4 ms·

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage

I think the transferring of the low tax basis is bogus but Prop 13 does protect blue collar families. I personally know someone who works for a low hourly wage and now owns his home he bought in the 1970s. If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. I understand it's frustrating to outsiders who are new to the city and are trying to "make it" but forcing families out of their homes isn't right.

kcorbitt 8y ago
How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold, at which point the deferred taxes are paid from the home's appreciation? We could even add a provision capping the maximum tax bill to the actual amount of appreciation since the home was bought. That way nobody is priced out of their home, but the taxes to pay for services that everybody uses are still distributed equitably among all residents.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  "How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold" I can't speak for him but this makes sense to me.
- andromeduck 8y ago
  I think that would be an essential part of a comprehensive solution but on it's own wouldn't incentivize efficient land use in the interim.
- patmcguire 8y ago
  Housing changes hands much less because the tax gap means all other factors things being equal the house is worth more to the seller than the buyer - they can't live in a similar place for the same money. Deferring taxes just makes that gap in value bigger. And there's not necessarily a point where the city gets money for services, tax rates are passed down with inherited housing.
nerfhammer 8y ago
on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?
- almost_usual 8y ago
  This also makes sense to me.
- alonmower 8y ago
  That's the first time I've heard this suggestion but it seems to make a lot of sense
- cobookman 8y ago
  That discourages people from moving up in pay. It'd likely be cheaper to make less money. You'd also encourage rich people to hide their money. Especially trust fund kids who's income is low as they only take out what they need to spend.
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    >That discourages people from moving up in pay. It'd likely be cheaper to make less money. It discourages people from moving up in pay AND selling their homes. >You'd also encourage rich people to hide their money. Especially trust fund kids who's income is low as they only take out what they need to spend. Still creates more friction and difficulty for the wealthy.
- zyang 8y ago
  But it would selectively drive out productive members of community. Adding more rules to an already broken legislation would not work in the long run.
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    What are "productive members of the community"? People who seek profit, hide their wealth, and flip houses to make more money?
aphextron 8y ago
>If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. He would not “lose” his house immediately. He would be forced to sell it for an outrageous profit and move somewhere he can afford to pay the taxes. Subsidies are subsidies, and I have zero sympathy for those who don’t feel like they’re getting enough when people are literally being forced into homelessness from the knock-on effect of this policy to low-net worth renters.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  You can't force people to move this way, there is no way Prop 13 will change with this stance. It's essentially the same sentiment as "Don't like the laws and don't want to pay more than natives? Leave the Bay Area then, you have the whole rest of the country to move to." Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through.
  - aphextron 8y ago
    >You can't force people to move this way There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too? >Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through. This is just a false equivalence. Prop 13 is the extreme here. There's nothing even remotely comparable anywhere else in the country. Asking people to pay their fair share of taxes is not "extreme". If we need to subsidize older homeowners who can't afford their homes, that's another discussion to be had and another funding source should be found. Doing it through property taxes has made this place unlivable.
    - almost_usual 8y ago
      >There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too? So there's 49 other states __you__ can move to and not deal with Prop 13? That's reality right now and if you're going to be headstrong that's how the community will respond to your reasoning.
randomdata 8y ago
But why wouldn’t you just have the mill rate decline with increasing property values across the community? The city shouldn’t need orders of magnitude more income just because the value of homes blew up.
jogjayr 8y ago
Or if low-density zoning didn't hold sway everywhere, that person could sell up to a condo developer, get a condo in the new building + some cash. Win-win.

kcorbitt 8y ago

How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold, at which point the deferred taxes are paid from the home's appreciation? We could even add a provision capping the maximum tax bill to the actual amount of appreciation since the home was bought. That way nobody is priced out of their home, but the taxes to pay for services that everybody uses are still distributed equitably among all residents.

almost_usual 8y ago
"How would your friend feel about property taxes that scale with market value, but can be deferred until the moment the home is sold" I can't speak for him but this makes sense to me.
andromeduck 8y ago
I think that would be an essential part of a comprehensive solution but on it's own wouldn't incentivize efficient land use in the interim.
patmcguire 8y ago
Housing changes hands much less because the tax gap means all other factors things being equal the house is worth more to the seller than the buyer - they can't live in a similar place for the same money. Deferring taxes just makes that gap in value bigger. And there's not necessarily a point where the city gets money for services, tax rates are passed down with inherited housing.

nerfhammer 8y ago

on average prop 13 overwhelmingly benefits wealthy homeowners. So why not add an income level qualification to prop 13 so that it only benefits people that actually need it?

almost_usual 8y ago
This also makes sense to me.
alonmower 8y ago
That's the first time I've heard this suggestion but it seems to make a lot of sense
cobookman 8y ago
That discourages people from moving up in pay. It'd likely be cheaper to make less money. You'd also encourage rich people to hide their money. Especially trust fund kids who's income is low as they only take out what they need to spend.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  >That discourages people from moving up in pay. It'd likely be cheaper to make less money. It discourages people from moving up in pay AND selling their homes. >You'd also encourage rich people to hide their money. Especially trust fund kids who's income is low as they only take out what they need to spend. Still creates more friction and difficulty for the wealthy.
zyang 8y ago
But it would selectively drive out productive members of community. Adding more rules to an already broken legislation would not work in the long run.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  What are "productive members of the community"? People who seek profit, hide their wealth, and flip houses to make more money?

aphextron 8y ago

>If he did not have those tax protections he would lose the home he raised his family in and have to move immediately. He would not “lose” his house immediately. He would be forced to sell it for an outrageous profit and move somewhere he can afford to pay the taxes. Subsidies are subsidies, and I have zero sympathy for those who don’t feel like they’re getting enough when people are literally being forced into homelessness from the knock-on effect of this policy to low-net worth renters.

almost_usual 8y ago
You can't force people to move this way, there is no way Prop 13 will change with this stance. It's essentially the same sentiment as "Don't like the laws and don't want to pay more than natives? Leave the Bay Area then, you have the whole rest of the country to move to." Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >You can't force people to move this way There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too? >Both sides are extreme, comprises need to be made to get anything through. This is just a false equivalence. Prop 13 is the extreme here. There's nothing even remotely comparable anywhere else in the country. Asking people to pay their fair share of taxes is not "extreme". If we need to subsidize older homeowners who can't afford their homes, that's another discussion to be had and another funding source should be found. Doing it through property taxes has made this place unlivable.
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    >There's 49 other states in this country where that's exactly what happens every single day. Should the city of Palo Alto subsidize them, too? So there's 49 other states __you__ can move to and not deal with Prop 13? That's reality right now and if you're going to be headstrong that's how the community will respond to your reasoning.

randomdata 8y ago

But why wouldn’t you just have the mill rate decline with increasing property values across the community? The city shouldn’t need orders of magnitude more income just because the value of homes blew up.

jogjayr 8y ago

Or if low-density zoning didn't hold sway everywhere, that person could sell up to a condo developer, get a condo in the new building + some cash. Win-win.