4 ms·

A proper tax relief program for the elderly would actually target the elderly, as many states do. Proposition 13 does not target the elderly. It gives tax brea

by yonran 8y ago

A proper tax relief program for the elderly would actually target the elderly, as many states do. Proposition 13 does not target the elderly. It gives tax breaks to all property investors, including corporations and (due to Proposition 58) inherited estates.

ryandrake 8y ago
It effectively targets the elderly because its benefits go disproportionately to people who bought homes many decades ago, in other words, the elderly. Another way to determine who it targets is to suggest repealing it and watch who complains the loudest.
- yonran 8y ago
  Yes, the limit on increase of assessed value helps the elderly. All the other property investors (such as grandchildren and corporations) are just happy to reap the benefits. In other words, the design does not target the elderly.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    This is the correct answer. The effect is as follows, currently: 1) Elderly who bought early pay low tax, elderly who bought recently pay high tax 2) Younger people who are also rich pay high tax, but can afford it, and it is proportional to the amount of services they are receiving 3) Younger people who cant afford these property taxes are priced out of the area.
- GiraffeGlove 8y ago
  It only round-about targets the elderly because most of them happened to buy their property many years ago - however without targeting the elderly with fixed incomes directly there is no phaseout either - thus the wealthy and inheritors of property can continue to pay those low property taxes while shifting the burden onto new buyers and pricing out many who are looking to buy.
wahern 8y ago
The irony is that what precipitated (AFAIU) Prop 13 was an informal practice by many tax offices to systematically underassess the homes of seniors. This lead to perceptions of unfair and capricious assessments by the public. All the noise probably made seniors feel even more insecure. But in any event by the time Prop 13 passed the issue had evolved from one of protecting seniors to general fear and insecurity[1] of homeowners, which is why the solution was so extreme. [1] No doubt fanned by the usual anti-government, anti-civic rabble rousers that would eventually come to completely dominate politics.

by yonran 8y ago

ryandrake 8y ago

It effectively targets the elderly because its benefits go disproportionately to people who bought homes many decades ago, in other words, the elderly. Another way to determine who it targets is to suggest repealing it and watch who complains the loudest.

yonran 8y ago
Yes, the limit on increase of assessed value helps the elderly. All the other property investors (such as grandchildren and corporations) are just happy to reap the benefits. In other words, the design does not target the elderly.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  This is the correct answer. The effect is as follows, currently: 1) Elderly who bought early pay low tax, elderly who bought recently pay high tax 2) Younger people who are also rich pay high tax, but can afford it, and it is proportional to the amount of services they are receiving 3) Younger people who cant afford these property taxes are priced out of the area.
GiraffeGlove 8y ago
It only round-about targets the elderly because most of them happened to buy their property many years ago - however without targeting the elderly with fixed incomes directly there is no phaseout either - thus the wealthy and inheritors of property can continue to pay those low property taxes while shifting the burden onto new buyers and pricing out many who are looking to buy.

wahern 8y ago

The irony is that what precipitated (AFAIU) Prop 13 was an informal practice by many tax offices to systematically underassess the homes of seniors. This lead to perceptions of unfair and capricious assessments by the public. All the noise probably made seniors feel even more insecure. But in any event by the time Prop 13 passed the issue had evolved from one of protecting seniors to general fear and insecurity[1] of homeowners, which is why the solution was so extreme. [1] No doubt fanned by the usual anti-government, anti-civic rabble rousers that would eventually come to completely dominate politics.