3 ms·

Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that;

Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that; now it's all of them. https://www.financialplannerla.com/transfer-california-property-tax/ https://www.financialplannerla.com/transfer-california-prope... > All because they happened to have bought a home before this law passed. Again, do some research. Prop 13 passed in 1978, 45 years ago. The number of current homeowners who bought before then is vanishingly small. House prices were escalating before 13 passed, and the jumps in property taxes were in fact a prime reason why it passed. > they can use that and borrow against it to play financial games and make their money make money Do you have any data at all to support that assertion? > This creates a bottlenecked supply of housing there are all kinds of reasons why there's too little building. Grandfathered house values are only one of them. Regulations and high costs are much more important.

Manuel_D 3y ago
> Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that; now it's all of them. This is incorrect, there are still county restrictions. Counties must opt-in to the tax transfers, and the purchased home must be of equal or lesser value. 10 of California's 58 counties permit it, most do not because they don't want to miss on tax revenue. > Again, do some research. Prop 13 passed in 1978, 45 years ago. The number of current homeowners who bought before then is vanishingly small. House prices were escalating before 13 passed, and the jumps in property taxes were in fact a prime reason why it passed. This is not relevant at all. The point is that people's effective property tax goes down over time, regardless of whether they bought before or after prop 13 was passed. Someone who bought a house in 1990 is probably paying less than a third of the normal property tax. > there are all kinds of reasons why there's too little building. Grandfathered house values are only one of them. Regulations and high costs are much more important. Great, we should eliminate restrictive regulations and Prop 13!
frumper 3y ago
We bought our house 9 years ago. Current homebuyers on our street are paying 2 to 3 times what we are in taxes for similar homes. Add in our extremely low interest rate and we have no plans to sell the home even if we buy another.
mlsu 3y ago
27% of Californians are over 55. That means the majority do not get to have the benefit of keeping their tax bill when they move. To compound that, the most dynamic economic growth probably comes from under-55s moving, not over-55s -- new jobs, new opportunities, start a family, etc. Obviously it's good if it's easy for old people to move, but the economic value of a young family being able to move closer to a high paying job is probably many multiples more from a "net good for society" standpoint. Prop 13 freezes your tax rate when you purchase the property. So the subsidy isn't given only to those who buy before the bill was passed -- it is given to anyone who buys before housing goes up, at any time while the law is in place. It's extremely common for people to borrow against the equity of their home (even moreso if you are very wealthy). I think the parent is arguing that those who own property are borrowing against the value of their (subsidized) asset. Another thing to consider is that a yearly tax on an asset can significantly affect the valuation of that asset, far in excess of the amount of the tax itself. Of course there's many reasons for the embarrassing lack of ability to solve the housing problem. Prop 13 is a big reason, certainly one worth looking at when considering solutions to this problem. It's also just unfair. Most people who are subsidized by prop 13 are subsidized for no reason at all, just market timing. And there's another layer to it, which is that the earlier you have bought, the more you are subsidized. Guess what was more difficult for minorities to do 30 years ago? That introduces an additional dimension of racial unfairness to this. Not to mention, it's a subsidy for the rich (homeowners) paid for by the poor (everyone else). Prop 13 is an anchor around our neck. It's kind of like that excruciatingly painful disease that causes your bones to fuse together, except for growth and prosperity in the state of California.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Why don't you let him defend his own statements, which have little to no foundation at all? The only thing that would happen if Prop 13 were repealed is: all other taxes would stay the same, but that one would rise, and so would spending. That's why your arguments get no traction at all in CA.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Hi Bob, you'd rather argue with a username you recognize rather than get to the truth? Here we are, closer to the truth than before, and you're maligning others for cutting you off from a witty gotcha on a person whom you seem to hold some grudge against.
uoaei 3y ago
I'm confused why you would request data that explains that if people have assets they will borrow against them and invest to make more money. I'm not sure what data would satisfy your request because this just seems blindingly obvious to anyone who can reason about personal finance. > all kinds of reasons why there's too little building And you think that providing incentives for people to move houses has no effect on any of the other components? Come on. The other commenter laid out the other reasons well enough so I won't repeat them.

Manuel_D 3y ago

> Do a little research. If you move in CA and you're over 55, you can now keep your property tax bill. Previously it was only certain counties that honored that; now it's all of them. This is incorrect, there are still county restrictions. Counties must opt-in to the tax transfers, and the purchased home must be of equal or lesser value. 10 of California's 58 counties permit it, most do not because they don't want to miss on tax revenue. > Again, do some research. Prop 13 passed in 1978, 45 years ago. The number of current homeowners who bought before then is vanishingly small. House prices were escalating before 13 passed, and the jumps in property taxes were in fact a prime reason why it passed. This is not relevant at all. The point is that people's effective property tax goes down over time, regardless of whether they bought before or after prop 13 was passed. Someone who bought a house in 1990 is probably paying less than a third of the normal property tax. > there are all kinds of reasons why there's too little building. Grandfathered house values are only one of them. Regulations and high costs are much more important. Great, we should eliminate restrictive regulations and Prop 13!

frumper 3y ago

We bought our house 9 years ago. Current homebuyers on our street are paying 2 to 3 times what we are in taxes for similar homes. Add in our extremely low interest rate and we have no plans to sell the home even if we buy another.

mlsu 3y ago

27% of Californians are over 55. That means the majority do not get to have the benefit of keeping their tax bill when they move. To compound that, the most dynamic economic growth probably comes from under-55s moving, not over-55s -- new jobs, new opportunities, start a family, etc. Obviously it's good if it's easy for old people to move, but the economic value of a young family being able to move closer to a high paying job is probably many multiples more from a "net good for society" standpoint. Prop 13 freezes your tax rate when you purchase the property. So the subsidy isn't given only to those who buy before the bill was passed -- it is given to anyone who buys before housing goes up, at any time while the law is in place. It's extremely common for people to borrow against the equity of their home (even moreso if you are very wealthy). I think the parent is arguing that those who own property are borrowing against the value of their (subsidized) asset. Another thing to consider is that a yearly tax on an asset can significantly affect the valuation of that asset, far in excess of the amount of the tax itself. Of course there's many reasons for the embarrassing lack of ability to solve the housing problem. Prop 13 is a big reason, certainly one worth looking at when considering solutions to this problem. It's also just unfair. Most people who are subsidized by prop 13 are subsidized for no reason at all, just market timing. And there's another layer to it, which is that the earlier you have bought, the more you are subsidized. Guess what was more difficult for minorities to do 30 years ago? That introduces an additional dimension of racial unfairness to this. Not to mention, it's a subsidy for the rich (homeowners) paid for by the poor (everyone else). Prop 13 is an anchor around our neck. It's kind of like that excruciatingly painful disease that causes your bones to fuse together, except for growth and prosperity in the state of California.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Why don't you let him defend his own statements, which have little to no foundation at all? The only thing that would happen if Prop 13 were repealed is: all other taxes would stay the same, but that one would rise, and so would spending. That's why your arguments get no traction at all in CA.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Hi Bob, you'd rather argue with a username you recognize rather than get to the truth? Here we are, closer to the truth than before, and you're maligning others for cutting you off from a witty gotcha on a person whom you seem to hold some grudge against.

uoaei 3y ago

I'm confused why you would request data that explains that if people have assets they will borrow against them and invest to make more money. I'm not sure what data would satisfy your request because this just seems blindingly obvious to anyone who can reason about personal finance. > all kinds of reasons why there's too little building And you think that providing incentives for people to move houses has no effect on any of the other components? Come on. The other commenter laid out the other reasons well enough so I won't repeat them.