“I have voted for every...improvement...now I can’t afford to live here anymore"

[sm625]

The problem is that most tax revenue goes towards the fat salaries and pensions of administrators and their cronies.

 

[momeNt]

Bah...no one should be "priced out of their home" because of rising property values. A home should ALWAYS be taxed at its purchase price. (plus any improvements) IMO, that's one thing that California got right...sort of. Prop 13 has too many loopholes in it for businesses to avoid being taxed when the property is sold/ownership transferred...

Does that set up some inequity when homes are bought and sold? Sure...If I bought my house at $100K 20 years ago...and you buy an almost identical house next to me for $300K last year...you will pay more in taxes...but since you paid more for your house...that makes sense.

If I buy a new car this year for $20K, (do they even still sell cars that cheap?) and you buy the same (now used) car next year for $10K, should you pay the same sales tax on the car that I did?

It's a lot more difficult to accomplish that with cities and towns because they, like any other business, have an eye towards growth. You cannot hamstring your main source of revenue because of principles like not getting "priced out of your home" cities and towns need to grow, and have active and energetic governments that facilitate that growth.

 

[BoomerD]

It's a lot more difficult to accomplish that with cities and towns because they, like any other business, have an eye towards growth. You cannot hamstring your main source of revenue because of principles like not getting "priced out of your home" cities and towns need to grow, and have active and energetic governments that facilitate that growth.

Let the "growth" pay for itself. New homes, new sub-divisions, newly annexed areas should be taxed at a rate that covers their costs. Prop 13 in California allows for a small annual increase in property values...just not the HUGE increases that led up to the passage of the law.

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf

And...it looks like the California legislature is finally trying to close one of the biggest loopholes often used by businesses in the Prop 13 law.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-prop-13-ammiano-bocanegra-20140512-story.html

 

[fskimospy]

Let the "growth" pay for itself. New homes, new sub-divisions, newly annexed areas should be taxed at a rate that covers their costs. Prop 13 in California allows for a small annual increase in property values...just not the HUGE increases that led up to the passage of the law.

Prop 13 is one of the worst public referendums ever created. It encourages people to turtle in their homes for tax advantages, which artificially restricts the housing supply, it made municipalities totally dependent on the state for education funding, and it led to prop 98 being passed, which is another bad law.

Boo prop 13.

 

[BoomerD]

Prop 13 is one of the worst public referendums ever created. It encourages people to turtle in their homes for tax advantages, which artificially restricts the housing supply, it made municipalities totally dependent on the state for education funding, and it led to prop 98 being passed, which is another bad law.

Boo prop 13.

Doesn't restrict the housing supply in the slightest. People are free to build new homes.
Prop 13 allows people, especially those on fixed incomes, to keep their homes instead of being taxed out of them.

From the link above:

The Environment Prior to Proposition 13
Prior to Proposition 13, the property tax rate throughout California averaged a little less than 3% of market value. Additionally, there were no limits on increases for the tax rate or on individual ad valorem charges. (“Ad valorem” refers to taxes based on the assessed value of property. ) Some properties were reassessed 50% to 100% in just one year and their owners’ property tax bills increased accordingly

 

[OutHouse]

you guys should see the shiny new high school near my sisters house in Texas that her $8,500 tax bill helped pay for. fucking ridiculous, both the "artsy modern architecture" of the high school and the complete misuse of public money for the liberties the school district took to build it. the football stadium looks like and is big enough to think it was for a college team.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't restrict the housing supply in the slightest. People are free to build new homes.

It by definition restricts the housing supply as it provides tax advantages that encourage people to stay in homes that they would otherwise like to leave. It also screws with housing mobility for the same reason.

Prop 13 allows people, especially those on fixed incomes, to keep their homes instead of being taxed out of them.

It also means that people living in houses for a long time are subsidized by their neighbors' taxes where you have two people of identical means living in identical houses where one is paying a lot more in taxes simply based on their date of home ownership.

The argument is that people can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their homes because they have become so vastly more valuable since they purchased them. This is hardly a good reason to screw up an entire state's tax base.

 

[OutHouse]

It by definition restricts the housing supply as it provides tax advantages that encourage people to stay in homes that they would otherwise like to leave. It also screws with housing mobility for the same reason.



It also means that people living in houses for a long time are subsidized by their neighbors' taxes where you have two people of identical means living in identical houses where one is paying a lot more in taxes simply based on their date of home ownership.

The argument is that people can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their homes because they have become so vastly more valuable since they purchased them. This is hardly a good reason to screw up an entire state's tax base.

in other words the state can control who lives where by using taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

in other words the state can control who lives where by using taxes.

Huh?

 

[CitizenKain]

you guys should see the shiny new high school near my sisters house in Texas that her $8,500 tax bill helped pay for. fucking ridiculous, both the "artsy modern architecture" of the high school and the complete misuse of public money for the liberties the school district took to build it. the football stadium looks like and is big enough to think it was for a college team.

Take up the giant football stadium with the Cult of Football in Texas.

 

[momeNt]

Prop 13 is one of the worst public referendums ever created. It encourages people to turtle in their homes for tax advantages, which artificially restricts the housing supply, it made municipalities totally dependent on the state for education funding, and it led to prop 98 being passed, which is another bad law.

Boo prop 13.

My point exactly. You should absolutely need to be competitive in order to stay in your home. If your salary is not up to par with the quality of your neighborhood and home, even if it once was, too bad, go live where you belong.

 

[fskimospy]

My point exactly. You should absolutely need to be competitive in order to stay in your home. If you salary is not up to par with the quality of your neighborhood and home, even if it once was, too bad, go live where you belong.

Or how about everyone who owns an equal amount of property pays the same tax on that property.

I had no idea that you were so into the government singling out specific sections of society for preferential tax treatment!

 

[momeNt]

Or how about everyone who owns an equal amount of property pays the same tax on that property.

I had no idea that you were so into the government singling out specific sections of society for preferential tax treatment!

Taxes and public services rule! Literally.

 

[fskimospy]

Taxes and public services rule! Literally.

I'm glad you're onboard finally, but just because taxes and services are vital components of a functioning society doesn't mean that all tax laws are good. Prop 13 is a good case of a dumb tax law.

 

[waggy]

I think the US needs a major overhaul to the taxes.

I do not like the laws that give a business X years taxfree or lower tax. those should be outlawed across the nation. doing such things puts more taxes on the middle class and poor.

As for property tax's i feel they are getting nuts. NOBODY EVERY should be force dto move due to property tax's going up and up.

 

[Vic]

you guys should see the shiny new high school near my sisters house in Texas that her $8,500 tax bill helped pay for. fucking ridiculous, both the "artsy modern architecture" of the high school and the complete misuse of public money for the liberties the school district took to build it. the football stadium looks like and is big enough to think it was for a college team.

And if your sister put her house on the market, I bet there'd be a long line of people willing to pay her a huge sum of money for the privilege of paying those property taxes so that they could put their kids in that school.

 

[hal2kilo]

One of the things I love about this forum is there is always some bombastic over the top troll who decides it is their day to go full retard. I guess you decided it was your day today.

Dude, it's Spidey, relax and enjoy the crazy.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's why I moved to Pearland recently.

Pearland, Katy, Richmond, and Rosenberg are the best places to find decent houses/townhouses/apartments at a good price.

 

[chucky2]

snip

The argument is that people can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their homes because they have become so vastly more valuable since they purchased them. This is hardly a good reason to screw up an entire state's tax base.

I'm genuinely curious how you arrive at this. Take for instance a couple buying a house in their mid-20's out in what today is farmland. They have their kids, pay their taxes (which normally rise each year by affordable amounts), and over the course of their life, the area is developed around them. They are now say 70, in a 50 year old house, in what is now an upperclass area (they lucked out building/buying a house in that particular piece of farmland), and are retired on a middleclass retirement on their paid off house, having paid taxes there all their life and paid for their kids education burden 3+ times over probably.

Your expectation is they should be paying $15k in taxes every year because people who can now afford to, and choose to, move into that upperclass neighborhood also can?

Other than a 'The State needs money, pay b1tches' attitude, how do you justify your position?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm genuinely curious how you arrive at this. Take for instance a couple buying a house in their mid-20's out in what today is farmland. They have their kids, pay their taxes (which normally rise each year by affordable amounts), and over the course of their life, the area is developed around them. They are now say 70, in a 50 year old house, in what is now an upperclass area (they lucked out building/buying a house in that particular piece of farmland), and are retired on a middleclass retirement on their paid off house, having paid taxes there all their life and paid for their kids education burden 3+ times over probably.

Your expectation is they should be paying $15k in taxes every year because people who can now afford to, and choose to, move into that upperclass neighborhood also can?

Other than a 'The State needs money, pay b1tches' attitude, how do you justify your position?

That if you're going to have a property tax, for a given value of property everyone should pay the same amount. Doing otherwise is stupid from a policy and economics perspective as it encourages turtling.

I do find it interesting that you are effectively arguing for progressive taxation based on length of residence in a property, though.

 

[Zorba]

It by definition restricts the housing supply as it provides tax advantages that encourage people to stay in homes that they would otherwise like to leave. It also screws with housing mobility for the same reason.



It also means that people living in houses for a long time are subsidized by their neighbors' taxes where you have two people of identical means living in identical houses where one is paying a lot more in taxes simply based on their date of home ownership.

The argument is that people can no longer afford to pay the taxes on their homes because they have become so vastly more valuable since they purchased them. This is hardly a good reason to screw up an entire state's tax base.

So if your property value goes up a lot, you should just be so thankful the "value" increased that you don't care that you have to move because you can't pay your tax bill on "value" that you can't even directly use unless you sell? Then pay the realtor a huge cut, pay all the closing costs and moving expenses. Not to mention having to leave the area you have setup roots.

Property tax is a very regressive tax and I am very surprised you seem to be defending it.

Also Oklahoma has had limits on how much your property tax can go up in a year my whole life, so it is pretty common in older neighborhoods that recently purchased homes have much higher tax than homes that haven't been sold in two decades. I don't think it causes many issues.

 

[Zorba]

That if you're going to have a property tax, for a given value of property everyone should pay the same amount. Doing otherwise is stupid from a policy and economics perspective as it encourages turtling.

I do find it interesting that you are effectively arguing for progressive taxation based on length of residence in a property, though.

So it is better for the economy if people move every couple years and don't "turtle?" I thought it was good for people to establish roots in an area and take pride it in. Why would I vote for any city improvements, if I know I am leaving in a year? Why would I vote yes for school bonds, if I'll be gone before the new facilities are built?

Then if you look on the corporate side, do you want all of your old established businesses to leave town because property tax has skyrocketed? Especially when they can move to a different state and pay no property tax.

 

[fskimospy]

So it is better for the economy if people move every couple years and don't "turtle?" I thought it was good for people to establish roots in an area and take pride it in. Why would I vote for any city improvements, if I know I am leaving in a year? Why would I vote yes for school bonds, if I'll be gone before the new facilities are built?

Then if you look on the corporate side, do you want all of your old established businesses to leave town because property tax has skyrocketed? Especially when they can move to a different state and pay no property tax.

No, it's good to structure your tax laws in a way that people move when they want to. If you are creating tax incentives for people to stay in a home that they would otherwise wish to vacate you are decreasing the mobility of the housing market.

 

[fskimospy]

So if your property value goes up a lot, you should just be so thankful the "value" increased that you don't care that you have to move because you can't pay your tax bill on "value" that you can't even directly use unless you sell? Then pay the realtor a huge cut, pay all the closing costs and moving expenses. Not to mention having to leave the area you have setup roots.

Property tax is a very regressive tax and I am very surprised you seem to be defending it.

Also Oklahoma has had limits on how much your property tax can go up in a year my whole life, so it is pretty common in older neighborhoods that recently purchased homes have much higher tax than homes that haven't been sold in two decades. I don't think it causes many issues.

I'm not defending property taxes, I'm saying that if we are going to HAVE property taxes, two people with equally valuable properties should pay the same rate.