7 ms·

The way to do this is to repeal prop 13. This will force people to sell and move.

by sjg007 7y ago

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
So you want to create a upper middle class transient population that is mostly tech workers? Because if prop 13 is repealed..after 15-20 years of work, the retired tech employees can’t afford annual increase in taxes either. Or is this just to get seniors to leave Bay Area by making it unaffordable for them?
- jedberg 7y ago
  Being priced out of one's home is a red herring that the low tax zealots want you to believe to keep prop 13 in place. Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. There are other options. There are home equity lines, reverse mortgages, or even freezing tax payments and adding them as liens on the property at time of transfer. But even if you're worried about that, you should still support repealing prop 13 on anything that isn't an owner occupied single family home. There is no reason a rental property should have tax protection, or a commercial property.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Property taxes are paid on the sale price. It is not a punitive tax to fund new entrants. An example: Consider a 75 year old senior couple on fixed retirement income living in their fully paid 40 year old home. They paid the 300k mortgage and the house is worth 1 million.They raised their kids who attended public schools for 12 years each. Property taxes are used for public school education. 45% of California budget is for schools. Property taxes go into a common pot and distributed to different school districts. It averages between 10-15k per student. Schools have taken over nannying and provide more than basic education. They take on services that are generally the area of social services and social workers. For example, if there are more non native English speaking families with children in school, the district gets extra funding. But more often than not, the children who know English as second language don’t come from high income areas..that is..their homes don’t contribute a lot of property taxes to the pot. Renters get the best deal because they don’t have to pay property taxes in the best school districts and often these are older properties that enjoy low taxes. The problem here is that homes are roofs over our heads. It’s not speculative investments. They are not funding sources for the waves of new migrants and their children. To ask 75 year old retirees to pay more taxes on property they haven’t profited from is heartless. That you need senior citizens to educate this working generation’s children’s education is shameful. It just means that the current generation doesn’t know how to manage their finances. It’s like someone living off their ageing parents pensions even when they are earning fat pay checks because they think their parents don’t need the money. In my observation..those who ask for prop 13 to be repealed are usually : 1. First time house owners or renters 2. Transplants to California from other states that are usually economically depressed..almost always suffering from CA sticker shock 3. In their first high paying jobs 4. Don’t have parents living in California 5. Don’t have parents who were home owners in California 6. Really bad at financial management. It boggles my mind when I see 25-30 year old Silicon Valley tech workers crying for prop 13 repeal and want you make seniors on fixed pensions homeless. They are people who are looking into other people’s homes and coveting what they think they are entitled to... Most of the property taxes are going to fund public schools. If you want affordable housing, turn your ire towards parents who have kids and are not willing to pay for their own kids education...Instead of demanding from seniors who have paid their dues and have built the public schools and roads and infrastructure of California with their taxes when most of us weren’t even born. I am deeply ashamed to be part of Silicon Valley that is disrespectful to the senior citizenry. On one hand, they want homeless people from all the states and undocumented immigrants to get free services and be taken care of..just when you think that such charity is laudable...on the other hand they are demanding to repeal prop 13 which will create more homeless seniors and retirees will end up without a nest egg for their safety net making them more vulnerable and even dependent on the state for services. How is this in any way logical or rational..even setting aside the fact that it’s definitely not ethical or moral.
    - sjg007 7y ago
      Normally property taxes are paid based on assessed value. Assessed value is a function of market value that is determined recent neighborhood/comparable sales. The problem with Prop 13 is that it doesn't allow for the taxes to capture increased market value.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Why should taxes capture market value? That’s surrender to the state to keep taxing us. To ask for higher taxation is asking for the state to take care of individual expenses through redistribution of wealth. Other states don’t offer as many services as California which is practically a nanny state. The young people are expecting the state to do the grabbing so they can be taken care by the state. This is mostly due to public schools brainwashing kids with extreme progressive liberalism.
        selimthegrim 7y ago
        All these seniors that paid their dues paid how much in UC fees/"tuition"? And now they want to tell this generation to pay when they didn't? Isn't that called pulling up the ladder behind them?
        jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        No. The seniors paid for subsequent generations of public schools. Even when their children were all grown up and no longer in the school system. It’s time for those kids who were educated with public funds and tax money to pay back. Not ask for more money from retired seniors. So fix the university system. Don’t ask retired people to shoulder the burden of grown ass employed and able bodied younger generation and their children.
    - tmh79 7y ago
      Senior citizens in the other 49 states are doing just fine. There are problems with increasing property taxes on elderly folks on fixed incomes, the solution isn't to say "you never own any tax on the appreciated value" the solution is to say "you can pay the tax on the appreciated value when you sell your home" which is an insane liberal tax and spend policy practiced in the hippie haven of the... state of Texas. Additionally, the lions gain of the benefits of prop 13 don't accumulate to the working class elderly living in appreciated homes, it goes to giant corporations like Walt Disney (yes, Disney Land is protected by prop 13), golf courses, extremely wealthy property investors, and the heirs of people who have owned nice homes and then died who then bequeath both their house AND their insane tax rate on to their children.
  - jdhn 7y ago
    >Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. Allow me to introduce you to the great state of New Jersey. People here are absolutely priced out because of the property taxes, especially older retired couples and low earners who may have a house but hit hard financial times. A $400k house will probably have property taxes over $10k.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Taxation is tyranny. I have difficulty understanding the motivations of a working class that is demanding more taxation.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        I really think this line of argument is going nowhere; you seem to have fundamental opinions on taxation that others here don't share, and I don't think further discussion is going to be all that productive.
        jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        That’s because others seem to have opinions about taxation and no understanding of how taxes work while I am trying to point out that property taxes are Ad Valorem.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      NJ has Abbott districts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district It’s a tax to try and equalize resources for all schools, and is very progressive in sense. Other states let poor areas have poor funding for schools, whereas NJ requires richer areas to send funding to poorer areas to try to give the poor children a chance. I actually think this is an admirable goal of NJ. NJ also has one of the worst unfunded defined benefit pension problems, which is obviously not so admirable, and will continue to contribute to rising taxes of all kinds and decrease in government services in NJ for the next 30 years.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Is it helpful to label older home owners who invested earlier as ‘zealots’?
  - achenatx 7y ago
    in austin people are getting priced out because of taxes. Mainly poor minorities. It is called gentrification. Houses that were 50K 10 years ago are now 400K with a 2.5% property tax rate. If they are renters, then their rent went up to cover the taxes. In my area houses are up to 1m+ which results in property taxes of 25K/year so even middle class families and retirees are getting taxed out. The city is trying to approve density city wide and the NIMBYS are trying to block it. Ill laugh when they all get taxed out 10 years from now.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      High density isn’t the answer either. I don’t know one high density city in the entire world where housing became affordable and available for all as density increased. Medium density and spreading out is the right solution. The example that comes to mind is the snail shell structure/concentric circle design of Paris, France.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    With a partial repeal they should also do away with the generational tax transfer. There’s no good reason to maintain an aristocracy.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      That never comes up..the same tech sector working population want to pass their fortunes to their children through trusts and tax planning. I have seen them bristle when I suggested that their kids should pay taxes on their inheritance. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so hypocritical
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Most people have rental properties as investment properties. Example: a 1 million dollar home rents for about 3500-4000/month in my Bay Area city. 10% goes to management company. And insurance is another expense, it’s not a lot. Assessed value of a million dollar at current rates would be around $12k without parcel taxes or special special taxes added which can be another 3-6k extra. It leaves about 2000-2500 as income. Assuming the home is completely paid off. If there is a mortgage or if it’s refinanced, there won’t be much of an income. Rental income is considered income and subject to income tax. Rents will RISE making housing even more affordable if people 13 is repealed. Any form of taxation is only designed so the house..aka the govt...wins. The house always wins. Lobbies with housing interests are simply making home owners the villains...while the problem is lack of public transport, infrastructure and proper city planning and commercial zoning. It’s easy to make seniors(who have no PR companies or lobbies) the villains or hard working people who have one or two rental properties as income nest eggs because they don’t have pension funds or stock options. The Silicon Valley tech workers act like they are sharing and passing around a single brain cell amidst themselves when it comes to housing issues in the Bay Area. It’s mind boggling how easy it is to manipulate people into a mob when a nameless faceless villain who can’t be identified is painted to be the victimizer.
- GhettoChild 7y ago
  moving away with a million dollar check in your pocket sounds so terrible.....
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Moving where? Why should people leave their homes that they built and paid for ..Human beings like their community and neighborhood where they have a support system. When you know your neighbour is just a phone call away next door, you don’t have to rely on doctors or nurses or ambulances or fire departments. As you get older, community is a great source of comfort and moral support. People won’t realize this until they get older or have lived with older family members/friends. Older family members are also a great source of support and mentorship for the younger generation. It is not always about money. A million dollar check won’t speak to you or hold your hand. Most of the million dollars will go to taxes and then barely paying for the next roof in a not well serviced and strange new zipcode. It’s a downgrade. Why would anyone want to downgrade their lives and walk into uncertainty when they are old and vulnerable?
    - malandrew 7y ago
      > Human beings like their community What community? Most members of someone's community in SF that didn't buy early enough have been priced out of the city. The native San Franciscan is a rarity precisely because of bad policy like Prop 13.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        We are all only educated by our limited views.
    - tartoran 7y ago
      They could literally move anywhere with that money and live like proverbial kings. But I’m not for or against prop 13, I was just saying. My friends parents retired and moved to Portugal. Best move they could ever make, they’re happy, well settled, etc..
- Spooky23 7y ago
  That’s not really true. Market values are based on total cost of ownership, and higher taxes reduce the value or value growth. Your taxes go up, but so does your debt service. I live in a secondary market of a very high tax state (NY). My effective property tax rate is about 1.8%, almost double what you see in NYC. But... my housing value is much lower. My home in NYC would be well over $1.5M, and is a fraction of that. It’s better to pay the tax. In terms of old people, the answer depends. Usually people sell because they cannot maintain the home, want to be near family, or have medical issues. I’ve never heard of anyone (other than a farmer) who moved because of property tax.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Farmers pay a different kind of tax. If people 13 is repealed, older people will have to move because they can’t pay their taxes on their fixed retirement incomes. NY is not CA. We are a different market.
    - mghfreud 7y ago
      You are assuming that property prices will stay the same. If prop13 is repealed, I do not think that will be the case.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Property in CA is speculative and fluctuating. One cannot accept paying taxes based on assessed value. Property market is a volatile market. It is the equivalent of gambling. Would it make sense if our taxes on the roof over our heads are pegged to Wall Street or stock exchange indices? When property taxes have to be imposed based on fluctuating speculative assessed value, how would people on fixed income and pensions plan to pay their property taxes at the end of the year? The assessed values already increase every year. Social security payments are capped. Salaries are based on employment contracts and is capped. The habit of paying tech workers with stock options that are essentially speculative financial instruments have taken away all realistic financial intelligence one would assume amongst the current generation. A good economy relies on stability. How does pegging fixed incomes to volatile speculative property value make any sense? It is entirely irrational and illogical. It’s financial illiteracy. You can’t plan for anything and especially not retirement. Such short term thinking.

The way to do this is to repeal prop 13. This will force people to sell and move.

by sjg007 7y ago

The way to do this is to repeal prop 13. This will force people to sell and move.

So you want to create a upper middle class transient population that is mostly tech workers? Because if prop 13 is repealed..after 15-20 years of work, the retired tech employees can’t afford annual increase in taxes either. Or is this just to get seniors to leave Bay Area by making it unaffordable for them?

jedberg 7y ago
Being priced out of one's home is a red herring that the low tax zealots want you to believe to keep prop 13 in place. Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. There are other options. There are home equity lines, reverse mortgages, or even freezing tax payments and adding them as liens on the property at time of transfer. But even if you're worried about that, you should still support repealing prop 13 on anything that isn't an owner occupied single family home. There is no reason a rental property should have tax protection, or a commercial property.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Property taxes are paid on the sale price. It is not a punitive tax to fund new entrants. An example: Consider a 75 year old senior couple on fixed retirement income living in their fully paid 40 year old home. They paid the 300k mortgage and the house is worth 1 million.They raised their kids who attended public schools for 12 years each. Property taxes are used for public school education. 45% of California budget is for schools. Property taxes go into a common pot and distributed to different school districts. It averages between 10-15k per student. Schools have taken over nannying and provide more than basic education. They take on services that are generally the area of social services and social workers. For example, if there are more non native English speaking families with children in school, the district gets extra funding. But more often than not, the children who know English as second language don’t come from high income areas..that is..their homes don’t contribute a lot of property taxes to the pot. Renters get the best deal because they don’t have to pay property taxes in the best school districts and often these are older properties that enjoy low taxes. The problem here is that homes are roofs over our heads. It’s not speculative investments. They are not funding sources for the waves of new migrants and their children. To ask 75 year old retirees to pay more taxes on property they haven’t profited from is heartless. That you need senior citizens to educate this working generation’s children’s education is shameful. It just means that the current generation doesn’t know how to manage their finances. It’s like someone living off their ageing parents pensions even when they are earning fat pay checks because they think their parents don’t need the money. In my observation..those who ask for prop 13 to be repealed are usually : 1. First time house owners or renters 2. Transplants to California from other states that are usually economically depressed..almost always suffering from CA sticker shock 3. In their first high paying jobs 4. Don’t have parents living in California 5. Don’t have parents who were home owners in California 6. Really bad at financial management. It boggles my mind when I see 25-30 year old Silicon Valley tech workers crying for prop 13 repeal and want you make seniors on fixed pensions homeless. They are people who are looking into other people’s homes and coveting what they think they are entitled to... Most of the property taxes are going to fund public schools. If you want affordable housing, turn your ire towards parents who have kids and are not willing to pay for their own kids education...Instead of demanding from seniors who have paid their dues and have built the public schools and roads and infrastructure of California with their taxes when most of us weren’t even born. I am deeply ashamed to be part of Silicon Valley that is disrespectful to the senior citizenry. On one hand, they want homeless people from all the states and undocumented immigrants to get free services and be taken care of..just when you think that such charity is laudable...on the other hand they are demanding to repeal prop 13 which will create more homeless seniors and retirees will end up without a nest egg for their safety net making them more vulnerable and even dependent on the state for services. How is this in any way logical or rational..even setting aside the fact that it’s definitely not ethical or moral.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    Normally property taxes are paid based on assessed value. Assessed value is a function of market value that is determined recent neighborhood/comparable sales. The problem with Prop 13 is that it doesn't allow for the taxes to capture increased market value.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Why should taxes capture market value? That’s surrender to the state to keep taxing us. To ask for higher taxation is asking for the state to take care of individual expenses through redistribution of wealth. Other states don’t offer as many services as California which is practically a nanny state. The young people are expecting the state to do the grabbing so they can be taken care by the state. This is mostly due to public schools brainwashing kids with extreme progressive liberalism.
      - selimthegrim 7y ago
        All these seniors that paid their dues paid how much in UC fees/"tuition"? And now they want to tell this generation to pay when they didn't? Isn't that called pulling up the ladder behind them?
        jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        No. The seniors paid for subsequent generations of public schools. Even when their children were all grown up and no longer in the school system. It’s time for those kids who were educated with public funds and tax money to pay back. Not ask for more money from retired seniors. So fix the university system. Don’t ask retired people to shoulder the burden of grown ass employed and able bodied younger generation and their children.
  - tmh79 7y ago
    Senior citizens in the other 49 states are doing just fine. There are problems with increasing property taxes on elderly folks on fixed incomes, the solution isn't to say "you never own any tax on the appreciated value" the solution is to say "you can pay the tax on the appreciated value when you sell your home" which is an insane liberal tax and spend policy practiced in the hippie haven of the... state of Texas. Additionally, the lions gain of the benefits of prop 13 don't accumulate to the working class elderly living in appreciated homes, it goes to giant corporations like Walt Disney (yes, Disney Land is protected by prop 13), golf courses, extremely wealthy property investors, and the heirs of people who have owned nice homes and then died who then bequeath both their house AND their insane tax rate on to their children.
- jdhn 7y ago
  >Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. Allow me to introduce you to the great state of New Jersey. People here are absolutely priced out because of the property taxes, especially older retired couples and low earners who may have a house but hit hard financial times. A $400k house will probably have property taxes over $10k.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Taxation is tyranny. I have difficulty understanding the motivations of a working class that is demanding more taxation.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I really think this line of argument is going nowhere; you seem to have fundamental opinions on taxation that others here don't share, and I don't think further discussion is going to be all that productive.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        That’s because others seem to have opinions about taxation and no understanding of how taxes work while I am trying to point out that property taxes are Ad Valorem.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    NJ has Abbott districts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district It’s a tax to try and equalize resources for all schools, and is very progressive in sense. Other states let poor areas have poor funding for schools, whereas NJ requires richer areas to send funding to poorer areas to try to give the poor children a chance. I actually think this is an admirable goal of NJ. NJ also has one of the worst unfunded defined benefit pension problems, which is obviously not so admirable, and will continue to contribute to rising taxes of all kinds and decrease in government services in NJ for the next 30 years.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Is it helpful to label older home owners who invested earlier as ‘zealots’?
- achenatx 7y ago
  in austin people are getting priced out because of taxes. Mainly poor minorities. It is called gentrification. Houses that were 50K 10 years ago are now 400K with a 2.5% property tax rate. If they are renters, then their rent went up to cover the taxes. In my area houses are up to 1m+ which results in property taxes of 25K/year so even middle class families and retirees are getting taxed out. The city is trying to approve density city wide and the NIMBYS are trying to block it. Ill laugh when they all get taxed out 10 years from now.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    High density isn’t the answer either. I don’t know one high density city in the entire world where housing became affordable and available for all as density increased. Medium density and spreading out is the right solution. The example that comes to mind is the snail shell structure/concentric circle design of Paris, France.
- sjg007 7y ago
  With a partial repeal they should also do away with the generational tax transfer. There’s no good reason to maintain an aristocracy.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    That never comes up..the same tech sector working population want to pass their fortunes to their children through trusts and tax planning. I have seen them bristle when I suggested that their kids should pay taxes on their inheritance. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so hypocritical
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Most people have rental properties as investment properties. Example: a 1 million dollar home rents for about 3500-4000/month in my Bay Area city. 10% goes to management company. And insurance is another expense, it’s not a lot. Assessed value of a million dollar at current rates would be around $12k without parcel taxes or special special taxes added which can be another 3-6k extra. It leaves about 2000-2500 as income. Assuming the home is completely paid off. If there is a mortgage or if it’s refinanced, there won’t be much of an income. Rental income is considered income and subject to income tax. Rents will RISE making housing even more affordable if people 13 is repealed. Any form of taxation is only designed so the house..aka the govt...wins. The house always wins. Lobbies with housing interests are simply making home owners the villains...while the problem is lack of public transport, infrastructure and proper city planning and commercial zoning. It’s easy to make seniors(who have no PR companies or lobbies) the villains or hard working people who have one or two rental properties as income nest eggs because they don’t have pension funds or stock options. The Silicon Valley tech workers act like they are sharing and passing around a single brain cell amidst themselves when it comes to housing issues in the Bay Area. It’s mind boggling how easy it is to manipulate people into a mob when a nameless faceless villain who can’t be identified is painted to be the victimizer.
GhettoChild 7y ago
moving away with a million dollar check in your pocket sounds so terrible.....
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Moving where? Why should people leave their homes that they built and paid for ..Human beings like their community and neighborhood where they have a support system. When you know your neighbour is just a phone call away next door, you don’t have to rely on doctors or nurses or ambulances or fire departments. As you get older, community is a great source of comfort and moral support. People won’t realize this until they get older or have lived with older family members/friends. Older family members are also a great source of support and mentorship for the younger generation. It is not always about money. A million dollar check won’t speak to you or hold your hand. Most of the million dollars will go to taxes and then barely paying for the next roof in a not well serviced and strange new zipcode. It’s a downgrade. Why would anyone want to downgrade their lives and walk into uncertainty when they are old and vulnerable?
  - malandrew 7y ago
    > Human beings like their community What community? Most members of someone's community in SF that didn't buy early enough have been priced out of the city. The native San Franciscan is a rarity precisely because of bad policy like Prop 13.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      We are all only educated by our limited views.
  - tartoran 7y ago
    They could literally move anywhere with that money and live like proverbial kings. But I’m not for or against prop 13, I was just saying. My friends parents retired and moved to Portugal. Best move they could ever make, they’re happy, well settled, etc..
Spooky23 7y ago
That’s not really true. Market values are based on total cost of ownership, and higher taxes reduce the value or value growth. Your taxes go up, but so does your debt service. I live in a secondary market of a very high tax state (NY). My effective property tax rate is about 1.8%, almost double what you see in NYC. But... my housing value is much lower. My home in NYC would be well over $1.5M, and is a fraction of that. It’s better to pay the tax. In terms of old people, the answer depends. Usually people sell because they cannot maintain the home, want to be near family, or have medical issues. I’ve never heard of anyone (other than a farmer) who moved because of property tax.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Farmers pay a different kind of tax. If people 13 is repealed, older people will have to move because they can’t pay their taxes on their fixed retirement incomes. NY is not CA. We are a different market.
  - mghfreud 7y ago
    You are assuming that property prices will stay the same. If prop13 is repealed, I do not think that will be the case.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Property in CA is speculative and fluctuating. One cannot accept paying taxes based on assessed value. Property market is a volatile market. It is the equivalent of gambling. Would it make sense if our taxes on the roof over our heads are pegged to Wall Street or stock exchange indices? When property taxes have to be imposed based on fluctuating speculative assessed value, how would people on fixed income and pensions plan to pay their property taxes at the end of the year? The assessed values already increase every year. Social security payments are capped. Salaries are based on employment contracts and is capped. The habit of paying tech workers with stock options that are essentially speculative financial instruments have taken away all realistic financial intelligence one would assume amongst the current generation. A good economy relies on stability. How does pegging fixed incomes to volatile speculative property value make any sense? It is entirely irrational and illogical. It’s financial illiteracy. You can’t plan for anything and especially not retirement. Such short term thinking.