3 ms·

I'm not a fan of this proposal but I think this line of argument is pretty flimsy and pretty specious. In the Bay Area you're already subject to a form of weal

• dragonwriter 6y ago
  > In the Bay Area you're already subject to a form of wealth tax called property tax. And it's substantial. No, it's not > If you live in San Francisco you'll get charged 1.1801% every year [1] on the value of your wealth (property). That might be the average amount of taxes on real property, but it's not the rate of property tax. That's capped at 1% of the tax basis value, which grows at a capped rate excluding sales and certain other qualifying events. There are also Mello-Roos assessments, but those are per-parcel not as-share-of-value taxes. > If I bought a house in SF and live for another 60 years I would be taxed 60 times on that same asset. At a declining rate, because property value tends to increase much faster, on average, than California allows tax assessment value to increase. > It's not as if property tax has kept a damper on Bay Area house price inflation. Property tax assessment increase limits have accelerated it because they discourage sale of property.