3 ms·

No, I think there should be some kind of accommodation for long-time homeowners who are actually cost burdened by increasing property taxes. But a regulation th

No, I think there should be some kind of accommodation for long-time homeowners who are actually cost burdened by increasing property taxes. But a regulation that narrow -- only residential, only primary residence, only long-term owners, only when substantially cost burdened by increased property tax rates -- would only overlap with the current Prop 13 by a small sliver. "Grandma might lose her home" only represents a tiny percentage of the beneficiaries of Prop 13. > It makes a hell of a lot more sense for FAANG to open offices somewhere else. Network/ecosystem effects are a natural part of economies and businesses. Why don't we leave it more up to businesses to decide where to hire? Besides, the current setup is manifestly harmful to any non-homeowners and recent homeowners as it is. Why support a system that strains budgets, kicks out the poor and renters, hurts the environment, and forces long commutes?

Kalium 8y ago
There's actually a separate program to help low-income homeowners who are excessively burdened by increasing property taxes: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html It's even got the limits you suggest baked in - only residential, only primary residences, requires high equity ratio, etc.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  Neat! This actually sounds too narrow though, especially the income limit (35k is comically low for coastal California homes). I think a simpler solution would just be: you may choose to lock in a lower/earlier assessed property value for the purposes of property taxes, with the caveat that the state gets right of first refusal at the assessed value when you decide to sell. Bam! One and done. Grants flexibility, too; each household can decide whether to treat their house as an investment or as a home, but not both.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    I think it might even be easier - take the PTP program and relax a few constraints for eligibility (or at least link it to AMI) and you're done! The option to convert deferred taxes to liens is in there, and the interest rate is high enough to make people think twice about using this for financial engineering without being punitive. At that point the state has the ability to get their money from any future sale without the extra complexity of having to own the property.
  - rcpt 8y ago
    35k is plenty of money to get by if you outright own a $1.5M house
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      Not if you're living in that house (instead of renting it out) and are paying normal level, non-prop 13 property tax rates. Even a property tax rate of just 1% on a 1.5M home would be 15,000/year.

Kalium 8y ago

There's actually a separate program to help low-income homeowners who are excessively burdened by increasing property taxes: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html It's even got the limits you suggest baked in - only residential, only primary residences, requires high equity ratio, etc.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Neat! This actually sounds too narrow though, especially the income limit (35k is comically low for coastal California homes). I think a simpler solution would just be: you may choose to lock in a lower/earlier assessed property value for the purposes of property taxes, with the caveat that the state gets right of first refusal at the assessed value when you decide to sell. Bam! One and done. Grants flexibility, too; each household can decide whether to treat their house as an investment or as a home, but not both.
- Kalium 8y ago
  I think it might even be easier - take the PTP program and relax a few constraints for eligibility (or at least link it to AMI) and you're done! The option to convert deferred taxes to liens is in there, and the interest rate is high enough to make people think twice about using this for financial engineering without being punitive. At that point the state has the ability to get their money from any future sale without the extra complexity of having to own the property.
- rcpt 8y ago
  35k is plenty of money to get by if you outright own a $1.5M house
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    Not if you're living in that house (instead of renting it out) and are paying normal level, non-prop 13 property tax rates. Even a property tax rate of just 1% on a 1.5M home would be 15,000/year.