5 ms·

And then they try to change prop 13 to punitively tax the senior citizenry and retirees on fixed income. I'm not going to bother digging into most of the rest

And then they try to change prop 13 to punitively tax the senior citizenry and retirees on fixed income. I'm not going to bother digging into most of the rest of your claims but this is particularly disingenuous. Most of the recent attempts at changing Prop 13 have focused on a split roll that would keep the tax limits on primary residences. Putting grannie out on the street is exactly what the anti-tax zealots (Jarvis and co) used to sell the state on Prop 13 and 8 in the first place. What's being proposed now would raise taxes on things like vacation homes and commercial property.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
That’s not what repealing prop 13 means..do you know the wording of prop 13? Why should vacation homes be taxed? It’s is an asset. Imagine.. You buy a diamond ring..would you be asked to pay a use tax every time you wear it?
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  That’s not what repealing prop 13 means..do you know the wording of prop 13? Yes. In addition to following the flurry of news articles every time some politician dares to bring up Prop 13, I grew up in the Bay Area, and in fact I studied Prop 13 along with its consequences and potential changes while at university. If you'd like to be pedantic, your words were "And then they try to change prop 13". Nobody (at least nobody with any sort of visibility) has proposed repealing Prop 13 wholesale.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    In this forum, they did.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      They used repeal and partial repeal interchangeably. Prop 13 also pushes undue costs onto new property development. Lower development costs equals fewer luxury condos. Were California to both build more and repeal Prop 13 fully it's unlikely that retired tech bros would be priced out of their houses. Even so one of the primary roles of a county assessor is to determine where tax breaks are suitable. Allowing the (typically elected) assessor more discretion via a Prop 13 repeal almost certainly guarantees you won't be putting grannies (or retired tech bros) out on the street.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Are you speaking for all of them? I am unclear about what you said about ‘undue costs onto new property developments’. Why should existing home owners share the cost of new developments?? What are these ‘undue costs’? The development company buys land or old property and builds on it. Then they sell it at a profit. They pay fees to the city for digging trenches and fixing sewers and water and gas and electricity connections. Some areas also pay for new schools and school rooms to be built so existing schools don’t get over crowded. How is any of this the fault of existing residents? What benefit do they gain by making it cheaper for more people to move in into higher density developments? Older residents don’t use schools. Property taxes from high density high income zip codes don’t even benefit those paying it. No one understands the formula. Sacramento obfuscates the actual allocation. I have poured over the budget of school districts and my city‘s budget. It is a Ponzi scheme. None of the taxes paid by the highest earning population comes back to them. It is redistributed to other less affluent non Silicon Valley zip codes. To avoid bringing attention to this, a spotlight is thrown upon senior owned properties because they are an easy target. And they are property owners with highly inflated but NON LIQUID FIXED ASSETS. Please note that this is very crucial. A lack of critical thinking and inability to pull the govt spending at Sacramento is a failing of the younger working force demanding for repeal of prop 13. Instead of questioning high density housing where only the govt benefits by increased property tax recipts that pad the huge deficit due to unfunded pension liabilities, there is a mob mentality to attack the most vulnerable and unrepresented minority who are senior property owners. Why are they not asking for govt accountability? Why are they not asking for better infrastructure and better public transport to create sustainable density. Yes, low density and sprawl is unsustainable but the Bay Area is not sprawl. The more high density a city becomes, the more unaffordable housing becomes there. The economics and numbers is pretty obvious if anyone wants to look at it and be honest. There is a startling lack of honesty and a stunning pretense of true intent ...I have always smirked when I heard the term ‘virtue signalling’ ..but I totally get it now. Taxes should be minimal. Taxes increase should be at a stable and predictable rate. Taxes should be based on consumption. ‘Discretion’ is the mother of corruption. There are other solutions: 1. Limit foreign speculative investors 2. Schools must be locally funded with local property taxes. Any shortfall should come from a special fund. 3. Education should not be connected to speculative income that is property taxes. For this, cities should be able to govern themselves. 4. Less interference from Sacramento. 5. Infrastructure should be installed before approving high density homes. 6. Referendums from all residents before passing the local budget allocations. More local control..less central interference. 7. Tax payers should have weighted votes with local city budgeting decisions. Other wise it’s like asking your guests to spend your paycheck. 8. A more involved citizenry will have a vested interest in their community. 9. Better public transport networks. Our gas tax is a great example of misappropriation of taxes. It makes no sense that the surcharge on gas in Ca is used to rehabilitate prison population. It makes one not trust the govt. 10. Full transparency. If you go to transparentcalifornia dot com, all the salaries of govt employees will be public record. And yet, I still can’t crack the local funding formula of California where property taxes are allocated to California schools. I have made at least half a dozen calls to explain and/clarify doubts. Crickets. Big govt, excessive taxation. This is the problem. Not prop 13..not senior citizens living in their homes that they paid for and built. And tragedy is that the people against them are the same people they educated with their tax dollars before the kids grew up and started cashing in their stock options.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

That’s not what repealing prop 13 means..do you know the wording of prop 13? Why should vacation homes be taxed? It’s is an asset. Imagine.. You buy a diamond ring..would you be asked to pay a use tax every time you wear it?

inferiorhuman 7y ago
That’s not what repealing prop 13 means..do you know the wording of prop 13? Yes. In addition to following the flurry of news articles every time some politician dares to bring up Prop 13, I grew up in the Bay Area, and in fact I studied Prop 13 along with its consequences and potential changes while at university. If you'd like to be pedantic, your words were "And then they try to change prop 13". Nobody (at least nobody with any sort of visibility) has proposed repealing Prop 13 wholesale.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  In this forum, they did.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    They used repeal and partial repeal interchangeably. Prop 13 also pushes undue costs onto new property development. Lower development costs equals fewer luxury condos. Were California to both build more and repeal Prop 13 fully it's unlikely that retired tech bros would be priced out of their houses. Even so one of the primary roles of a county assessor is to determine where tax breaks are suitable. Allowing the (typically elected) assessor more discretion via a Prop 13 repeal almost certainly guarantees you won't be putting grannies (or retired tech bros) out on the street.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Are you speaking for all of them? I am unclear about what you said about ‘undue costs onto new property developments’. Why should existing home owners share the cost of new developments?? What are these ‘undue costs’? The development company buys land or old property and builds on it. Then they sell it at a profit. They pay fees to the city for digging trenches and fixing sewers and water and gas and electricity connections. Some areas also pay for new schools and school rooms to be built so existing schools don’t get over crowded. How is any of this the fault of existing residents? What benefit do they gain by making it cheaper for more people to move in into higher density developments? Older residents don’t use schools. Property taxes from high density high income zip codes don’t even benefit those paying it. No one understands the formula. Sacramento obfuscates the actual allocation. I have poured over the budget of school districts and my city‘s budget. It is a Ponzi scheme. None of the taxes paid by the highest earning population comes back to them. It is redistributed to other less affluent non Silicon Valley zip codes. To avoid bringing attention to this, a spotlight is thrown upon senior owned properties because they are an easy target. And they are property owners with highly inflated but NON LIQUID FIXED ASSETS. Please note that this is very crucial. A lack of critical thinking and inability to pull the govt spending at Sacramento is a failing of the younger working force demanding for repeal of prop 13. Instead of questioning high density housing where only the govt benefits by increased property tax recipts that pad the huge deficit due to unfunded pension liabilities, there is a mob mentality to attack the most vulnerable and unrepresented minority who are senior property owners. Why are they not asking for govt accountability? Why are they not asking for better infrastructure and better public transport to create sustainable density. Yes, low density and sprawl is unsustainable but the Bay Area is not sprawl. The more high density a city becomes, the more unaffordable housing becomes there. The economics and numbers is pretty obvious if anyone wants to look at it and be honest. There is a startling lack of honesty and a stunning pretense of true intent ...I have always smirked when I heard the term ‘virtue signalling’ ..but I totally get it now. Taxes should be minimal. Taxes increase should be at a stable and predictable rate. Taxes should be based on consumption. ‘Discretion’ is the mother of corruption. There are other solutions: 1. Limit foreign speculative investors 2. Schools must be locally funded with local property taxes. Any shortfall should come from a special fund. 3. Education should not be connected to speculative income that is property taxes. For this, cities should be able to govern themselves. 4. Less interference from Sacramento. 5. Infrastructure should be installed before approving high density homes. 6. Referendums from all residents before passing the local budget allocations. More local control..less central interference. 7. Tax payers should have weighted votes with local city budgeting decisions. Other wise it’s like asking your guests to spend your paycheck. 8. A more involved citizenry will have a vested interest in their community. 9. Better public transport networks. Our gas tax is a great example of misappropriation of taxes. It makes no sense that the surcharge on gas in Ca is used to rehabilitate prison population. It makes one not trust the govt. 10. Full transparency. If you go to transparentcalifornia dot com, all the salaries of govt employees will be public record. And yet, I still can’t crack the local funding formula of California where property taxes are allocated to California schools. I have made at least half a dozen calls to explain and/clarify doubts. Crickets. Big govt, excessive taxation. This is the problem. Not prop 13..not senior citizens living in their homes that they paid for and built. And tragedy is that the people against them are the same people they educated with their tax dollars before the kids grew up and started cashing in their stock options.