|
etalian posted:It's a classic example of government intervention leading to market distortion, not to mention being yet another big subsidy for property owners especially for commercial properties. I've already said it should be revoked for commmercial properties and if you don't think the government should intervene to protect average working homeowners from the "free market" forces of speculation and development for profit maybe you should go over to the Libertarian thread and hang out.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Either way regardless of your taxes are bad argument, Prop 13 destroyed local control of funding via property taxes. Before local counties had control of their taxation, while now they stand in line to get dole money from Sacramento. It also forced the state and also counties to rely more on a mix of capital and income tax for funding.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. If there was the political will in this state to do something, anything, about prop 13 (and there isn't), it could be phased out instead of just picking a day where suddenly tons of people's property tax burdens go up by huge multipliers. The fact is, the longer you've owned a property, the greater a benefit you get from Prop 13. This acts as a huge disincentive for homeowners to sell, and that acts as a huge restriction to the housing market. Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low. The longer Prop 13 persists, the more it affects those numbers. Even people who would otherwise sell, are incentivized by Prop 13 to rent out a home they no longer want to live in, instead of selling it, so prop 13 actually encourages the "speculator and wealthy class" to persist. Prop 13 was originally passed based on the "grandma is gonna lose her home" propaganda, and it's obviously still an incredibly effective narrative. But it's bullcrap. The rest of the country manages to charge property taxes based on actual value of homes, and yet, somehow, the rest of the country isn't swimming in homeless grandmothers. Because having taxes proportionate to home value actually helps to produce a healthy housing market, where people live in homes they can afford to live in, and sell homes they can't afford to live in, so there is a reasonable turnover of the total home inventory which keeps housing prices from inflating too much. So if we wanted to end prop 13 (and I'll reiterate that currently Californians absolutely do not want to do that), we'd phase it out. Allow tax rates to gradually move towards a percentage of current-market-value based on assessments of that value. You could write into a law that rates can't go up by more than (say) 2% more than they currently do, annually, and that would eventually do the job. If grandma can't afford her tax rate, it's because her house has massively appreciated in value. She can sell the house, or she can use her equity to take out home equity lines of credit (and thereby maintain an equity level equivalent to her original purchase... e.g., she's not building wealth through property appreciation, but she's also not being forced to sell). And if grandma's house has appreciated in value, that means she's gained wealth. If she has to sell her house becuase her fixed income can't support the tax rate and she doesn't want to borrow against the equity, well, at least she's consequently extracting all that wealth she's built from her house! She can move to a lower-cost area, and live at a higher standard of living due to her increased wealth. It's literally insane to spin "grandma's house has gone up too much in value" as a bad thing that has to be compensated for by allowing her real tax rate, after adjusting for inflation, to decline annually. The biggest boondoggle in the whole thing, of course, is that commercial property is included in prop 13. Owners of commercial property lease out their space rather than sell; you can give a lessee a 99-year transferrable lease, which is functionally the same to the lessee as selling the property to them, except that this structure doesn't count as a sale so the property tax rate remains pegged to the original value of the property. It is already bad and heavily exploitable and every year that goes by it gets worse as the tax rate fails to keep up with either inflation or the rising value of the property. The current situation is absolutely a regressive one. Restricting the housing market via prop 13 ensures that the working class can't afford to buy houses any more. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
At the bare minimum they should at least reform the commercial property part of Prop 13, was basically big loophole handout for corporations.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Why not establish a tax on uninhabited residential housing? That'd discourage people owning houses to flip them on the market without rentors or hired groundskeepers.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
I have to admit its rare to see the mentality trotted out that grandma should be forced into debt or forced to sell to reinforce an ideology but at least youre up front about it. Pretty much reinforces my belief that me and the majority of Californians have it right when we tell your ilk to get hosed and good luck on your repeal efforts.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I have to admit its rare to see the mentality trotted out that grandma should be forced into debt Be honest with your terminology. I'm suggesting secured debt, e.g., a loan against equity, which is very very different from unsecured debt, e.g. credit card debt. With a secured loan, if worse comes to worst, Grandma can sell her house to pay off the HELOC. And I'm only suggesting this as a strategy for a person who is old enough that they're willing to effectively withdraw equity in their home in order to pay the cost of living; lots of old people do this in various ways, including just selling their home and moving into retirement or assisted care living situations. quote:or forced to sell to reinforce an ideology No, gently caress you, this isn't about ideology. I'm describing a deliberate policy decision that would help to lower housing costs for everyone in the state... which by extension would help the middle class. The lack of turnover in the existing home market in California is a big part of the reason why houses are so expensive, and too-expensive housing is a massive, massive drag on the middle class. quote:but at least youre up front about it. Pretty much reinforces my belief that me and the majority of Californians have it right when we tell your ilk to get hosed and good luck on your repeal efforts. gently caress you, I don't have an ilk. I'm presenting a reasoned counterargument to your argument in the thread: address my points or gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Your oft-repeated claim that property tax in California is the 4th highest in the nation isn't true: Even a right-wing think tank rates California as 19th in the country. In fact, there's another study that puts California's property tax rates as at or below average. The second study is especially striking when looking at the difference between effective rates on residential property compared to commercial properties; California's effective tax rates on commercial and industrial properties are among the lowest in the nation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:Your oft-repeated claim that property tax in California is the 4th highest in the nation isn't true: Even a right-wing think tank rates California as 19th in the country. In fact, there's another study that puts California's property tax rates as at or below average. The second study is especially striking when looking at the difference between effective rates on residential property compared to commercial properties; California's effective tax rates on commercial and industrial properties are among the lowest in the nation. Correct. Property tax is low, but as a percentage of overall tax collected from people, CA still manages to rank 4th even with property tax being so low. http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-climate/california The idea that prop 13 is somehow hamstringing CA's ability to collect taxes or fund programs is complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
You ever think that if we could increase commercial and industrial property taxes, we could cut sales and income taxes? Government funding is ideally balanced on the three; with the state unable to adjust one of these rates, the other two had to climb to compensate. Prop 13 could be fixed and the end result could be an overall lower tax burden, but since morons like you (and the baby boomers sitting in those overvalued homes) don't want to risk anything at all it's never going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The idea that prop 13 is somehow hamstringing CA's ability to collect taxes or fund programs is complete bullshit. Except that it absolutely plays a role by forcing the state and local agencies to rely on higher income, sales, and capital gains taxes, particularly the last two. This is why our sales taxes are among the highest in the nation and one of the big reasons the 2008 downturn hurt us so badly (i.e. a heavy dependence on capital gains taxes in that case, which is why we've been hearing so much about funneling them into a rainy day fund from here on out to help smooth their proceeds out).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Be honest with your terminology. I'm suggesting secured debt, e.g., a loan against equity, which is very very different from unsecured debt, e.g. credit card debt. With a secured loan, if worse comes to worst, Grandma can sell her house to pay off the HELOC. And I'm only suggesting this as a strategy for a person who is old enough that they're willing to effectively withdraw equity in their home in order to pay the cost of living; lots of old people do this in various ways, including just selling their home and moving into retirement or assisted care living situations. What you're talking about is forcing middle-class people to sell property they've spent their whole life accruing, and the people buying it aren't going to be middle class themselves. Your bullshit notion that somehow forcing even more working people out of the more desirable areas is CA will be a net gain for the middle class is hilarious, because I can tell you right now, the houses in CA are going to stay sky high as long as the pacific ocean is right there. The net gain of what you propse will be more vulnerable people moved further from needed services in the name of obtaining some kind of "fairness" for people who chose to buy into and expensive market knowing prop 13 already existed.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:You ever think that if we could increase commercial and industrial property taxes, we could cut sales and income taxes? Government funding is ideally balanced on the three; with the state unable to adjust one of these rates, the other two had to climb to compensate. Prop 13 could be fixed and the end result could be an overall lower tax burden, but since morons like you (and the baby boomers sitting in those overvalued homes) don't want to risk anything at all it's never going to happen. Why would you have to force residential owners to pay more along with the commercial and industrial properties? Instead of trying to repeal prop 13, why not amend it to exclude those properties instead of making an issue about boomers who need to be forced out of their homes in retirement?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Try your math again there, bub. Try your own math again, smarty-pants, it's not exactly rocket science. The California assessed property tax rate is 1% + county fees and variances, coming out to state-wide average of 1.25%. But California homes are assessed at significantly less than the market value (the conservative advocacy organization CalTax suggests that homes are assessed at 65.7% of FMV). The New York Times agrees, and concludes that the actual property tax rate in California averages at around .68%. If a family is paying ~$6,000 per year at .68%, then their house is worth ~$900,000. That's a rather expensive home for an "average middle-income family". Thanks for playing the "scary numbers" game all the same. http://homeguides.sfgate.com/average-property-tax-rates-california-51758.html http://www.caltax.org/Proposition13Revisited12-7-09.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Try your own math again, smarty-pants, it's not exactly rocket science. The California assessed property tax rate is 1% + county fees and variances, coming out to state-wide average of 1.25%. But California homes are assessed at significantly less than the market value (the conservative advocacy organization CalTax suggests that homes are assessed at 65.7% of FMV). The New York Times agrees, and concludes that the actual property tax rate in California averages at around .68%. If a family is paying ~$6,000 per year at .68%, then their house is worth ~$900,000. That's a rather expensive home for an "average middle-income family". Thanks for playing the "scary numbers" game all the same. I'll concede to your math being correct, but that study you linked has a pretty interesting conclusion: Conclusion Proposition 13 has protected taxpayers during its 31 years of enactment, and at the same time has ensured that there is a stable, yet growing budget base for local governments. More importantly, Proposition 13 did what it was supposed to do. Before Proposition 13, Californians would open their property tax bills and wonder if they could make ends meet. At that time, government revenue was directly tied to swings in real estate values. Today, homeowners still are the largest beneficiaries of Proposition 13, bearing the smallest share of the property tax burden. Most telling may be how many Californians still support the initiative. Approved in 1978 with 64.8 percent of the vote, a poll released in May 2008 showed that, 67 percent of likely voters responded that “passing Proposition 13 has turned out to be mostly a good thing for California.”7
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Why would you have to force residential owners to pay more along with the commercial and industrial properties? Instead of trying to repeal prop 13, why not amend it to exclude those properties instead of making an issue about boomers who need to be forced out of their homes in retirement? Because it's a foolish and broken idea that should be rejected entirely and replaced with a real tax system that encourages home ownership instead of property speculation. There are plenty of other states and countries out there that manage to do this without putting screws to young families and gutting state civil spending. Most places treat homes as deferred capital gains, where you pay the majority of your taxes at the point of sale - that way people aren't forced out of their homes, nor are they encouraged to speculate or engage in tax avoidance through dubious deed transfers. Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Because it's a foolish and broken idea that should be rejected entirely and replaced with a real tax system that encourages home ownership instead of property speculation. There are plenty of other states and countries out there that manage to do this without putting screws to young families and gutting state civil spending. Most places treat homes as deferred capital gains, where you pay the majority of your taxes at the point of sale - that way people aren't forced out of their homes, nor are they encouraged to speculate or engage in tax avoidance through dubious deed transfers. Except people were being forced out of their homes under that situation previously and spending hasn't been gutted, but ok. Citation: The study you yourself linked.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'll concede to your math being correct, but that study you linked has a pretty interesting conclusion: natetimm posted:Except people were being forced out of their homes under that situation previously and spending hasn't been gutted, but ok. It's not exactly shocking that an anti-tax conservative advocacy site would have lots of good things to say about Prop 13. After all, it makes them buckets of money. I cited it so that you wouldn't whine about the NYT's conclusion about California's actual property tax rate as liberal lies, not because I agree with every word they say. Frankly it says a lot that you're suddenly jumping onto their boat.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It's not exactly shocking that an anti-tax conservative advocacy site would have lots of good things to say about Prop 13. After all, it makes them buckets of money. I cited it so that you wouldn't whine about the NYT's conclusion about California's actual property tax rate as liberal lies, not because I agree with every word they say. Frankly it says a lot that you're suddenly jumping onto their boat. If you're going to post studies as evidence maybe you should make sure they don't come to a conclusion opposite to the point you're trying to make?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you're going to post studies as evidence maybe you should make sure they don't come to a conclusion opposite to the point you're trying to make? What the point that California assesses its home properties well below the market value? Or the fact that you can't do simple math unless the Koch brothers do it for you? It's pretty apparent that this is the case. Pay more attention or your perspective just looks foolish in addition to being greedy. I mean why should anyone listen to you when it's obvious that your numbers are complete bullshit, and you are shilling for the GOP?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:What the point that California assesses its home properties well below the market value? Or the fact that you can't do simple math unless the Koch brothers do it for you? It's pretty apparent that this is the case. Pay more attention or your perspective just looks foolish in addition to being greedy. Yes those drat greedy Californians who want to be able to keep the things they worked their entire lives for instead of sacrificing it upon the altar of speculation and wealth redistribution while still being taxed the 4th highest in the country. Those bastards. Apparently about 70% of Californians are also shilling for the GOP these days.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I think that it's pretty evident at this point that natetimm isn't really interested in discussing this is good faith, and will instead keep on turning out the same tired talking points over and over no matter how many times they're shot down. He uses made-up numbers and Koch brother websites to argue that California's low property taxes are exceptional "wealth redistribution", and defends millionaire property speculators as "your average middle-income families". Not really worth it to engage with such a Fox News effort.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Prop13 is stupid and should be abolished because it creates a situation where people are incentiviced to make stupid decissions. Because a homeowner under prop13 profits very much from very high housing prices without incuring any costs in the form of higher taxes, he will try to delay or avoid anything that might reduce the pressure on housing prices, most commenly new housing developments. Thereby prop13 inhibits new developments and creates an uneven playingfield because for equal houses person A will pay much less then person B just because he owned it longer. The "grandma will be forced out of her home" narrative is plain stupid. Yes there might be cases were grandma decides that she does not want/can't pay a very high property tax, but that means she can sell her home and get a lot of cash, which she than can lose in Vegas before moving in with her children.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Prop13 is stupid and should be abolished because it creates a situation where people are incentiviced to make stupid decissions. Because a homeowner under prop13 profits very much from very high housing prices without incuring any costs in the form of higher taxes, he will try to delay or avoid anything that might reduce the pressure on housing prices, most commenly new housing developments. Thereby prop13 inhibits new developments and creates an uneven playingfield because for equal houses person A will pay much less then person B just because he owned it longer. If you don't think they're building houses in CA you must not live here.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The "grandma will be forced out of her home" narrative is plain stupid. Yes there might be cases were grandma decides that she does not want/can't pay a very high property tax, but that means she can sell her home and get a lot of cash, which she than can lose in Vegas before moving in with her children. The "Grandma will be forced out of her home" narrative is definitely inane, and exists in a world where banks don't exist and it's impossible to refinance your home. If you home jumps $10,000 in value and you can't afford another $70 in annual tax, then talk to a credit union who will be happy to adjust your mortgage loan accordingly. Both Grandma and the bank will make wads of money.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:50
|
|
natetimm posted:If you don't think they're building houses in CA you must not live here. I'm mostly talking about the Bay Area where the housing costs are a real problem.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The "Grandma will be forced out of her home" narrative is definitely inane, and exists in a world where banks don't exist and it's impossible to refinance your home. If you home jumps $10,000 in value and you can't afford another $70 in annual tax, then talk to a credit union who will be happy to adjust your mortgage loan accordingly. Yes and seeing the average home jumps 8% a year, and the average home is around 400k, expect that number to at least double every year in perpetuity.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm mostly talking about the Bay Area where the housing costs are a real problem. Norcal and Socal are essentially different states in that regard. I haven't even been out of HS 20 years and there are already full cities and communities in multiple areas that used to be dirt covered mountains here in San Diego.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Maybe I'm crazy here, but aren't you two eating each other over extreme ends of the position? How about this: Prop 13 is dumb, it incentivized practices that help to drive up housing costs and increase the percentage of renters. It is also, because of a mix of high sales taxes, progressive taxes, and fees, not going to break the back of the state budget anymore. Repealing it outright would be dumb too, because people of modest means/tied to their jobs in expensive areas might be forced out of home ownership, instead having to cash out (at a gain, admittedly, but still) and potentially downsize/rent/leave the area. There are a number of potential policy changes though, such as repealing it for commercial property, phasing it in over generations (ie the changes take effect once a property passes hands), narrowing Prop 13 to primary residences, or even capping property tax payments to a percentage of income so as to create a synergistic tax regime. I would argue that voters in CA massively supporting it does not make something the right choice. I voted against Proposition 35 because money from human traffickers which normally are given to victims through civil court cases now must go to the government for services, which law enforcement opposed because they did not feel capable of providing services commiserate to what they'd seize and that it wouldn't help victims more than it would just punish perpetrators more thoroughly: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_35,_Ban_on_Human_Trafficking_and_Sex_Slavery_(2012) Over 80% supported it despite it having serious flaws. I loathe the act of human trafficking, but in this case a bad law, written as a Proposition does less good than the status quo. The Proposition system and who votes for it is not the be all and end all solution, certainly for taxes in the long term, taxation should be legislated, not pinned to a constitution via direct democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Blindeye posted:Maybe I'm crazy here, but aren't you two eating each other over extreme ends of the position? Run for office I would vote for you.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. I see no benefit to paying my fair share for government services when I don't have to. On behalf of the millions of baby boomers like me in California, I say: gently caress you all. Plus I get to pass it along to my kids without a reassessment, or I can carry my artificially low taxes over to my luxury retirement condo someday and pass that to them instead. hahahah My kids will start out rich as gently caress, and they won't pay poo poo for taxes either, for their entire lives. suckers Why hasn't every state done this? It's so perfect - for me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. You're literally my neighbor. Except, you put your house in a trust, and gave it to your shiftless 40 year old children.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. DEHUMANIZE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOODSHED
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. All Hail Saint Reagan
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Prop 13 also placed onerous requirements on having an actual functional budget process so that's neat.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
can somebody go ahead and add him to the First to the Wall pastebin? I'm on my phone. that sounds like a really lovely place, I'll enjoy squatting there when property is redistributed based on quantity and ideological purity of a citizen's forum posts.
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Time to research the average homeowner's salary in California. I bet it's high enough for them to pay property taxes that help schools, aka "the common good" out! Also want to note the obvious fact that CA property will always be expensive because of nature. Not all states are sunny, surrounded by mountains and ocean. This is the place to be.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Time to research the average homeowner's salary in California. I bet it's high enough for them to pay property taxes that help schools, aka "the common good" out! When you research income in CA I don't think you're going to find what you think you are.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's rampant speculation driving the cost of houses up, which is why getting rid of prop 13 is a bad deal natetimm posted:we already pay the 4th highest taxes in the nation natetimm posted:Californians are already paying the 4th highest taxes in the country natetimm posted:CA still manages to rank 4th even with property tax being so low. natetimm posted:while still being taxed the 4th highest in the country  Do you work for Fox? You claim youve been out of highschool for a while so that options out. predicto posted:As someone who owns a San Francisco house purchased in 1992 that has more than quadrupled in value and made me a millionaire while I pay 1/4th of the property tax that my next door neighbor pays and our state slowly crumbles around me, I just want to say thank you to the suckers who voted for Prop 13 back in the day, thinking it would benefit the state. I will never, ever vote to let this windfall benefit go, not in a million years, because I am a greedy rear end in a top hat. Screw young people, screw newcomers to the state, screw the schools which used to be the best in the nation and screw the potholed roads - I got mine. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:You should never take the nail out of your foot, because your foot is hurting! The argument is that somehow prop 13 is putting CA in the poorhouse and it just isn't true.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 03:59
|
|