4 ms·

I don't agree with that. If I was an old person, and I bought a house at 30K, and its paid off after years of hard work. It would freaking suck if my tax bill i

by vinhboy 10y ago

I don't agree with that. If I was an old person, and I bought a house at 30K, and its paid off after years of hard work. It would freaking suck if my tax bill is suddenly more than what I can afford to pay, forcing me to move. That's not fair. I am young so I do not benefit from Prop 13, but I can see why its an undue burden on people who just want to live their life. Someone suggested pegging it off of income, or other assets, and I think that's fair. Maybe it's even more fair to peg the local government budget based on what could be collected from the surrounding homeowners. If the government can't afford to keep the neighborhood super nice, then perhaps the home value would remain low, thus self-justifying the low tax.

refurb 10y ago
That's not fair? Consider this: Man buys a house house for $100K in 1980, pays it off by 2010 and owns it outright. The value of the home has increased to $1.5M. All of his mortgage payments amounted to $250K, so that's $1.25M in profit. He's on a fixed income, so he can't afford it when his property tax bill rises to $12,000 per year. As a result, he get a cut on his property taxes while his $1.25M in equity just sits there. After he dies, all that money goes to his heirs. I consider that unfair.
- zepto 10y ago
  Unfair to whom?
  - messick 10y ago
    All those people who spent their 20's eating $13 sandwiches from Seamless, instead of putting their money in the bank.
  - MagnumOpus 10y ago
    People whose parents didn't win the housing lottery by buying in Cali 30 years ago but whose parents are from (yegads) Nevada or even (chortle) the other coast and who don't have either Prop13 protection or a convenient million dollar home to hand - but who are the ones who actually pay for all the public services in Cali with their taxes? (I live half a world away from there and really don't have a horse in that race, but you have to be wilfully blind not to see both the injustice and the economic inefficiency.)
    - zepto 10y ago
      So instead we should shift the benefit to the people who would be able to afford giant property taxes? I.e. Another set of incredibly privileged people. What on earth is fair about taxation based on property value anyway? Other countries e.g. the U.K. do it by property size and the implied use of services. Why shouldn't it be possible to buy a home safe in the knowledge that you won't be forced out because of the choices of people around you that you have nothing to do with? If you're going to talk about random lotteries - why aren't you taking about raising taxes on people who made paper money from other unsold assets that happen to have appreciated dramatically in the last 30 years?

by vinhboy 10y ago

refurb 10y ago

That's not fair? Consider this: Man buys a house house for $100K in 1980, pays it off by 2010 and owns it outright. The value of the home has increased to $1.5M. All of his mortgage payments amounted to $250K, so that's $1.25M in profit. He's on a fixed income, so he can't afford it when his property tax bill rises to $12,000 per year. As a result, he get a cut on his property taxes while his $1.25M in equity just sits there. After he dies, all that money goes to his heirs. I consider that unfair.

zepto 10y ago
Unfair to whom?
- messick 10y ago
  All those people who spent their 20's eating $13 sandwiches from Seamless, instead of putting their money in the bank.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  People whose parents didn't win the housing lottery by buying in Cali 30 years ago but whose parents are from (yegads) Nevada or even (chortle) the other coast and who don't have either Prop13 protection or a convenient million dollar home to hand - but who are the ones who actually pay for all the public services in Cali with their taxes? (I live half a world away from there and really don't have a horse in that race, but you have to be wilfully blind not to see both the injustice and the economic inefficiency.)
  - zepto 10y ago
    So instead we should shift the benefit to the people who would be able to afford giant property taxes? I.e. Another set of incredibly privileged people. What on earth is fair about taxation based on property value anyway? Other countries e.g. the U.K. do it by property size and the implied use of services. Why shouldn't it be possible to buy a home safe in the knowledge that you won't be forced out because of the choices of people around you that you have nothing to do with? If you're going to talk about random lotteries - why aren't you taking about raising taxes on people who made paper money from other unsold assets that happen to have appreciated dramatically in the last 30 years?