6 ms·

Maybe it makes sense if you've seen the human suffering implications of prop 13

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Which are what exactly? The state has been setting record surpluses. Housing is very expensive, but that's due to a failure to build. Higher property taxes doesn't reduce the cost of ownership or make housing more affordable. This is like saying we should rise the tax rate on food because people are starving in the street
- clarifyingN 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kadoban 3y ago
    You could consider being more humble and polite, especially if you're going to be wrong. (Note that they said _state_, your numbers are national).
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Housing is very expensive, but that's due to a failure to build. The low maximum property tax rate and systematic failure to tax full value created by Prop 13 is a reason for the failure to build. (Now, actually, I think residential property tax is a horribly regressive tax, and its better to fund government by progressive income taxes, but there needs to be a funding allocation formula that gives local government more of an incentive for development; California has adopted some limits on discretion and consequences for not meeting targets as a stick, but that's not enough to encourage good positive planning.)
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >The low maximum property tax rate and systematic failure to tax full value created by Prop 13 is a reason for the failure to build. Only by indirect argument. IF homeowners were taxed more, they would be more sensitive to housing costs in general, and perhaps more inclined to expanding the housing stock. Given that the government is funded, this would simply be a punitive tax incentive to motivate policy. I don't particularly buy the lack of local government incentive. New development is already taxed at substantially higher rates relative to older stock due to prop 13. If expanding the tax base were a major driver of policy, then we would expect to be building already.
    - imtringued 3y ago
      People don't block commercial construction because it raises property values. They block residential construction because it lowers their property values. You get an imbalance of jobs to housing and then people complain about expensive housing.
lokar 3y ago
One issue with prop 13 has been a major shift in (property) tax burden from large commercial to residential owners. Also, a big shift in overall revenue from property tax to income tax. This is less stable source and tends to benefit the investor class over W2 earners.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I tend to agree that companies that never die should not have the same protections that homeowners or small businesses do. My point was rather that props through 13 isn't what's driving the cost of housing up in California. In fact it does the opposite. If Prop 13 were removed, taxes for new home buyers would go down, enabling even higher costs.
  - jfim 3y ago
    Prop 13 is one factor that's driving the cost of housing up in California. Vacant lots are taxed based on their purchase price, so there's no real reason to develop them when the land value keeps on rising while the taxes don't. Commercial zoned buildings aren't affected by prop 13, which leads to more revenue for the cities, hence them preferring commercial development to housing. All that prop 13 does is favor people who bought real estate decades ago, at the detriment of everyone else.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I am extremely skeptical that the few vacant lots are enough to counterbalance what would essentially be a massive tax break for every new homebuyer.
      - jfim 3y ago
        I'm in favor of everyone paying taxes fairly to get high quality city services, instead of having people with large increases in property value getting an unfair tax subsidy.

Which are what exactly? The state has been setting record surpluses. Housing is very expensive, but that's due to a failure to build. Higher property taxes doesn't reduce the cost of ownership or make housing more affordable. This is like saying we should rise the tax rate on food because people are starving in the street

clarifyingN 3y ago
[flagged]
- kadoban 3y ago
  You could consider being more humble and polite, especially if you're going to be wrong. (Note that they said _state_, your numbers are national).
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Housing is very expensive, but that's due to a failure to build. The low maximum property tax rate and systematic failure to tax full value created by Prop 13 is a reason for the failure to build. (Now, actually, I think residential property tax is a horribly regressive tax, and its better to fund government by progressive income taxes, but there needs to be a funding allocation formula that gives local government more of an incentive for development; California has adopted some limits on discretion and consequences for not meeting targets as a stick, but that's not enough to encourage good positive planning.)
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >The low maximum property tax rate and systematic failure to tax full value created by Prop 13 is a reason for the failure to build. Only by indirect argument. IF homeowners were taxed more, they would be more sensitive to housing costs in general, and perhaps more inclined to expanding the housing stock. Given that the government is funded, this would simply be a punitive tax incentive to motivate policy. I don't particularly buy the lack of local government incentive. New development is already taxed at substantially higher rates relative to older stock due to prop 13. If expanding the tax base were a major driver of policy, then we would expect to be building already.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    People don't block commercial construction because it raises property values. They block residential construction because it lowers their property values. You get an imbalance of jobs to housing and then people complain about expensive housing.

lokar 3y ago

One issue with prop 13 has been a major shift in (property) tax burden from large commercial to residential owners. Also, a big shift in overall revenue from property tax to income tax. This is less stable source and tends to benefit the investor class over W2 earners.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I tend to agree that companies that never die should not have the same protections that homeowners or small businesses do. My point was rather that props through 13 isn't what's driving the cost of housing up in California. In fact it does the opposite. If Prop 13 were removed, taxes for new home buyers would go down, enabling even higher costs.
- jfim 3y ago
  Prop 13 is one factor that's driving the cost of housing up in California. Vacant lots are taxed based on their purchase price, so there's no real reason to develop them when the land value keeps on rising while the taxes don't. Commercial zoned buildings aren't affected by prop 13, which leads to more revenue for the cities, hence them preferring commercial development to housing. All that prop 13 does is favor people who bought real estate decades ago, at the detriment of everyone else.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I am extremely skeptical that the few vacant lots are enough to counterbalance what would essentially be a massive tax break for every new homebuyer.
    - jfim 3y ago
      I'm in favor of everyone paying taxes fairly to get high quality city services, instead of having people with large increases in property value getting an unfair tax subsidy.