6 ms·

It's not the landlords. It's the $30B per year in tax cuts we handout to landowners that gives them super powers here. And NYC far better for housing. In New Y

by rcpt 8y ago

It's not the landlords. It's the $30B per year in tax cuts we handout to landowners that gives them super powers here. And NYC far better for housing. In New York you can get an apartment in Jackson Heights for $200k and take the F train to work. https://www.redfin.com/NY/Corona/112-50-Northern-Blvd-11368/unit-6B/home/113180232 https://www.redfin.com/NY/Corona/112-50-Northern-Blvd-11368/... In the Bay Area it's expensive near job centers but it's still expensive 40 miles away. California's problem is property taxes. Tax people fairly - not based on the time they joined the class of property owners - and our problems go away.

prop13throwaway 8y ago
100% this. It also can't be emphasized enough that these property tax breaks have disproportionately benefited older, white Californians (due to both historic property ownership rates and demographics). Edit: For the folks downvoting, well, here are a few links: * https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownershipbyrace.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owne... * http://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=261136&fromGSA=1 http://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=261...
jelliclesfarm 8y ago
But that doesn’t make sense. The reason we have prop 13 is because someone 30 years ago bought a property for a couple hundred thousand dollars and by the time they pay off the mortgage, it’s worth a few million dollars but they are retirees and can’t pay the property tax. If prop 13 is repealed, older Californians should have to move out of state. Remember..no one makes money unless they SELL the property. However there is room for reform with : 1. Investment property 2. second homes 3. Foreign investments in CA properties 4. Inheritance of property and tax breaks on that..5. Prop 13 repealed for commercial properties. A retiree shouldn’t be penalized for their primary home after paying it off for 30 something years and when they are on fixed retirement incomes.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  That's not true. Many states explicitly protect your primary homestead. For those 65 & older they may reduce or even freeze property taxes. Usually the city/county can't evict you for unpaid property taxes either.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    Right. I don’t know what states those are..but Prop 13 applies across the board here in CA. I support Prop 13 protections for primary homes. The rest is up to voters.
- rcpt 8y ago
  > no one makes money unless they SELL the property. No. Buy, borrow, die: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59ea5fd1e4b034105edd4e79/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59ea5fd1e4b034105edd4e79/... Unless you think that Peery Arrillaga isn't actually making money
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    Retirees are not the ‘wealthy’. Fixed property is a dead asset whose value isn’t realized until it’s sold. Property tax is an ad valorem tax.
    - rcpt 8y ago
      That's the trick. "value isn't realized until it's sold" doesn't mean anything when you can borrow against your appreciated asset (tax free btw) to acquire more property.
      - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        If you borrow against appreciated asset, the property is considered refinanced which would mean that the property tax would be on the appreciated value of the property. This is why many people don’t refinance because even that would be a burden when one is on fixed income.
        rcpt 8y ago
        That sounds fine but my point still stands. Even with tax reassessment after a loan they've come out way ahead. The strategy isn't unique to California.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        You are making an assumption that people would want to borrow against primary dwelling. Debt and loans are not always attractive to everyone. Especially if they are older and retired. They are likely to get a reverse mortgage if they have no income or if they are on fixed income. And that’s a risky strategy to many.
- dodobirdlord 8y ago
  > If prop 13 is repealed, older Californians should have to move out of state. Remember..no one makes money unless they SELL the property. Ideally nobody would have to move out of the state, and ideally any solution could be implemented gradually enough to ensure that there were cheaper housing options available nearby to minimize disruption. Regardless, please consider another perspective. A pair of retired people whose children have reached adulthood and moved out should be discouraged from continuing to own a 4 bedroom house in an urban area. There should be structural incentives to encourage them to sell their property and move to a home that is more efficient for society. Proposition 13 is a disaster for society precisely because ensuring that older Californians do not have to move is a disaster for society. Retired people no longer have jobs that they need to commute to, so the average commute time goes up when they stop working but decline to move. A younger couple with young children or perhaps planning on having children cannot move into the house. They are kept out of what is likely a quality school district, and will end up raising their children in less space and at a greater distance from institutions like museums that children benefit from visiting. Meanwhile, the government misses out on oodles and oodles of tax revenue that the next resident would be paying because our hypothetical retired couple doesn't have to pay adjusted property tax until they move. Not only does prop 13 provide no structural incentive to move, it provides a structural incentive to not move! Not only is the subsidy on the order of billions of dollars, it's subsidizing something bad! It's as though the government was buying cigarettes in bulk and handing them out to children. Ensuring that retired people don't need to consider moving is the opposite of a good idea.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    It seems to be suggesting that older Californians need to downsize and live small after they retire and don’t have to enjoy all the decades of working hard to pay mortgages so that the state can gain more taxes? How is it a subsidy? They are not subsidized as they don’t realize value and if they realize value, it is only after they sell which means that taxes are delivered to the state coffers anyways. Retired people should ‘move’ away and die someplace else because the taxes are necessary? Why would anyone want to own property if this becomes the norm? There is no incentive to own property usually bought on mortgages and interest rates.

by rcpt 8y ago

prop13throwaway 8y ago

100% this. It also can't be emphasized enough that these property tax breaks have disproportionately benefited older, white Californians (due to both historic property ownership rates and demographics). Edit: For the folks downvoting, well, here are a few links: * https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/ownershipbyrace.html https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owne... * http://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=261136&fromGSA=1 http://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=261...

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

But that doesn’t make sense. The reason we have prop 13 is because someone 30 years ago bought a property for a couple hundred thousand dollars and by the time they pay off the mortgage, it’s worth a few million dollars but they are retirees and can’t pay the property tax. If prop 13 is repealed, older Californians should have to move out of state. Remember..no one makes money unless they SELL the property. However there is room for reform with : 1. Investment property 2. second homes 3. Foreign investments in CA properties 4. Inheritance of property and tax breaks on that..5. Prop 13 repealed for commercial properties. A retiree shouldn’t be penalized for their primary home after paying it off for 30 something years and when they are on fixed retirement incomes.

xenadu02 8y ago
That's not true. Many states explicitly protect your primary homestead. For those 65 & older they may reduce or even freeze property taxes. Usually the city/county can't evict you for unpaid property taxes either.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Right. I don’t know what states those are..but Prop 13 applies across the board here in CA. I support Prop 13 protections for primary homes. The rest is up to voters.
rcpt 8y ago
> no one makes money unless they SELL the property. No. Buy, borrow, die: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59ea5fd1e4b034105edd4e79/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59ea5fd1e4b034105edd4e79/... Unless you think that Peery Arrillaga isn't actually making money
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  Retirees are not the ‘wealthy’. Fixed property is a dead asset whose value isn’t realized until it’s sold. Property tax is an ad valorem tax.
  - rcpt 8y ago
    That's the trick. "value isn't realized until it's sold" doesn't mean anything when you can borrow against your appreciated asset (tax free btw) to acquire more property.
    - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
      If you borrow against appreciated asset, the property is considered refinanced which would mean that the property tax would be on the appreciated value of the property. This is why many people don’t refinance because even that would be a burden when one is on fixed income.
      - rcpt 8y ago
        That sounds fine but my point still stands. Even with tax reassessment after a loan they've come out way ahead. The strategy isn't unique to California.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        You are making an assumption that people would want to borrow against primary dwelling. Debt and loans are not always attractive to everyone. Especially if they are older and retired. They are likely to get a reverse mortgage if they have no income or if they are on fixed income. And that’s a risky strategy to many.
dodobirdlord 8y ago
> If prop 13 is repealed, older Californians should have to move out of state. Remember..no one makes money unless they SELL the property. Ideally nobody would have to move out of the state, and ideally any solution could be implemented gradually enough to ensure that there were cheaper housing options available nearby to minimize disruption. Regardless, please consider another perspective. A pair of retired people whose children have reached adulthood and moved out should be discouraged from continuing to own a 4 bedroom house in an urban area. There should be structural incentives to encourage them to sell their property and move to a home that is more efficient for society. Proposition 13 is a disaster for society precisely because ensuring that older Californians do not have to move is a disaster for society. Retired people no longer have jobs that they need to commute to, so the average commute time goes up when they stop working but decline to move. A younger couple with young children or perhaps planning on having children cannot move into the house. They are kept out of what is likely a quality school district, and will end up raising their children in less space and at a greater distance from institutions like museums that children benefit from visiting. Meanwhile, the government misses out on oodles and oodles of tax revenue that the next resident would be paying because our hypothetical retired couple doesn't have to pay adjusted property tax until they move. Not only does prop 13 provide no structural incentive to move, it provides a structural incentive to not move! Not only is the subsidy on the order of billions of dollars, it's subsidizing something bad! It's as though the government was buying cigarettes in bulk and handing them out to children. Ensuring that retired people don't need to consider moving is the opposite of a good idea.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  It seems to be suggesting that older Californians need to downsize and live small after they retire and don’t have to enjoy all the decades of working hard to pay mortgages so that the state can gain more taxes? How is it a subsidy? They are not subsidized as they don’t realize value and if they realize value, it is only after they sell which means that taxes are delivered to the state coffers anyways. Retired people should ‘move’ away and die someplace else because the taxes are necessary? Why would anyone want to own property if this becomes the norm? There is no incentive to own property usually bought on mortgages and interest rates.