like poor people pay more, when in reality poor people pay less. Anyway, most high sales tax proposals come with a post capita rebate.