6 ms·

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 skyrock

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 8y 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 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
entee 8y 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?
- nontechdude1 8y ago
  I totally agree with more housing stock. I am a huge fan of Wieiners bill, except with the exception that some cities should not have an 8 story maximum. He is modeling it after Boston, and I've lived there, and huge complexes near transit stations is not a good thing in small cities with 1 railway station. But do that and keep prop 13 in place, please. We don't need the state to hire a bunch of new tax assessors; it's doing just fine destroying itself financially already.
  - wjnqx 8y ago
    How, exactly, is denying the state access to revenue supposed to improve its financial situation? If you want better use of money, you've got to vote for it.
thebradbain 8y ago
nontechdude1, I think I can blame both tech companies of this current generation for their sins AND people of generations past for theirs, and that includes their exclusionary housing policies. It’s not an either-or situation. Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves —and they will, it’s not like any of us can afford those houses (even the ones who grew up in the city and aren’t in tech, which you seem to imply are more important or valid). That’s just democracy, after all. [this comment was originally made in response to one of nontechdude1’s now-deleted comments]
- nontechdude1 8y ago
  sorry, i deleted that comment because it was..a little too much. i would caution anyone with the resources to purchase a home to be cautious right now. there are too many political unknowns that could easily make it a poor financial choice. or you can go all-in knowing that if you become underwater, you can just walk away (CA is a non-recourse state) as long as you don't have a HELOC on the property.
  - thebradbain 8y ago
    Family is in real estate— we would never purchase a property in San Francisco this late in the game (and I love that city!). The writing’s on the wall: that same law homeowners voted for to artificially lower their tax burden will also be the law that sends California into a bona fide housing crisis that makes the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis look like peanuts in comparison. It’s artificial, unsustainable, and shows a complete disregard for how markets work. The current, very real housing shortages and homeless epidemic is just the tip of the iceberg.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves The millennial children of the 1% will inherit those houses and once the boomers are gone they will find another scapegoat to blame while they try to justify their parasitic streams of rental income. Americans are weirdly susceptible to being divided along identity politics lines. The whole "boomer vs. millenial" thing is just the 1% engaging in a game of scapegoat, divide and rule. By blaming your mom, you're helping them.
wjnqx 8y ago
If housing is only for people who've already been in a place, why do we allow children? Your argument is patently absurd. Especially in a growing state like California, accommodating newcomers is good if not necessary. I was born here, and I want to live in a place that welcomes outsiders and is affordable for all who want to live here. Don't you see you're just the beneficiary of a pyramid scheme? A tax raise is not punitive if your taxes were not commensurate with what you need to contribute to society in the first place. A homeowner in California for the past 30 years has paid drastically less than what a homeowner in basically any other place would have, while probably getting more in terms of public services. You got lucky. You got in early and now you get to benefit from the massive unfairness of Prop 13. I will also graduate in-state from a UC. What will I inherit? Will I ever be able to afford a decent home in the metro area I grew up in? I doubt it — and even if I did, how much less would the guy next door be paying than me every year? [Edit: grammar]
- nontechdude1 8y ago
  i don't want california to grow. the traffic is too bad and people are less happy. in fact, i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants here because it's a legal way to alleviate the housing crisis. CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent. i don't want to invite the whole world here. i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here. i believe there are too many people here. unfortunately my voicing of this opinion is confined to a niche web forum for tech nerds. i have a different opinion than you about whether CA growing is a good thing. however, i think wieners bill allows for growth without increasing traffic--i'll take it.
  - wjnqx 8y ago
    >the traffic is too bad >CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent If the traffic is bad, vote to build public transit. Germany and Japan are almost identical to California in size and both have preserved most of their natural beauty and have comparatively few problems with congestion. They do this by investing in rail, because it takes cars off the road and increases physical and economic mobility. >i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants I see no reason to kick people out who want a shot at the American Dream, and whom Americans like you and I have invited into this country with our insatiable desire for cheap labor, food, and construction. Instead we could let them legalize (not even necessarily become citizens, though I'd like to see that) and build housing and other infrastructure to accommodate them while growing our economy and tax base. That has been a proven success in this country for the last several hundred years. >i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here. And yet, by continuing to support Prop 13 and other policies that reduce the housing supply and place an undue burden on those who wish to purchase housing, you are forcing people like me — who were born in this state — to leave. >i believe there are too many people here There aren't too many people here. There's too little housing at too low a density with too little public infrastructure. All of those problems are solvable — we just need to gather the political will to make investments for the continued prosperity of our state. We need to act like grown-ups living in a society: we must pay our taxes, elect responsible leaders, help those less fortunate than us, and fight for our collective interest. Or are we just going to scapegoat the most vulnerable, dodge paying our fair share of taxes on our ever-appreciating assets, kick the ladder out beneath us, and cower behind walls? Most in my generation seem sick of this free-for-all past generations have created. I want a society where we do our share, help those less fortunate, restore civil society, embrace community support structures, and give everyone a shot at a happy existence. That's what I'll be fighting for. What about you?
bradleyjg 8y ago
The newcomers themselves and their parents by and large contributed to other parts of the country. You, as a citizen of the US, are allowed to move there and take advantage of that infrastructure. The fundamental unit of analysis is the nation-state. And as it happens the bay area turned out to be too important as an engine of growth for the nation-state as a whole to allow nostalgia about pseudo-Victorian homes filled with hippies or greed for unearned wealth to be the tail that wags the dog. The incumbent power structures there, which represents narrow local interests can and should be overruled by higher levels of government for the good of the state and country.
toasterlovin 8y ago
I don't personally care about newcomers all that much, but I was born in California and the housing shortage caused by prop 13 made it impossible for me to stay without severe sacrifices to quality of life compared to what is possible in other states. That I may someday inherit real estate from one of my parents doesn't really change the fact that I need a home to live and raise children in the meantime, while my parents are still alive. So I left. Except that I can't help but feel that there is something deeply dysfunctional about a society/culture/place (CA) which makes propagation of the next generation not really possible. And whose children get pushed out in favor of extremely wealthy outsiders. I'm not complaining, I've simply accepted that in order to be able to raise a family, I have to join the long tradition of Americans migrating elsewhere inside of the country in search of a better future. But it sure as hell isn't how I would have things work if I were designing them from scratch.
fricat1ve 8y ago
So now it's "redistribution" to have people pay the same tax rates on their property? Oyy... I was born here too but your arguments sound a lot like special pleading. Do you really think that a tax loophole is "earned"? It doesn't support property ownership anymore because it incentivizes people to hang onto and rent out properties that haven't been reassessed.

bradlys 8y 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 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

entee 8y 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?

nontechdude1 8y ago
I totally agree with more housing stock. I am a huge fan of Wieiners bill, except with the exception that some cities should not have an 8 story maximum. He is modeling it after Boston, and I've lived there, and huge complexes near transit stations is not a good thing in small cities with 1 railway station. But do that and keep prop 13 in place, please. We don't need the state to hire a bunch of new tax assessors; it's doing just fine destroying itself financially already.
- wjnqx 8y ago
  How, exactly, is denying the state access to revenue supposed to improve its financial situation? If you want better use of money, you've got to vote for it.

thebradbain 8y ago

nontechdude1, I think I can blame both tech companies of this current generation for their sins AND people of generations past for theirs, and that includes their exclusionary housing policies. It’s not an either-or situation. Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves —and they will, it’s not like any of us can afford those houses (even the ones who grew up in the city and aren’t in tech, which you seem to imply are more important or valid). That’s just democracy, after all. [this comment was originally made in response to one of nontechdude1’s now-deleted comments]

nontechdude1 8y ago
sorry, i deleted that comment because it was..a little too much. i would caution anyone with the resources to purchase a home to be cautious right now. there are too many political unknowns that could easily make it a poor financial choice. or you can go all-in knowing that if you become underwater, you can just walk away (CA is a non-recourse state) as long as you don't have a HELOC on the property.
- thebradbain 8y ago
  Family is in real estate— we would never purchase a property in San Francisco this late in the game (and I love that city!). The writing’s on the wall: that same law homeowners voted for to artificially lower their tax burden will also be the law that sends California into a bona fide housing crisis that makes the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis look like peanuts in comparison. It’s artificial, unsustainable, and shows a complete disregard for how markets work. The current, very real housing shortages and homeless epidemic is just the tip of the iceberg.
crdoconnor 8y ago
>Regardless, after the declining baby boomer population finally loses their political influence, millennials will step in and fix the problem themselves The millennial children of the 1% will inherit those houses and once the boomers are gone they will find another scapegoat to blame while they try to justify their parasitic streams of rental income. Americans are weirdly susceptible to being divided along identity politics lines. The whole "boomer vs. millenial" thing is just the 1% engaging in a game of scapegoat, divide and rule. By blaming your mom, you're helping them.

wjnqx 8y ago

If housing is only for people who've already been in a place, why do we allow children? Your argument is patently absurd. Especially in a growing state like California, accommodating newcomers is good if not necessary. I was born here, and I want to live in a place that welcomes outsiders and is affordable for all who want to live here. Don't you see you're just the beneficiary of a pyramid scheme? A tax raise is not punitive if your taxes were not commensurate with what you need to contribute to society in the first place. A homeowner in California for the past 30 years has paid drastically less than what a homeowner in basically any other place would have, while probably getting more in terms of public services. You got lucky. You got in early and now you get to benefit from the massive unfairness of Prop 13. I will also graduate in-state from a UC. What will I inherit? Will I ever be able to afford a decent home in the metro area I grew up in? I doubt it — and even if I did, how much less would the guy next door be paying than me every year? [Edit: grammar]

nontechdude1 8y ago
i don't want california to grow. the traffic is too bad and people are less happy. in fact, i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants here because it's a legal way to alleviate the housing crisis. CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent. i don't want to invite the whole world here. i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here. i believe there are too many people here. unfortunately my voicing of this opinion is confined to a niche web forum for tech nerds. i have a different opinion than you about whether CA growing is a good thing. however, i think wieners bill allows for growth without increasing traffic--i'll take it.
- wjnqx 8y ago
  >the traffic is too bad >CA was an environmental gem and still is to an extent If the traffic is bad, vote to build public transit. Germany and Japan are almost identical to California in size and both have preserved most of their natural beauty and have comparatively few problems with congestion. They do this by investing in rail, because it takes cars off the road and increases physical and economic mobility. >i've been cheering trump deporting all 3 million illegal immigrants I see no reason to kick people out who want a shot at the American Dream, and whom Americans like you and I have invited into this country with our insatiable desire for cheap labor, food, and construction. Instead we could let them legalize (not even necessarily become citizens, though I'd like to see that) and build housing and other infrastructure to accommodate them while growing our economy and tax base. That has been a proven success in this country for the last several hundred years. >i dont want immigrants, rich and poor, coming here and forcing out people who were born here. And yet, by continuing to support Prop 13 and other policies that reduce the housing supply and place an undue burden on those who wish to purchase housing, you are forcing people like me — who were born in this state — to leave. >i believe there are too many people here There aren't too many people here. There's too little housing at too low a density with too little public infrastructure. All of those problems are solvable — we just need to gather the political will to make investments for the continued prosperity of our state. We need to act like grown-ups living in a society: we must pay our taxes, elect responsible leaders, help those less fortunate than us, and fight for our collective interest. Or are we just going to scapegoat the most vulnerable, dodge paying our fair share of taxes on our ever-appreciating assets, kick the ladder out beneath us, and cower behind walls? Most in my generation seem sick of this free-for-all past generations have created. I want a society where we do our share, help those less fortunate, restore civil society, embrace community support structures, and give everyone a shot at a happy existence. That's what I'll be fighting for. What about you?

bradleyjg 8y ago

The newcomers themselves and their parents by and large contributed to other parts of the country. You, as a citizen of the US, are allowed to move there and take advantage of that infrastructure. The fundamental unit of analysis is the nation-state. And as it happens the bay area turned out to be too important as an engine of growth for the nation-state as a whole to allow nostalgia about pseudo-Victorian homes filled with hippies or greed for unearned wealth to be the tail that wags the dog. The incumbent power structures there, which represents narrow local interests can and should be overruled by higher levels of government for the good of the state and country.

toasterlovin 8y ago

I don't personally care about newcomers all that much, but I was born in California and the housing shortage caused by prop 13 made it impossible for me to stay without severe sacrifices to quality of life compared to what is possible in other states. That I may someday inherit real estate from one of my parents doesn't really change the fact that I need a home to live and raise children in the meantime, while my parents are still alive. So I left. Except that I can't help but feel that there is something deeply dysfunctional about a society/culture/place (CA) which makes propagation of the next generation not really possible. And whose children get pushed out in favor of extremely wealthy outsiders. I'm not complaining, I've simply accepted that in order to be able to raise a family, I have to join the long tradition of Americans migrating elsewhere inside of the country in search of a better future. But it sure as hell isn't how I would have things work if I were designing them from scratch.

fricat1ve 8y ago

So now it's "redistribution" to have people pay the same tax rates on their property? Oyy... I was born here too but your arguments sound a lot like special pleading. Do you really think that a tax loophole is "earned"? It doesn't support property ownership anymore because it incentivizes people to hang onto and rent out properties that haven't been reassessed.