4 ms·

Prop 13 was created because it was forcing people out of their houses because of inflation property values on paper. That is detrimental. You shouldn't scrap i

Prop 13 was created because it was forcing people out of their houses because of inflation property values on paper. That is detrimental. You shouldn't scrap it completely; you should limit it to primary residences (spend more than half the year there). That would get rid of some of the worse issues. It shocks me every time I hear fellow left-of-center people talk about scrapping Prop 13, but then also rail against gentrification or some other issues. Absent Prop 13, people would literally be forced from their homes from high taxes. Prop 13 was a response to the inflation of the 1970s that drove asset and investment prices higher.

rcpt 7y ago
Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think Michigan does this) might be okay. Low income seniors have https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html so Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.
- refurb 7y ago
  Jesus Christ. I didn’t know CA already had that law. As you said Prop 13 is absolutely not required. That law basically says if you can’t afford the increases, we’ll bank it. If you can, pay up.
  - jnordwick 7y ago
    That isn't nearly enough. It only applies to 65+ or with disability who make $35k or less. This is part of the problem is that people are unwilling to compromise. On one side you have those who view even the risk of a single person being displaced by gentrification and rising housing prices as unacceptable. On the other side you have those will accept nothing less than displacing everything. I make enough that I don't care, and I don't really want to live in CA long term (from NYC). But I think a primary residence carve-out that applies to everybody would be a good compromise, but that seems to be a dirty word in CA politics.
    - rcpt 7y ago
      Is $35k not good income for retirement? They already own a house which has gone up in value and have had years to accumulate savings. I lived in Los Angeles for the better part of a decade making less than $35k and it was fine (and I didn't own a house).
deepakhj 7y ago
Limit it to primary residence. Tally the tax deferred and take it out when the property is sold or transferred. Remove it from commercial properties.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anonymoushn 7y ago
Maybe they will be motivated to legalize housing if they are taxed proportionally to the value of their houses.

rcpt 7y ago

Limit to primary residence and cap the increase at 10% instead of 2% (I think Michigan does this) might be okay. Low income seniors have https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html so Prop 13 is wholly unnecessary for them.

refurb 7y ago
Jesus Christ. I didn’t know CA already had that law. As you said Prop 13 is absolutely not required. That law basically says if you can’t afford the increases, we’ll bank it. If you can, pay up.
- jnordwick 7y ago
  That isn't nearly enough. It only applies to 65+ or with disability who make $35k or less. This is part of the problem is that people are unwilling to compromise. On one side you have those who view even the risk of a single person being displaced by gentrification and rising housing prices as unacceptable. On the other side you have those will accept nothing less than displacing everything. I make enough that I don't care, and I don't really want to live in CA long term (from NYC). But I think a primary residence carve-out that applies to everybody would be a good compromise, but that seems to be a dirty word in CA politics.
  - rcpt 7y ago
    Is $35k not good income for retirement? They already own a house which has gone up in value and have had years to accumulate savings. I lived in Los Angeles for the better part of a decade making less than $35k and it was fine (and I didn't own a house).

deepakhj 7y ago

Limit it to primary residence. Tally the tax deferred and take it out when the property is sold or transferred. Remove it from commercial properties.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

anonymoushn 7y ago

Maybe they will be motivated to legalize housing if they are taxed proportionally to the value of their houses.