7 ms·

On top of this, you can continue to give large multi-million dollar estates down indefinitely to your children without the estates being reassessed for tax purp

On top of this, you can continue to give large multi-million dollar estates down indefinitely to your children without the estates being reassessed for tax purposes. That was an expansion of prop 13 which I definitely think shouldn't exist. So many people I have met here get to live here because of these ridiculous laws that basically keep the 1% the 1%. It props up real estate prices and only benefits wealthy individuals. Even now, you need something like 400k+/yr income to buy a house in quite a few areas. Not realistic for single income! Difficult for dual income if one of them isn't a software engineer at a big tech company. I've always had to be in these as a tenant. Current one, lady inherited this old 1930's property decades ago and the taxes are less than $6,000/yr for a $1.8mil property. She's making a cool $5k/month off us in profit. I live in the in-law unit and another person rents the house itself. She plans to pass it down to her children so that they can have the rental income too. Last unit I was in was a 9 unit apartment building. It applies to those too and I think that's bonkers! Guy bought the place back in the 1970's. As you can imagine, it was also about 10-15% of the tax it would be if the property was reassessed. Again, their kids are going to get that for practically free and have tens of thousands of dollars in income with very minimal tax. I am fiercely against prop 13 but I know it'll never hit the ballot. It would likely send a hell of crushing wave in real estate prices for California. Other states would hate California even more for the mass influx of Californians.

nontechdude1 9y ago
I feel like your whole perspective is skewed towards you, as a newcomer, feeling entitled to everything here. Your industry (tech) is causing values to skyrocket. Which is fine, but not everyone in a single area is going to work in one industry. If a bunch of wealthy people want to live in one place (this happens in CA a lot) why should your taxes go up punitively? That's why prop 13 was put in place. It really puts a value on homeownership--investment in an area, and investment in the state. As a renter, you have far less invested in CA than a property owner. A property owner who has been in place since the 70s has paid decades of taxes (all: income, property, etc), utility bills, etc, that have made the state the way it is--for all its problems, CA has some of the best public higher education in the world. This system has helped silicon valley out tremendously as a viable competitor to the ivy league system for an extremely talented workforce. You have probably been here for some time, but not decades. Why should you get to tell these people they don't deserve what they've earned? If the tech economy crashed tomorrow, would you still be here? I doubt it. I got in-state UC tuition but my parents paid decades of income taxes. I own one of those pieces of real estate you probably look askance at. I understand that housing is sorta a pain for you, but for many people these pieces of real estate represent a lot of value: sentimental, and a sizable chunk of their net worth. If you're going to advocate for redistribution, there are MUCH better targets for your ire in this day and age. Otherwise, pay up, and then in 20 years run your mouth on some out-of-state carpetbagger or teenager who thinks they're entitled to something you put 30 years of mortgage payments towards.
- bradlys 9y ago
  "Sorta a pain"? Are you shitting me? I have to make 400k/yr to buy a house here. The area is beyond approachable. Just because your parents paid their utility bill for 30 years doesn't mean they should be entitled to paying 15% of the tax rate of a new home owner. That's obscene and only increases the issue here. Prop 13 gives great incentive for you to fight any kind of increase in density or affordability. If real estate is where all your net worth is: SELL AND DIVERSIFY
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- entee 9y ago
  There are a number of ways that property taxes could be handled so as to not force people out of their homes as property values fluctuate. Just one example, there could be a maximum on percentage of income that can be charged as property tax. Pegging those taxes to prices that are literally decades old seems like the least efficient and most distortionary method. Nevermind that handing that benefit down generation after generation is the surest way to create a form of aristocracy. Oh and let's not forget the many, many problems it has caused for the education system you so respect. Prop 13 is often named as one of the reasons why CA's public education system is under such financial duress at every level. Why can't we just admit that we need far, far more housing stock, far, far better public transportation systems, far, far better infrastructure and that CA's unique property tax system has essentially stymied all of those efforts. I find if hard to believe CA wouldn't be better off without Prop 13. On another note, this post strikes me as incredibly hostile toward anyone moving to California. "Stay away, this place is ours, and if you come and can't buy, then don't complain, because this place was ours first." "Oh, and you're a tech person, so bugger off, we don't need your kind anyway!" Is the person who just bought property at market rate today more entitled to complain according to your metric? They will have paid more in taxes than the person who bought in the 70's cumulatively paid over all those decades within just a couple of years. Would they then be more Californian somehow? Entitled to more of the state's resources? How about those people who have rented here for 30 years? If you don't/can't own property are you less Californian?
cobookman 9y ago
Just wait for the economy to crash. You'll have the CA gov looking for new income streams. It'll either be modify prop 13, modify the pension plan, or declare bankruptcy.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >It'll either be modify prop 13, modify the pension plan, or declare bankruptcy. The outcome of which will be determined by which side gains the upper hand in this class war.
Shivetya 9y ago
so basically rent control for homeowners, or better put tax control. if anything the law needs to be fixed but before doing so there needs to be protection put in place so that jurisdictions cannot force people out by having punitive real estate tax rates. This usually can be done with a large deduction for the primary home. In my case; I am not in California; my home is worth X. Well the deduction in place drops its stated value by 40k which lessens any taxation. We must understand that California was very different when laws like this were passed, they were abhorrent to a growing government. As we can see now they lost that fight and you can be sure the politicians would love prop 13 to be gone but before doing so something needs to be in place
SlowBro 9y ago
> On top of this, you can continue to give large multi-million dollar estates down indefinitely to your children without the estates being reassessed for tax purposes. Correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn’t this scenario also describe handing down family farms? If so, repealing this law could be a terrible double-edged sword. Lots of families could lose the farm when mom and pop die, unable to afford the tax bill. I could be mistaken but I believe that’s the scenario this law is intended to protect.
- fricat1ve 9y ago
  I have heard this argument advanced against the estate tax. But even if you eliminate the reassessment loop hole the property tax rates are still cappped at the 1-ish percent level. A family farm that can't afford 1% of its assessed value doesn't sound like a very viable business.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    So if they're scraping by maybe due to lean years such as during the recent drought, you would be comfortable with the family business being shut down? Farming is typically a low-margin business. Over taxation is one of the primary stated reasons some rural Californians are proposing to split the state.[1] So perhaps a solution is to allow farmers to govern themselves and tax land owners appropriately, and big city dwellers to govern themselves, taxing land owners appropriately. (Note that I don't live in CA so I am neither for nor against. Simply stating facts.) [1] https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/720c6a07-3594-44b7-8098-94fc11bae240/downloads/1bs7e9hsg_560435.pdf https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/720c6a07-3594-44b7-8098-94f...
    - fricat1ve 9y ago
      Are we talking about real agribusiness in the Central Valley or are we talking about a couple "family farms" in Cupertino or wherever? In the former case, are these people are at any competitive disadvantage relative to rural areas of other states? As for the latter case....well how much sentimentality are you going to attach to land uses from the past? Sure, Silicon Valley is built on some of the highest quality farmland in the country but most of the farms are gone now. If you want to keep whatever few are left there are probably more targeted ways of doing that.
fricat1ve 9y ago
>I know it'll never hit the ballot. Why so fatalistic? California is probably the most open state in the union in terms of citizens having the ability to place ballot measures. That's how Prop 13 got passed in the first place :) https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_for_ballot_measures_in_California https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_for_ballot_me...

nontechdude1 9y ago

I feel like your whole perspective is skewed towards you, as a newcomer, feeling entitled to everything here. Your industry (tech) is causing values to skyrocket. Which is fine, but not everyone in a single area is going to work in one industry. If a bunch of wealthy people want to live in one place (this happens in CA a lot) why should your taxes go up punitively? That's why prop 13 was put in place. It really puts a value on homeownership--investment in an area, and investment in the state. As a renter, you have far less invested in CA than a property owner. A property owner who has been in place since the 70s has paid decades of taxes (all: income, property, etc), utility bills, etc, that have made the state the way it is--for all its problems, CA has some of the best public higher education in the world. This system has helped silicon valley out tremendously as a viable competitor to the ivy league system for an extremely talented workforce. You have probably been here for some time, but not decades. Why should you get to tell these people they don't deserve what they've earned? If the tech economy crashed tomorrow, would you still be here? I doubt it. I got in-state UC tuition but my parents paid decades of income taxes. I own one of those pieces of real estate you probably look askance at. I understand that housing is sorta a pain for you, but for many people these pieces of real estate represent a lot of value: sentimental, and a sizable chunk of their net worth. If you're going to advocate for redistribution, there are MUCH better targets for your ire in this day and age. Otherwise, pay up, and then in 20 years run your mouth on some out-of-state carpetbagger or teenager who thinks they're entitled to something you put 30 years of mortgage payments towards.

bradlys 9y ago
"Sorta a pain"? Are you shitting me? I have to make 400k/yr to buy a house here. The area is beyond approachable. Just because your parents paid their utility bill for 30 years doesn't mean they should be entitled to paying 15% of the tax rate of a new home owner. That's obscene and only increases the issue here. Prop 13 gives great incentive for you to fight any kind of increase in density or affordability. If real estate is where all your net worth is: SELL AND DIVERSIFY
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
entee 9y ago
There are a number of ways that property taxes could be handled so as to not force people out of their homes as property values fluctuate. Just one example, there could be a maximum on percentage of income that can be charged as property tax. Pegging those taxes to prices that are literally decades old seems like the least efficient and most distortionary method. Nevermind that handing that benefit down generation after generation is the surest way to create a form of aristocracy. Oh and let's not forget the many, many problems it has caused for the education system you so respect. Prop 13 is often named as one of the reasons why CA's public education system is under such financial duress at every level. Why can't we just admit that we need far, far more housing stock, far, far better public transportation systems, far, far better infrastructure and that CA's unique property tax system has essentially stymied all of those efforts. I find if hard to believe CA wouldn't be better off without Prop 13. On another note, this post strikes me as incredibly hostile toward anyone moving to California. "Stay away, this place is ours, and if you come and can't buy, then don't complain, because this place was ours first." "Oh, and you're a tech person, so bugger off, we don't need your kind anyway!" Is the person who just bought property at market rate today more entitled to complain according to your metric? They will have paid more in taxes than the person who bought in the 70's cumulatively paid over all those decades within just a couple of years. Would they then be more Californian somehow? Entitled to more of the state's resources? How about those people who have rented here for 30 years? If you don't/can't own property are you less Californian?

cobookman 9y ago

Just wait for the economy to crash. You'll have the CA gov looking for new income streams. It'll either be modify prop 13, modify the pension plan, or declare bankruptcy.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>It'll either be modify prop 13, modify the pension plan, or declare bankruptcy. The outcome of which will be determined by which side gains the upper hand in this class war.

Shivetya 9y ago

so basically rent control for homeowners, or better put tax control. if anything the law needs to be fixed but before doing so there needs to be protection put in place so that jurisdictions cannot force people out by having punitive real estate tax rates. This usually can be done with a large deduction for the primary home. In my case; I am not in California; my home is worth X. Well the deduction in place drops its stated value by 40k which lessens any taxation. We must understand that California was very different when laws like this were passed, they were abhorrent to a growing government. As we can see now they lost that fight and you can be sure the politicians would love prop 13 to be gone but before doing so something needs to be in place

SlowBro 9y ago

> On top of this, you can continue to give large multi-million dollar estates down indefinitely to your children without the estates being reassessed for tax purposes. Correct me if I’m wrong. Doesn’t this scenario also describe handing down family farms? If so, repealing this law could be a terrible double-edged sword. Lots of families could lose the farm when mom and pop die, unable to afford the tax bill. I could be mistaken but I believe that’s the scenario this law is intended to protect.

fricat1ve 9y ago
I have heard this argument advanced against the estate tax. But even if you eliminate the reassessment loop hole the property tax rates are still cappped at the 1-ish percent level. A family farm that can't afford 1% of its assessed value doesn't sound like a very viable business.
- SlowBro 9y ago
  So if they're scraping by maybe due to lean years such as during the recent drought, you would be comfortable with the family business being shut down? Farming is typically a low-margin business. Over taxation is one of the primary stated reasons some rural Californians are proposing to split the state.[1] So perhaps a solution is to allow farmers to govern themselves and tax land owners appropriately, and big city dwellers to govern themselves, taxing land owners appropriately. (Note that I don't live in CA so I am neither for nor against. Simply stating facts.) [1] https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/720c6a07-3594-44b7-8098-94fc11bae240/downloads/1bs7e9hsg_560435.pdf https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/720c6a07-3594-44b7-8098-94f...
  - fricat1ve 9y ago
    Are we talking about real agribusiness in the Central Valley or are we talking about a couple "family farms" in Cupertino or wherever? In the former case, are these people are at any competitive disadvantage relative to rural areas of other states? As for the latter case....well how much sentimentality are you going to attach to land uses from the past? Sure, Silicon Valley is built on some of the highest quality farmland in the country but most of the farms are gone now. If you want to keep whatever few are left there are probably more targeted ways of doing that.

fricat1ve 9y ago

>I know it'll never hit the ballot. Why so fatalistic? California is probably the most open state in the union in terms of citizens having the ability to place ballot measures. That's how Prop 13 got passed in the first place :) https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_for_ballot_measures_in_California https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_for_ballot_me...