8 ms·

yes, thanks to the prop 13 a teacher or retired couple are able to keep the house the’ve lived in for a huge part of their lives. And even with prop 13 the taxe

by option 8y ago

yes, thanks to the prop 13 a teacher or retired couple are able to keep the house the’ve lived in for a huge part of their lives. And even with prop 13 the taxes are increasing every year (by~2% I think)

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Texas also has a law about that for retired people. But they only defer the taxes until death.
viscanti 8y ago
Anyone who buys property now subsidizes (through higher property taxes) EVERYONE who bought properties in the past. Some of those previous owners might be teachers or retired couples. But many other are movie stars and tech millionaires or billionaires. New home owners in California are subsidizing everyone else who bought property in the past. It creates a disincentive to sell as people want to be locked in to below market rates. It might help some people that we hope to help, but it also helps lots of people who should be paying their fair share that they're instead pushing off to new home buyers.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  You're drawing a disproportionately weighted link between high property values and the low taxes of past property owners, it's just not there. This is a problem in the especially desirable pockets of California, and people don't want to give up a good thing once they've got it, especially when it's increasingly scarce due to the low rates of residential development. You wouldn't have fixed the housing shortage by raising taxes, you'd just have accelerated the concentration of wealth displacing people who luckily got to live out their lives in a place they could no longer really afford to compete in. It would still be exorbitantly expensive IMHO.
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    It would be expensive but the tax burden would be fair if based on your property value. Now it’s more based on how long you’ve owned it, which is just the people who got there first stealing from those who happened to come later. Whatever happened to equal opportunity?
- lostapathy 8y ago
  Prop 13 is essentially the old stealing from the young. It’s disgusting.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    like social security and medicare?
    - lostapathy 8y ago
      prop 13 is worse. Social security and Medicare have gotten to where we have obvious structural problems we need to resolve long term, but they at least were founded in hopes of fairness. Prop 13 was theft generational theft from day 1.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    Fascinating how the attitude shifts to/away from it being good to force out old residents depending on the emotions around the topic
    - epistasis 8y ago
      That's completely disingenuous, and deceptive. What does Prop 13 have to do with keeping at-risk people in their homes? That's not what Prop 13 is about, it treats golf courses and property speculation the same as people on disability or pensions. It treats vacation homes and investment property the same way. If it was about keeping at-risk people in their homes, there would be some mention of that. If it were about that, Prop 13's effect would be mostly to keep at-risk people in their homes. But the majority of what Prop 13 does is reward the super wealthy and jack up the incentives for speculation on real estate. Compare the tax incentives handed out to the wealthy compared to those tax incentives given to those in need, is there any chance that Prop 13 is meant for those at need? Be honest here, does a Howard Jarvis tax bill sound like something aiming at helping those in need, or is the "help" just a cover for a scheme to hugely increase wealth inequality, and force larger tax burdens away from the wealthy to the less wealthy? So don't give us those false accusations that wanting to fix the horribleness of Prop 13 means wanting to kick people out of their homes, those two concepts are not connected.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  Does that loophole still exist where you can transfer the property to an LLC and then sell the LLC without triggering a tax assessment?
  - rcpt 8y ago
    Can't think of any other way we'd still have golf courses in city centers
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Yes, that loophole still exists.
koolba 8y ago
And then we hear the sob story of how their own children can’t buy a house nearby and have to move far far away. Can’t have it both ways. My theory is that this will remain the status quo in CA until the last of the baby boomers is finally eradicated. Only then can the political will to make real change be strong enough to succeed.
- fountainofage 8y ago
  I hope so, but everyone I know who is under 40 and owns property also loves Prop 13.
curun1r 8y ago
IIRC from these conversations in the past, Texas solves this problem by allowing delinquent property taxes to accrue as a lien against the property rather than seizing/evicting the owner. Seniors and those on low incomes can continue to live in their houses without paying full property taxes, but they can’t sell it or leave it to their heirs without settling up first. This seems like a better way to address the problem without creating the havoc that prop 13 has in the CA housing market.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Tax income instead of wealth so much, then you don't need such high property taxes.
  - Ericson2314 8y ago
    No. That's still regressive.
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      You have to try hard to make a regressive income tax. And, by “try hard,” I mean literally impose higher rates on lower income earners. That would never fly politically anywhere.
      - Nuzzerino 8y ago
        Isn't that what has effectively happened given the massive cost of living increases in CA? 100-150k income only affords a middle class lifestyle in many areas, yet the tax brackets did not necessarily keep up with the times. If costs of living had instead gone down, you can bet that the state would have at least tried to make adjustments in their favor if they could get away with it (likely so given the long history of tax increases).

by option 8y ago

SamReidHughes 8y ago

Texas also has a law about that for retired people. But they only defer the taxes until death.

viscanti 8y ago

Anyone who buys property now subsidizes (through higher property taxes) EVERYONE who bought properties in the past. Some of those previous owners might be teachers or retired couples. But many other are movie stars and tech millionaires or billionaires. New home owners in California are subsidizing everyone else who bought property in the past. It creates a disincentive to sell as people want to be locked in to below market rates. It might help some people that we hope to help, but it also helps lots of people who should be paying their fair share that they're instead pushing off to new home buyers.

newnewpdro 8y ago
You're drawing a disproportionately weighted link between high property values and the low taxes of past property owners, it's just not there. This is a problem in the especially desirable pockets of California, and people don't want to give up a good thing once they've got it, especially when it's increasingly scarce due to the low rates of residential development. You wouldn't have fixed the housing shortage by raising taxes, you'd just have accelerated the concentration of wealth displacing people who luckily got to live out their lives in a place they could no longer really afford to compete in. It would still be exorbitantly expensive IMHO.
- lostapathy 8y ago
  It would be expensive but the tax burden would be fair if based on your property value. Now it’s more based on how long you’ve owned it, which is just the people who got there first stealing from those who happened to come later. Whatever happened to equal opportunity?
lostapathy 8y ago
Prop 13 is essentially the old stealing from the young. It’s disgusting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  like social security and medicare?
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    prop 13 is worse. Social security and Medicare have gotten to where we have obvious structural problems we need to resolve long term, but they at least were founded in hopes of fairness. Prop 13 was theft generational theft from day 1.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Fascinating how the attitude shifts to/away from it being good to force out old residents depending on the emotions around the topic
  - epistasis 8y ago
    That's completely disingenuous, and deceptive. What does Prop 13 have to do with keeping at-risk people in their homes? That's not what Prop 13 is about, it treats golf courses and property speculation the same as people on disability or pensions. It treats vacation homes and investment property the same way. If it was about keeping at-risk people in their homes, there would be some mention of that. If it were about that, Prop 13's effect would be mostly to keep at-risk people in their homes. But the majority of what Prop 13 does is reward the super wealthy and jack up the incentives for speculation on real estate. Compare the tax incentives handed out to the wealthy compared to those tax incentives given to those in need, is there any chance that Prop 13 is meant for those at need? Be honest here, does a Howard Jarvis tax bill sound like something aiming at helping those in need, or is the "help" just a cover for a scheme to hugely increase wealth inequality, and force larger tax burdens away from the wealthy to the less wealthy? So don't give us those false accusations that wanting to fix the horribleness of Prop 13 means wanting to kick people out of their homes, those two concepts are not connected.
spamizbad 8y ago
Does that loophole still exist where you can transfer the property to an LLC and then sell the LLC without triggering a tax assessment?
- rcpt 8y ago
  Can't think of any other way we'd still have golf courses in city centers
- Latteland 8y ago
  Yes, that loophole still exists.

koolba 8y ago

And then we hear the sob story of how their own children can’t buy a house nearby and have to move far far away. Can’t have it both ways. My theory is that this will remain the status quo in CA until the last of the baby boomers is finally eradicated. Only then can the political will to make real change be strong enough to succeed.

fountainofage 8y ago
I hope so, but everyone I know who is under 40 and owns property also loves Prop 13.

curun1r 8y ago

IIRC from these conversations in the past, Texas solves this problem by allowing delinquent property taxes to accrue as a lien against the property rather than seizing/evicting the owner. Seniors and those on low incomes can continue to live in their houses without paying full property taxes, but they can’t sell it or leave it to their heirs without settling up first. This seems like a better way to address the problem without creating the havoc that prop 13 has in the CA housing market.

Latteland 8y ago
Tax income instead of wealth so much, then you don't need such high property taxes.
- Ericson2314 8y ago
  No. That's still regressive.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    You have to try hard to make a regressive income tax. And, by “try hard,” I mean literally impose higher rates on lower income earners. That would never fly politically anywhere.
    - Nuzzerino 8y ago
      Isn't that what has effectively happened given the massive cost of living increases in CA? 100-150k income only affords a middle class lifestyle in many areas, yet the tax brackets did not necessarily keep up with the times. If costs of living had instead gone down, you can bet that the state would have at least tried to make adjustments in their favor if they could get away with it (likely so given the long history of tax increases).