4 ms·

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 actu

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?
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    ... I think they meant people who work, who make more income than retired people.
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    Oh be serious...is this the new reasoning, homeowners are mustache-twirling villains?
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      Yes? I mean, as a perma-renter who's continually demonized for being a renter and suggesting the construction of more housing so I can afford to live somewhere in commuting distance from work, most of the people yacking in city meetings about how I "ruin the community" are, well, homeowners. And usually really nativist ones with a nasty undercurrent of racism, which doesn't even make any sense since I'm usually the same race as them.
claydavisss 8y ago
Then homes would simply get deeded only in the name of the stay-at-home spouse who has no income.
sanderjd 8y ago
This might well be a good thing to do, but it should be noted that income qualifications come with their own entire bag of tricky problems and potential perverse incentives. What income level do you set it at? Is it a cliff or phased out? If the latter, what does the curve look like? How does it change with inflation? Are these questions set up front or negotiated by politicians at some frequency? How is wage vs. capital-based income handled? These are the kinds of tricky questions that come up (and are usually not answered very well) with any program that attempts to inject some income-based fairness into some government system. So I think the answer to your "why not?" is that it will be hard to get it right and is likely to become a political football that may end up making things worse in some way. But the argument for doing it may still be stronger (it seems so to me, without knowing much about it), I'm just saying that there is also a fairly strong counterargument to this sort of thing.
- pimmen 8y ago
  If you would get it wrong, such as setting the income level too high, how would it be worse than now? And it’s not set in stone, why not try? You would increase tax revenue and thus have more resources to deal with the problens. And there’s lots of examples across the world that have done this and can share experiences of what to look out for.
astura 8y ago
Someone with little to no income can still be very wealthy. You're also discouraging people from getting better paying jobs. You also gotta deal with properties deeded in trusts and stuff.

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?
- sanderjd 8y ago
  ... I think they meant people who work, who make more income than retired people.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Oh be serious...is this the new reasoning, homeowners are mustache-twirling villains?
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    Yes? I mean, as a perma-renter who's continually demonized for being a renter and suggesting the construction of more housing so I can afford to live somewhere in commuting distance from work, most of the people yacking in city meetings about how I "ruin the community" are, well, homeowners. And usually really nativist ones with a nasty undercurrent of racism, which doesn't even make any sense since I'm usually the same race as them.

claydavisss 8y ago

Then homes would simply get deeded only in the name of the stay-at-home spouse who has no income.

sanderjd 8y ago

This might well be a good thing to do, but it should be noted that income qualifications come with their own entire bag of tricky problems and potential perverse incentives. What income level do you set it at? Is it a cliff or phased out? If the latter, what does the curve look like? How does it change with inflation? Are these questions set up front or negotiated by politicians at some frequency? How is wage vs. capital-based income handled? These are the kinds of tricky questions that come up (and are usually not answered very well) with any program that attempts to inject some income-based fairness into some government system. So I think the answer to your "why not?" is that it will be hard to get it right and is likely to become a political football that may end up making things worse in some way. But the argument for doing it may still be stronger (it seems so to me, without knowing much about it), I'm just saying that there is also a fairly strong counterargument to this sort of thing.

pimmen 8y ago
If you would get it wrong, such as setting the income level too high, how would it be worse than now? And it’s not set in stone, why not try? You would increase tax revenue and thus have more resources to deal with the problens. And there’s lots of examples across the world that have done this and can share experiences of what to look out for.

astura 8y ago

Someone with little to no income can still be very wealthy. You're also discouraging people from getting better paying jobs. You also gotta deal with properties deeded in trusts and stuff.