13 ms·

Revoking Proposition 13 is best solution. If boomers had to pay 1% tax on the current value of their CA house they'd quickly downsize.

by zz865 5y ago

nostromo 5y ago
Yeah, let’s kick old ladies out of their houses so we can get a piece. If they wanted to stay in their neighborhood they should have made more money before retiring. Sarcasm aside, I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper.
- austincheney 5y ago
  Here is an example specific to personal real estate: https://www.virtualcpaforyou.com/comparestatetaxrates https://www.virtualcpaforyou.com/comparestatetaxrates
  - nostromo 5y ago
    That’s not evidence. You’d need to show a case where an increase in taxes caused a good’s total cost to become cheaper.
    - austincheney 5y ago
      I could argue that its causing 70000 people per year to leave California for Texas to pay those increased property taxes. Well, its only an increase in percentage of estimated asset principle, but in actual dollars its still substantially less. 2% of 250,000 is 5000 which is less than 1% of 750000.
- Aunche 5y ago
  I care less about the old person being pressured to sell their multimillion dollar house than a poor person stuck in an area with a poor job market because they can't afford to move to a better one. Of course, since the latter is the status quo, people don't think about it as much. Increasing the property tax would allow California to cut their sales tax, which would benefit lower income people.
  - rcpt 5y ago
    It's close. Last I looked California pulls in $50B per year in sales tax but Prop 13 is $30B on residential and $10B on commercial. I think to actually eliminate sales tax you'd need to end reassessment immunity and the 1% limit.
- neilparikh 5y ago
  > Yeah, let’s kick old ladies out of their houses so we can get a piece. If the problem is "kicking old ladies out", why not just allow seniors to defer their property tax, instead of what we have now, where even corporations pay the same fixed tax? Seems a little absurd to give the entire state a tax break for a problem that only effects 10% (at most). The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped. > I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper. It's fairly well known that a land value tax actually has negative deadweight loss, because it incentivizes more efficient land use. It definitely can't make housing more expensive, since the supply-demand curve remains the same (the supply of land is fixed). Also: http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/affordabilitycharts.html http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/affor...
  - nostromo 5y ago
    > The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped. The comment I replied to was literally about making old people pay more for the houses they already paid for.
    - neilparikh 5y ago
      Asking people to pay property tax doesn’t imply “kicking out old ladies” though. Many people who could afford the new property tax (and thus aren’t being kicked out) might choose to downsize anyway to save money. It’s the same logic as a carbon tax.
- mdorazio 5y ago
  Property is not a good or service - it is a finite resource with its own economics. You're making a false comparison and then asking for proof that cannot exist. Not a good look.
Spivak 5y ago
So the solution to unaffordable housing is to make it less affordable? Like so you price boomers out of their homes with taxes. Then what?
- azinman2 5y ago
  You’d force a lot of older people like my parents out of their homes. Itll eventually generation out over the next 10-20 years by itself, with the exception of commercial properties like Disney. If you make them pay, there’s a chance they just straight up leave.
  - zz865 5y ago
    If it encourages them to downsize from their family home after their children have moved out, its a better outcome than having lots of older couples living in 5 bed houses mixed in with families in High Density buildings.
  - Kalium 5y ago
    Good news! California has a system in place in place that addresses exactly this problem: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html It allows taxes to be deferred and taken out of the estate. Removing Prop 13 would leave this system entirely unaffected. Your parents, assuming they are old enough to be seniors, will be fine. Your well-founded concern has been heard and handled. You can rest easy, knowing that your parents and other homeowning elders in California will not be forced out of their homes by property taxes they cannot afford.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      Then the heirs lose out, they probably won't like that too much, nor will the pending decedents be happy knowing that a big chunk of their estate is going to be seized. I don't see how this is going to really make higher taxes more palatable.
      - 5y ago
rcpt 5y ago
Absolutely. If the status quo was hurting NIMBYs a bit instead of lining their pockets they'd change their tune real quick.
romwell 5y ago
I say, revoke Proposition 13 and don't base property taxes on primary residence on value of the house. Tax proportionately to the footprint of the property, growing non-linearly. Tax non-primary-residence units at at least 5X the rate; tax unoccupied units at 10X the rate. Then there's an incentive to build up, while not screwing over existing residents.
- snidane 5y ago
  It has many loopholes, such as assigning each of your 5 properties to your wife, daughter, aunt, shell company or a dog to avoid the 5x rate. Still much better than status quo. In the end it approximates land value tax, is more politically feasible, so it is likely a step in the right direction.
  - romwell 5y ago
    >It has many loopholes, such as assigning each of your 5 properties to your wife, daughter, aunt, shell company or a dog Shell company of a dog doesn't have a primary residence. As for the rest, either they'll have to live there (in which case, it's fair), or they'll go behind the bars for properly tax evasion. And it doesn't take much to find out that a property listed as primary residence for tax purposes is being rented out. Add some reporting incentives, and hey, that loophole takes care of itself.
    - snidane 5y ago
      Afaik, a crazy amount of rentals is negotiated without a contract so that the landlord avoids regulation and taxes and the renter agrees because they get a discount. Nice idea, but has loopholes.
- Ottolay 5y ago
  You should checkout a land value tax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE
  - 5y ago

Revoking Proposition 13 is best solution. If boomers had to pay 1% tax on the current value of their CA house they'd quickly downsize.

by zz865 5y ago

Revoking Proposition 13 is best solution. If boomers had to pay 1% tax on the current value of their CA house they'd quickly downsize.

nostromo 5y ago

Yeah, let’s kick old ladies out of their houses so we can get a piece. If they wanted to stay in their neighborhood they should have made more money before retiring. Sarcasm aside, I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper.

austincheney 5y ago
Here is an example specific to personal real estate: https://www.virtualcpaforyou.com/comparestatetaxrates https://www.virtualcpaforyou.com/comparestatetaxrates
- nostromo 5y ago
  That’s not evidence. You’d need to show a case where an increase in taxes caused a good’s total cost to become cheaper.
  - austincheney 5y ago
    I could argue that its causing 70000 people per year to leave California for Texas to pay those increased property taxes. Well, its only an increase in percentage of estimated asset principle, but in actual dollars its still substantially less. 2% of 250,000 is 5000 which is less than 1% of 750000.
Aunche 5y ago
I care less about the old person being pressured to sell their multimillion dollar house than a poor person stuck in an area with a poor job market because they can't afford to move to a better one. Of course, since the latter is the status quo, people don't think about it as much. Increasing the property tax would allow California to cut their sales tax, which would benefit lower income people.
- rcpt 5y ago
  It's close. Last I looked California pulls in $50B per year in sales tax but Prop 13 is $30B on residential and $10B on commercial. I think to actually eliminate sales tax you'd need to end reassessment immunity and the 1% limit.
neilparikh 5y ago
> Yeah, let’s kick old ladies out of their houses so we can get a piece. If the problem is "kicking old ladies out", why not just allow seniors to defer their property tax, instead of what we have now, where even corporations pay the same fixed tax? Seems a little absurd to give the entire state a tax break for a problem that only effects 10% (at most). The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped. > I’d like to see an example of increasing taxes on a good or service somehow making it cheaper. It's fairly well known that a land value tax actually has negative deadweight loss, because it incentivizes more efficient land use. It definitely can't make housing more expensive, since the supply-demand curve remains the same (the supply of land is fixed). Also: http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/affordabilitycharts.html http://www.savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/property/affor...
- nostromo 5y ago
  > The "old ladies" argument was just a cover for the real reason, and you've been duped. The comment I replied to was literally about making old people pay more for the houses they already paid for.
  - neilparikh 5y ago
    Asking people to pay property tax doesn’t imply “kicking out old ladies” though. Many people who could afford the new property tax (and thus aren’t being kicked out) might choose to downsize anyway to save money. It’s the same logic as a carbon tax.
mdorazio 5y ago
Property is not a good or service - it is a finite resource with its own economics. You're making a false comparison and then asking for proof that cannot exist. Not a good look.

Spivak 5y ago

So the solution to unaffordable housing is to make it less affordable? Like so you price boomers out of their homes with taxes. Then what?

azinman2 5y ago
You’d force a lot of older people like my parents out of their homes. Itll eventually generation out over the next 10-20 years by itself, with the exception of commercial properties like Disney. If you make them pay, there’s a chance they just straight up leave.
- zz865 5y ago
  If it encourages them to downsize from their family home after their children have moved out, its a better outcome than having lots of older couples living in 5 bed houses mixed in with families in High Density buildings.
- Kalium 5y ago
  Good news! California has a system in place in place that addresses exactly this problem: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html It allows taxes to be deferred and taken out of the estate. Removing Prop 13 would leave this system entirely unaffected. Your parents, assuming they are old enough to be seniors, will be fine. Your well-founded concern has been heard and handled. You can rest easy, knowing that your parents and other homeowning elders in California will not be forced out of their homes by property taxes they cannot afford.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Then the heirs lose out, they probably won't like that too much, nor will the pending decedents be happy knowing that a big chunk of their estate is going to be seized. I don't see how this is going to really make higher taxes more palatable.
    - 5y ago

rcpt 5y ago

Absolutely. If the status quo was hurting NIMBYs a bit instead of lining their pockets they'd change their tune real quick.

romwell 5y ago

I say, revoke Proposition 13 and don't base property taxes on primary residence on value of the house. Tax proportionately to the footprint of the property, growing non-linearly. Tax non-primary-residence units at at least 5X the rate; tax unoccupied units at 10X the rate. Then there's an incentive to build up, while not screwing over existing residents.

snidane 5y ago
It has many loopholes, such as assigning each of your 5 properties to your wife, daughter, aunt, shell company or a dog to avoid the 5x rate. Still much better than status quo. In the end it approximates land value tax, is more politically feasible, so it is likely a step in the right direction.
- romwell 5y ago
  >It has many loopholes, such as assigning each of your 5 properties to your wife, daughter, aunt, shell company or a dog Shell company of a dog doesn't have a primary residence. As for the rest, either they'll have to live there (in which case, it's fair), or they'll go behind the bars for properly tax evasion. And it doesn't take much to find out that a property listed as primary residence for tax purposes is being rented out. Add some reporting incentives, and hey, that loophole takes care of itself.
  - snidane 5y ago
    Afaik, a crazy amount of rentals is negotiated without a contract so that the landlord avoids regulation and taxes and the renter agrees because they get a discount. Nice idea, but has loopholes.
Ottolay 5y ago
You should checkout a land value tax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE
- 5y ago