5 ms·

Short answer is no. It's one broken measure against other broken measures. Taxes get raised because the budget goes up, but the budget goes up for more stupid r

Short answer is no. It's one broken measure against other broken measures. Taxes get raised because the budget goes up, but the budget goes up for more stupid reasons (greed and corruption) than good ones, and spending is woefully misallocated.

throwaway2048 8y ago
a huge reason is because of Proposition 13 cities cant tax properties at their actual skyrocketing values, but they still have to pay all the other costs associated with it.
- bmelton 8y ago
  What are the other costs associated with it? It costs the same to provide a building with electricity, water, sewage, etc, whether the building is privately worth $10,000 or $10,000,000. Also, isn't that exactly the point of Prop 13? If I bought a house for $500k, and it's worth $5 million tomorrow, I'm liable for the tax increase whether or not the increase is affordable. I thought the point was to allow homeowners the luxury of limiting the insane tax increases to the points of sale, when value was realized.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    It absolutely does not cost the same, more expensive real estate means you have to pay people significantly more on average to do jobs (nobody is interested in working jobs that cant make rent), it also means more expensive land purchases and easements for public works projects. Taxes arent meerly defered until sale, they are allowed to rise to market value after the sale is complete, but the government never gets those years of back taxes they would have gotten otherwise.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    You can't pay the 1978 cost of living to a new teacher in 2018. Most things the government buys are vastly more expensive because the workers involved have to live somewhere without the benefit of grandfather status.
    - exclusiv 8y ago
      Valid point for sure. But also points out the flaws of property taxes. Teachers and other vital services should come from consumption taxes or other means. Owning a home and having it become more unattractive over time while you have paper gains is crazy. Esp. when paper losses don't go the other way.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Valid point for sure. But also points out the flaws of property taxes. You fail to make an argument for this. > Teachers and other vital services should come from consumption taxes or other means. In practice on CA, they are. This doesn't make things better than when they were done by property taxes. > Owning a home and having it become more unattractive over time while you have paper gains is crazy. It's a strong incentive for transactions which promote efficiency in the sense of property being in the hands of those who will derive most utility from it. I'm not sure that's crazy, though, especially in the case of non-residential property. > Esp. when paper losses don't go the other way. Without Prop 13, paper gains and losses are symmetric with regard to tax effect; with Prop 13 they become asymmetric, as declines in fair market value are immediately and fully reflected while increases are limited.
        exclusiv 8y ago
        > It's a strong incentive for transactions which promote efficiency in the sense of property being in the hands of those who will derive most utility from it. Strongly disagree here. In CA many people built their houses themselves after the war and don't want to move as an example. You can't argue who would get more utility out of it as a blanket statement. Maybe willing to pay more to live there but not utility. Property taxes almost never go down. They are not symmetric in practice. It's pulling teeth to get a reassessment in your favor. Regarding the core issue of property taxes for vital services - one of the flaws is that areas with lower home values have worse services. Nothing will ever change if property taxes is the primary fundraiser for local services. The other flaw is in practice - budgets don't need to change drastically from year to year but they do. And that's pushed onto homeowners. And what if it needs to change for a valid reason but home values have plummeted? Well that's why they give you problems trying to reassess on a downturn.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    The hotels in Las Vegas would beg to differ.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > What are the other costs associated with it? Anything that has a non-remote labor component, since the people doing work in a region have to pay the local cost of living, including housing costs. > Also, isn't that exactly the point of Prop 13? Yes, crippling local government this way is exactly the point of Prop 13.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  What shit. Let’s let govt officials appraise at will, lets kick incumbents out of houses increasing in price out of their control. I dont trust the govt to assess accurately value, thats not their job. The IRS has never done that, they use fair market value determined by actual sales.

throwaway2048 8y ago

a huge reason is because of Proposition 13 cities cant tax properties at their actual skyrocketing values, but they still have to pay all the other costs associated with it.

bmelton 8y ago
What are the other costs associated with it? It costs the same to provide a building with electricity, water, sewage, etc, whether the building is privately worth $10,000 or $10,000,000. Also, isn't that exactly the point of Prop 13? If I bought a house for $500k, and it's worth $5 million tomorrow, I'm liable for the tax increase whether or not the increase is affordable. I thought the point was to allow homeowners the luxury of limiting the insane tax increases to the points of sale, when value was realized.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  It absolutely does not cost the same, more expensive real estate means you have to pay people significantly more on average to do jobs (nobody is interested in working jobs that cant make rent), it also means more expensive land purchases and easements for public works projects. Taxes arent meerly defered until sale, they are allowed to rise to market value after the sale is complete, but the government never gets those years of back taxes they would have gotten otherwise.
- closeparen 8y ago
  You can't pay the 1978 cost of living to a new teacher in 2018. Most things the government buys are vastly more expensive because the workers involved have to live somewhere without the benefit of grandfather status.
  - exclusiv 8y ago
    Valid point for sure. But also points out the flaws of property taxes. Teachers and other vital services should come from consumption taxes or other means. Owning a home and having it become more unattractive over time while you have paper gains is crazy. Esp. when paper losses don't go the other way.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Valid point for sure. But also points out the flaws of property taxes. You fail to make an argument for this. > Teachers and other vital services should come from consumption taxes or other means. In practice on CA, they are. This doesn't make things better than when they were done by property taxes. > Owning a home and having it become more unattractive over time while you have paper gains is crazy. It's a strong incentive for transactions which promote efficiency in the sense of property being in the hands of those who will derive most utility from it. I'm not sure that's crazy, though, especially in the case of non-residential property. > Esp. when paper losses don't go the other way. Without Prop 13, paper gains and losses are symmetric with regard to tax effect; with Prop 13 they become asymmetric, as declines in fair market value are immediately and fully reflected while increases are limited.
      - exclusiv 8y ago
        > It's a strong incentive for transactions which promote efficiency in the sense of property being in the hands of those who will derive most utility from it. Strongly disagree here. In CA many people built their houses themselves after the war and don't want to move as an example. You can't argue who would get more utility out of it as a blanket statement. Maybe willing to pay more to live there but not utility. Property taxes almost never go down. They are not symmetric in practice. It's pulling teeth to get a reassessment in your favor. Regarding the core issue of property taxes for vital services - one of the flaws is that areas with lower home values have worse services. Nothing will ever change if property taxes is the primary fundraiser for local services. The other flaw is in practice - budgets don't need to change drastically from year to year but they do. And that's pushed onto homeowners. And what if it needs to change for a valid reason but home values have plummeted? Well that's why they give you problems trying to reassess on a downturn.
- blackflame7000 8y ago
  The hotels in Las Vegas would beg to differ.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > What are the other costs associated with it? Anything that has a non-remote labor component, since the people doing work in a region have to pay the local cost of living, including housing costs. > Also, isn't that exactly the point of Prop 13? Yes, crippling local government this way is exactly the point of Prop 13.
eanzenberg 8y ago
What shit. Let’s let govt officials appraise at will, lets kick incumbents out of houses increasing in price out of their control. I dont trust the govt to assess accurately value, thats not their job. The IRS has never done that, they use fair market value determined by actual sales.