|
Still Dismal posted:The prop system is the dumbest loving way in the world to make policy and I would give all I could to the Yes campaign for a "no more goddamned props" prop, the barrier to getting poo poo on the ballot is way too low.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
19 is loving weird and it might pass due to the way it is framed. My local DSA had recommended Yes on it which made me doubletake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:It's definitely mixed, but if you look at who's supporting it- it's two giant realtor orgs. Baiscally it's a win-lose for us, win-win for realtors. For us it closes the inheritance loophole which means less dickheads hoarding generational property, more housing on the market and more property tax revenue to the state, at the expense of olds getting to jump around keeping their insanely low tax values. For realtors it means old people are more incentivized to sell their house and buy a new one, as well as incentivizes people who inherit a house to immediately turn around and sell it instead of renting or sitting on it. Both of which mean more sales overall which is the whole reason the realty industry pushed for the propostion. I'm most likely voting for it, "realtors get a lot more money and the state gets a bit more money" is better than "nobody including the state gets more money". It's also endorsed by Silicon Valley DSA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:19 is loving weird and it might pass due to the way it is framed. If the state's analysis is correct, it will increase net property tax receipts which means more money for schools and local governments. It's hard to say no to a net property tax increase that hits some of the biggest landowners (those with multiple homes) even if it gives other landowners a handout. I do hate that it gives another special age-restricted right to old people (only 55+ can transfer the tax benefit).
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Looks like all the big players are getting their palms greased, and replacing the big loophole with a smaller loophole is an overall improvement so there's no significant leftist pushback. That means the only formal opposition to Prop 19 is from the Howard Jarvis Association, and no one likes them, so it's almost definitely passing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:It also diminishes the supply of larger homes that bigger families need. Grandma can afford to buy that 5 bedroom home for herself, which takes that home away from a growing family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I want Prop 13 gone, and I want handouts to olds just because they are olds stopped. However, old people are notorious for sizing down, not up. They may want gold-plated faucets with ruby eyes, but they don't want a lot of bedrooms; the more space, the more house that needs cleaning. Like, it's an entire home-marketing category. "Perfect for empty-nesters!" Remember, under current law, they can already do this once if the house is of equal or lesser value. The change would allow this to happen up to three times, and would allow it to be applicable to larger houses. It's also of note that they put the age requirement at 55, which isn't exactly only targeting grandmas who want to downsize. That could be mom and dad who have two teenagers in the house. 55 is a decade or more from retirement for most people. Sydin posted:Baiscally it's a win-lose for us, win-win for realtors. This. It's not a poo poo proposal, but the realtor special interest groups will likely get special benefits from the increased movement in the real estate market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Baiscally it's a win-lose for us, win-win for realtors. For us it closes the inheritance loophole which means less dickheads hoarding generational property, more housing on the market and more property tax revenue to the state, at the expense of olds getting to jump around keeping their insanely low tax values. For realtors it means old people are more incentivized to sell their house and buy a new one, as well as incentivizes people who inherit a house to immediately turn around and sell it instead of renting or sitting on it. Both of which mean more sales overall which is the whole reason the realty industry pushed for the propostion. Just to clarify, unless called out in the guide, most of the entries are "recommendations" - picking the lesser of two evils. The "endorsements" are bigger deals that come with material support in the form of door-knocking, text-banking, etc and require a higher vote threshold. So Prop 19 is a yes, but there's no indication of an emphatic yes. As long as people vote yes on 15, 16, 21, and no on 20, 22
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Remember, under current law, they can already do this once if the house is of equal or lesser value. The change would allow this to happen up to three times, and would allow it to be applicable to larger houses. quote:55 year olds aren't the poor elderly. They will buy up larger homes and retain the lower property tax. This gets realtors more money. It also diminishes the supply of larger homes that bigger families need. Grandma can afford to buy that 5 bedroom home for herself, which takes that home away from a growing family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:My understanding is that over-55s generally downsize number of bedrooms and size of yard. They aren't camping out in the 5-bedroom houses, because they don't want to deal with all that empty extra space. Again, you can see this in real estate ads and articles; the "dream retirement home" is one that's easier to maintain than the house you raised your family in. More luxuries, but less space. I definitely think that's true for older folks. I'd love to see the statistics for different age brackets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
It's always worth reminding people that retirees are the wealthiest age group in this country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
I was always checking out condo prices in my local area and ALL of the cheap poo poo in my area is 55+ gated community. How is it that in a grossly overpriced housing market the cheap poo poo is gated, and has a ton of dedicated public money for City cops, paramedics, and fire personal. What the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Apparently 19 is expected to result in a net increase in property tax revenues at least (I guess the new limited right to transfer the tax advantage to another home is outweighed by the restriction on inheritance to a single residence). As a result I am considering Yes on 19 since it might trim back the landed aristocracy thing just slightly (I.e., that aspect is limited to a single inherited residence that is easy to transfer rather than a big pile of residences that must be held in perpetuity). Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'm similarly ambivalent on it, but the inheritance limitation only takes place if the heir turns the place into a rental property, not continues to live there. So it's not really that big of an improvement. Might actually result in a net reduction of rental housing stock for that reason. The main reason I might vote for it though, is that maybe making it easier to sell your house will encourage more olds to cash out and sell their places, which will hopefully lower housing prices a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
I moved back in June, re-did my voter registration and updated my address. Today, my mail-in ballot arrived (to the correct address, not a mail-forward with the yellow sticker) and it's a ballot for my old county (San Mateo), not my new one. I noticed because my wife's ballot for Alameda County looks completely different. Am I correct that my vote will be discarded if I send my ballot in, given the address won't match as being in-county?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Trump ranted about delta smelt protections tonight on hannity between coughing fits, so if the Chuds take an interest in California water policy the next couple days that's probably why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
I'm drive by posting to say that I marked my ballot and I intend to mail it in tomorrow morning suck it uber
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Trump ranted about delta smelt protections tonight on hannity between coughing fits, so if the Chuds take an interest in California water policy the next couple days that's probably why. All of our state's issues stem from trying to keep a fish alive and improper forest raking procedure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 06:53
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Any rumors on who he would appoint? Katie Porter is a name I see come up, but I wonder if that's just wishcasting. It's most certainly going to be either Padilla or Becerra, both of whom are Next In Line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Baiscally it's a win-lose for us, win-win for realtors. For us it closes the inheritance loophole which means less dickheads hoarding generational property, more housing on the market and more property tax revenue to the state, at the expense of olds getting to jump around keeping their insanely low tax values. For realtors it means old people are more incentivized to sell their house and buy a new one, as well as incentivizes people who inherit a house to immediately turn around and sell it instead of renting or sitting on it. Both of which mean more sales overall which is the whole reason the realty industry pushed for the propostion. I think hypothetically there is also an argument that whatever makes it easier for people to move means that more people can move closer to work and that means less commuting and thus less environmental pollution. The problem is more that there are tax advantages to certain groups at all. There shouldn't be any groups that are tax advantaged. If you are 70 and want to move to reduce your carry cost because you are still in your four bedroom house from when you were 35 and it's too expensive to move anywhere in your state then you should get the gently caress on and let productive people who can afford it move in. But then people say that will somehow destroy the character of the state. I for one would not miss a bunch of old poor people getting the gently caress out but I'm also kind of a selfish dick. It wouldn't be an issue except that they let the snowball grow so much that now any rational fix will screw everyone. The bright ray of sun on all of this is that everyone dies eventually.  Addendum: Any bill that lets children inherit the tax basis of their grandma/parent whoever is absolutely stupid and needs to stop now. Prop 99? particle9 fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Oct 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:It's most certainly going to be either Padilla or Becerra, both of whom are Next In Line. I agree with this porter is my us rep and I hope she's re-elected for another 2 years but I feel that she doesn't have quite the statewide name recognition that would give her the incumbent advantage if she were appointed to us senate and then try to keep her seat also, assuming that Porter was re-elected, they would need to fill her us rep seat and the only other person I would trust is Dave Min and I hope he wins the state senate seat he's gunning for now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
There's a "Progressive Voter Guide" going around which is saying to vote Yes on 22. It's apparently pretty drat cheap to buy an endorsement these days, because Uber/Lyft only paid them $20K. https://twitter.com/chrisarvinsf/status/1314447124105371649 gently caress Uber/Lyft/DoorDash
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
Tito Ortiz is on my ballot, what a treat for me
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
particle9 posted:Addendum: Any bill that lets children inherit the tax basis of their grandma/parent whoever is absolutely stupid and needs to stop now. Prop 99? It's called Prop 58, from 1986.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 13:01
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I want Prop 13 gone, and I want handouts to olds just because they are olds stopped. However, old people are notorious for sizing down, not up. They may want gold-plated faucets with ruby eyes, but they don't want a lot of bedrooms; the more space, the more house that needs cleaning. Like, it's an entire home-marketing category. "Perfect for empty-nesters!" My stepdad and mom (both in 60s) are about to buy a house twice as big as the one they raised us in because my stepdad wants a place big enough he can basically hide and not see anyone for days on end. He also wants a fuckton of land for bragging rights. Keeping up with the Joneses doesn’t stop at retirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:My stepdad and mom (both in 60s) are about to buy a house twice as big as the one they raised us in because my stepdad wants a place big enough he can basically hide and not see anyone for days on end. He also wants a fuckton of land for bragging rights. Keeping up with the Joneses doesn’t stop at retirement. All 1 story though, don't wanna stress the knees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I moved back in June, re-did my voter registration and updated my address. Today, my mail-in ballot arrived (to the correct address, not a mail-forward with the yellow sticker) and it's a ballot for my old county (San Mateo), not my new one. I noticed because my wife's ballot for Alameda County looks completely different. Am I correct that my vote will be discarded if I send my ballot in, given the address won't match as being in-county? No. What you have there is an absentee ballot. It's the very same as if they were sending it to you while you work remotely in Antarctica. You can use that, or you can try to register in Alameda County asap. If you don't get a ballot in time, you can go to the County's elections office or a polling place and cast a provisional ballot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
particle9 posted:If you are 70 and want to move to reduce your carry cost because you are still in your four bedroom house from when you were 35 and it's too expensive to move anywhere in your state then you should get the gently caress on and let productive people who can afford it move in. Productive people who can afford it? (glares at you in wildly inflated housing values) The problem is not that the wealthy ought to be able to afford to buy houses from the wealthy. The problem is that we don't have enough housing, and that Prop 13 sucks in many various ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
"Home owners 55 and over get to keep their existing property tax and can transfer it to a new home of equivalent or lower assessed value" would probably be a better stipulation but that would make realtors less money so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
fermun posted:There's a "Progressive Voter Guide" going around which is saying to vote Yes on 22. It's apparently pretty drat cheap to buy an endorsement these days, because Uber/Lyft only paid them $20K. https://twitter.com/MyDickerson/status/1313952213358661632 Basically everything with a star is a paid advertisement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Actually, can somebody explain to me how the current system works? I, Betty Boomer, buy a house in Palo Alto in 1980 for $100K. In 2020, that house is worth umpty-millions, but I'm still paying taxes as if it were 1980. I sell my house for umpty-millions. What happens when I buy my next house in California?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Actually, can somebody explain to me how the current system works? Currently, so long as the new home is purchased for an amount equal to or less than your recently sold home's valuation AND you're over 55 AND the new home is either in the same county or in one of the ten counties that permit inter-county tax assessment transfers (Santa Clara is one of those counties, so you have your county plus nine other counties to choose from), you can maintain your previous tax assessment based on the original 1980 purchase price. Taxable value of a home can grow annually by the rate of inflation or 2%, whichever is lower, and Prop 13 limits the tax to 1% of that value, so figure your current home valuation for tax purposes is around $180-$200k, regardless of what you sell for. So you'd be carrying a tax bill of maybe $1,900/year over to your new $1.5 million McMansion, which, without the carryover, would have meant an annual tax bill of $15k. I think I have that all correct but it's been awhile since I did a deep dive into any of this stuff so someone correct me if I missed anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:So you'd be carrying a tax bill of maybe $1,900/year over to your new $1.5 million McMansion, which, without the carryover, would have meant an annual tax bill of $15k.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Golly, that's evil. I think you'll find that it's TAXATION (read: schools and libraries) that is the true evil!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I think you'll find that it's TAXATION (read: schools and libraries) that is the true evil!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Currently, so long as the new home is purchased for an amount equal to or less than your recently sold home's valuation AND you're over 55 AND the new home is either in the same county or in one of the ten counties that permit inter-county tax assessment transfers (Santa Clara is one of those counties, so you have your county plus nine other counties to choose from), you can maintain your previous tax assessment based on the original 1980 purchase price. You wouldn't pay normal property tax on the difference between the $200k home and the $1.5 million mansion in that situation, where your new home is $1.3 million more expensive than the one you sold?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
I’m starting to think this whole private property thing was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Tacier posted:You wouldn't pay normal property tax on the difference between the $200k home and the $1.5 million mansion in that situation, where your new home is $1.3 million more expensive than the one you sold? My understanding is that the "equal or lesser value" refers to the current market value of the homes being sold and bought. So in this case, so long as the assessed market value of the home you're selling is greater than the one you're buying, you're good to go. Centrist Committee posted:I’m starting to think this whole private property thing was a mistake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2xakGZvLjI Edit - from the Board of Equalization website: quote:17. When making the "equal or lesser value" comparison, is a simple comparison of the sales price of the original property and the purchase price of the replacement dwelling all that is needed? When determining homes that qualify, cash value at date of sale of the original property is compared to cash value as of the date of purchase of the new property. The 1980 purchase price has no bearing except on the current tax rate you enjoy. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
A prop. 13 compromise that I could live with is, fine, you get the artificially low property tax rate. But then when you sell, you're either legally locked into selling for somewhere around the around the value you're paying taxes on (like the max you can sell for is 110% of that amount or something), or you have to pay all of the back taxes at the actual rate you owe for last X years if you want to sell at market value. In terms of inheritance, after they inherit your heirs have like a year or two grace period to sell the house penalty free if they want, then they start getting taxed at the market price. Basically, if you're using your house a capital investment rather than just a home, you should be taxed accordingly. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:A prop. 13 compromise that I could live with is, fine, you get the artificially low property tax rate. But then when you sell, you're either legally locked into selling for somewhere around the around the value you're paying taxes on (like the max you can sell for is 110% of that amount or something), or you have to pay all of the back taxes at the actual rate you owe for last X years if you want to sell at market value. In terms of inheritance, after they inherit your heirs have like a year or two grace period to sell the house penalty free if they want, then they start getting taxed at the market price. Like everyone says, most of the wealth in the US is owned by the same 55+ year old ghouls that Prop 13 is supposedly protecting from homelessness. Are they poor and at the mercy of public welfare programs? Or the richest cohort in the history of the world?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
Still Dismal posted:A prop. 13 compromise that I could live with is, fine, you get the artificially low property tax rate. But then when you sell, you're either legally locked into selling for somewhere around the around the value you're paying taxes on (like the max you can sell for is 110% of that amount or something), or you have to pay all of the back taxes at the actual rate you owe for last X years if you want to sell at market value. In terms of inheritance, after they inherit your heirs have like a year or two grace period to sell the house penalty free if they want, then they start getting taxed at the market price. There’s too many boomers waiting for their inheritance or the chance to own California real estate at a super low tax rate for that kind of Prop 13 reform to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2020 20:31
|
|