11 ms·

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobi

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas tend to remain there. Even when younger people who would benefit more from living in these areas would be willing to pay more, providing an incentive for retired owners to move to a less concentrated area and making a profit. But with Prop 13, we have instead a system that artificially distorts the housing market(and not in a "just" or "deserving" way).

fortran77 7y ago
So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil. I fully supported SB50. Build. More. Housing.
- amunicio 7y ago
  >> So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil. Nope. A retired person should have the CHOICE to pocket the $3.5MM the Googler is ready to pay for his house in Palo Alto and buy an even fancier house in Livermore knowing that his property taxes is not going to substantially change much. But with the present system instead, another Googler, let say the food service employee, will never be able to pay the mortgage for a one room apartment PLUS exorbitant "nub" real state taxes. At least the retired guy has a large amount of equity in the house and choices.
- refurb 7y ago
  Yeah, I feel really sorry for the retired person sitting on millions of dollars of equity. Real sob story. Why not just give the option to defer increases in property taxes? It makes zero sense to give tax breaks to people who won the housing lottery.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Well, I don't have the feelings of "envy" that you do. The fact is, there's little he can do with his "millions of dollars of equity" unless he moves far away from family, friends, and social network. It's cruel to force people to move. I'm not envious or cruel, so I support Prop 13.
    - harryh 7y ago
      Anyone in this situation can easily take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes and come out way ahead. Your assertion that the higher taxes would force them to move is wrong.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Say you have equity in a non public company, would you be okay if the government taxed your equity forcing you to take out a loan against it?
        neilparikh 7y ago
        These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provide services to owners of land, which requires money. The government has no such obligation to owners of equity.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....
        7y ago
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  You could allow for partial tax deferral until home ownership is transferred(sale, death, etc). So, retired person keeps paying $100/month while their neighbors are paying $10000/month for the same exact services, but if they accrued $150k in taxes by the time they died, that chunk is taken out of the sale price of the home.
- triceratops 7y ago
  It's also pure evil that a retired person can't sell his 3 bedroom house to a quad- or 5-plex developer, not move (except temporarily while it's being rebuilt), and get a nice chunk of cash, because his other neighbors don't want the "neighborhood character" to change.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    I agree with you 100%. That's why I support SB50!
rcpt 7y ago
> Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate Part of it was capping rates.
generalpass 7y ago
Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planned for retiring?
- fortran77 7y ago
  Right. And $7,400? Try $30,000! That's what the starting property tax is on a $2.5MM house in Sunnyvale is today. That's what people moving into Sunnyvale California in 2020 are paying. https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate-california-property-taxes-newly-purchased-home-2875.html https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate-california-property-...
- triceratops 7y ago
  Or they could sell to a condo developer, get a brand new unit, with lesser maintenance needed, in the same location. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between "sell and move away" and "stay and keep prop 13". With Prop 13 and zoning restrictions, "sell to an upzoner" is essentially off the table. Also an old couple who have been renting since the 70s could be evicted until state-wide rent control was passed this year. No one cared about them this whole time. It's also not clear what things like commercial properties or family farms have to do with "keeping old people in their homes". All these are covered under Prop 13.
  - pound 7y ago
    And don't forget non-primary residences. Not only prop13 "helps" you to stay in that old estate of yours that you may not be able to afford with increasing taxes, it also allows you to keep the cabin (or two) in Tahoe.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    I'm all for SB50. Get rid of zoning restrictions. Don't conflate Prop 13 and SB50.

fortran77 7y ago

So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil. I fully supported SB50. Build. More. Housing.

amunicio 7y ago
>> So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil. Nope. A retired person should have the CHOICE to pocket the $3.5MM the Googler is ready to pay for his house in Palo Alto and buy an even fancier house in Livermore knowing that his property taxes is not going to substantially change much. But with the present system instead, another Googler, let say the food service employee, will never be able to pay the mortgage for a one room apartment PLUS exorbitant "nub" real state taxes. At least the retired guy has a large amount of equity in the house and choices.
refurb 7y ago
Yeah, I feel really sorry for the retired person sitting on millions of dollars of equity. Real sob story. Why not just give the option to defer increases in property taxes? It makes zero sense to give tax breaks to people who won the housing lottery.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Well, I don't have the feelings of "envy" that you do. The fact is, there's little he can do with his "millions of dollars of equity" unless he moves far away from family, friends, and social network. It's cruel to force people to move. I'm not envious or cruel, so I support Prop 13.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Anyone in this situation can easily take out a home equity loan to pay the taxes and come out way ahead. Your assertion that the higher taxes would force them to move is wrong.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Say you have equity in a non public company, would you be okay if the government taxed your equity forcing you to take out a loan against it?
      - neilparikh 7y ago
        These 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. Land is an exclusionary good; you using it means I can't. Equity is non-exclusionary. Additionally, the city has to provide services to owners of land, which requires money. The government has no such obligation to owners of equity.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Yes, land is exclusionary but there is plenty of it in the US. People in California just don’t want to live there. The government also has to fund services to everyone who works there whether or not they own land. Do devices cost more to home owners based on the value of their land? I thought the purpose of tax was to fund the government. Not to take stuff that other people wanted.....
        7y ago
oh_sigh 7y ago
You could allow for partial tax deferral until home ownership is transferred(sale, death, etc). So, retired person keeps paying $100/month while their neighbors are paying $10000/month for the same exact services, but if they accrued $150k in taxes by the time they died, that chunk is taken out of the sale price of the home.
triceratops 7y ago
It's also pure evil that a retired person can't sell his 3 bedroom house to a quad- or 5-plex developer, not move (except temporarily while it's being rebuilt), and get a nice chunk of cash, because his other neighbors don't want the "neighborhood character" to change.
- fortran77 7y ago
  I agree with you 100%. That's why I support SB50!

rcpt 7y ago

> Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate Part of it was capping rates.

generalpass 7y ago

Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planned for retiring?

fortran77 7y ago
Right. And $7,400? Try $30,000! That's what the starting property tax is on a $2.5MM house in Sunnyvale is today. That's what people moving into Sunnyvale California in 2020 are paying. https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate-california-property-taxes-newly-purchased-home-2875.html https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate-california-property-...
triceratops 7y ago
Or they could sell to a condo developer, get a brand new unit, with lesser maintenance needed, in the same location. It doesn't have to be a binary choice between "sell and move away" and "stay and keep prop 13". With Prop 13 and zoning restrictions, "sell to an upzoner" is essentially off the table. Also an old couple who have been renting since the 70s could be evicted until state-wide rent control was passed this year. No one cared about them this whole time. It's also not clear what things like commercial properties or family farms have to do with "keeping old people in their homes". All these are covered under Prop 13.
- pound 7y ago
  And don't forget non-primary residences. Not only prop13 "helps" you to stay in that old estate of yours that you may not be able to afford with increasing taxes, it also allows you to keep the cabin (or two) in Tahoe.
- fortran77 7y ago
  I'm all for SB50. Get rid of zoning restrictions. Don't conflate Prop 13 and SB50.