Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 89 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,971
5,591
136
I think the standard should be it’s either money you have or it isn’t. If you can use it for loans it is taxable. If you can’t, then not.

I imagine you’re referring to homes here but their appreciation is taxed through periodic reassessments. Of course prop 13 screws with that but that’s another reason it should be repealed.
I was referring to homes.
We'll never agree on prop 13. Tossing elderly people to the street because they can't pay the taxes on money they never had is a crime against humanity. Thank God the people of California came to their senses on that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,971
5,591
136
Like reverse mortgages? Sure. Or maybe we put a cap on it, like a real-person cap, so 100K, not 100M, something like that.
$100k is chump change. A retired couple would go through that in two years if they were frugal. I would start to consider it as viable at the million dollar mark.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
I was referring to homes.
We'll never agree on prop 13. Tossing elderly people to the street because they can't pay the taxes on money they never had is a crime against humanity. Thank God the people of California came to their senses on that one.
To be clear my alternative is that everyone pays the same taxes on the same property. Conservatives are usually all about this!

Also, if it’s just about old people keeping their homes I have repeatedly offered an alternative where owed taxes are deferred until the person passes away and they can then be recouped through the sale of the home.

Unsurprisingly, prop 13 proponents never take me up on that either because what they REALLY want is more money. They want all the proceeds from the huge increase in value AND they don’t want to pay taxes on it. It never had anything to do with keeping the elderly in their homes and we all know it. If it was, this would be a perfectly acceptable solution.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,067
8,083
136
That worked out really well for Hong Kong.

Funny how one day he’s all about self determination and the next thinks Taiwan’s sovereignty should be ceded to China.

It would seem to me his real position is we should give authoritarian governments whatever they want.

Sounds to me, like a round-about endorsement of slavery.

Cannot gift people to someone... unless you think of them as property.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,658
136
To be clear my alternative is that everyone pays the same taxes on the same property. Conservatives are usually all about this!

Also, if it’s just about old people keeping their homes I have repeatedly offered an alternative where owed taxes are deferred until the person passes away and they can then be recouped through the sale of the home.

Unsurprisingly, prop 13 proponents never take me up on that either because what they REALLY want is more money. They want all the proceeds from the huge increase in value AND they don’t want to pay taxes on it. It never had anything to do with keeping the elderly in their homes and we all know it. If it was, this would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

Prop 13 also effectively traps some elderly people in their properties since it helped crater development. Aging people who want or need (in the case of stairs) to downsize can't because there isn't anywhere to go, certainly not in their existing communities.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,688
1,962
136
This guy gets more dangerous by the day

As far as I know this is what is happening. Legally Ukraine gave permission for Starlink to operate within the borders of Ukraine before the February 2022 invasion. Operationally SpaceX has imposed additional geo-fencing on Starlink receivers to operate only within Ukrainian controlled areas of Ukraine to deny Starlink as a tactical and strategic access to Russian forces. That geo-fencing is lagging behind Ukrainian advances because of OPSEC issues. If Ukrainians told SpaceX in advance what areas to remove geo-fencing then the Russian units could used captured Starlink(Yes there are Starlink units in the hands of Russian forces) units to determine the next direction of Ukrainian advances because they would start to operate. Starlink was not intended as a Milspec platform for operational military usage. The Ukranians have been using Starlink as such but it lacks the additional hardening and security controls that a regular Milspec platform would have. This is the dis-advantage of pushing a platform intended for civilian usage into military service.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Prop 13 also effectively traps some elderly people in their properties since it helped crater development. Aging people who want or need (in the case of stairs) to downsize can't because there isn't anywhere to go, certainly not in their existing communities.

That’s not true. CA residents 55 and older can do a one time transfer to a new property and keep their base value from the old residence.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,363
13,689
146
$100k is chump change. A retired couple would go through that in two years if they were frugal. I would start to consider it as viable at the million dollar mark.
Sure, that's fine. I was just trying to get across that it needs to be 'normal people' money not 'fuck you' money.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,688
1,962
136
To be clear my alternative is that everyone pays the same taxes on the same property. Conservatives are usually all about this!

Also, if it’s just about old people keeping their homes I have repeatedly offered an alternative where owed taxes are deferred until the person passes away and they can then be recouped through the sale of the home.

Unsurprisingly, prop 13 proponents never take me up on that either because what they REALLY want is more money. They want all the proceeds from the huge increase in value AND they don’t want to pay taxes on it. It never had anything to do with keeping the elderly in their homes and we all know it. If it was, this would be a perfectly acceptable solution.

Prop 13 really punishes young people trying to buy into a housing market.

The older person who has lived in the same house for decades could be paying considerably less property taxes like 60-70% less than the young couple who just moved in next door.
 
  • Love
Reactions: hal2kilo

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Prop 13 really punishes young people trying to buy into a housing market.

The older person who has lived in the same house for decades could be paying considerably less property taxes like 60-70% less than the young couple who just moved in next door.

Yes and when those young people get older they’ll be paying considerably less than younger people. So what?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,658
136
That’s not true. CA residents 55 and older can do a one time transfer to a new property and keep their base value from the old residence.

Immaterial if there is little to nothing to buy especially at an acceptable price point. If you sell a house in a town that doesn't have say any condos to actually move into because they don't allow them to be developed you're SOL.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Prop 13 really punishes young people trying to buy into a housing market.

The older person who has lived in the same house for decades could be paying considerably less property taxes like 60-70% less than the young couple who just moved in next door.
Yep. Not only are the young people paying the hugely inflated prices that those incumbent homeowners often drove up through anti-housing policies but as the icing on the cake they get to pay way more in taxes too.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,155
21,281
136
The problem with all this is it all has to be done under an umbrella of major revisions to how we deal with housing in this country from zoning to development to assessments. It can't just be done piece by piece such as simply revoking prop 13. This needs to be comprehensive to a point.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,658
136
The problem with all this is it all has to be done under an umbrella of major revisions to how we deal with housing in this country from zoning to development to assessments. It can't just be done piece by piece such as simply revoking prop 13. This needs to be comprehensive to a point.

Right different places have different issues. Prop 13 is certainly one for CA but NYC is different where you can gather a few dozen neighborhood cranks at a community board meeting to scream nonsense you can get an assisted living building for black gay astronaut social worker wounded congressional medal of honor recipients denied just because. Public process, or the crappieness thereof, plays a big role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,155
21,281
136
Right different places have different issues. Prop 13 is certainly one for CA but NYC is different where you can gather a few dozen neighborhood cranks at a community board meeting to scream nonsense you can get an assisted living building for black gay astronaut social worker wounded congressional medal of honor recipients denied just because. Public process, or the crappieness thereof, plays a big role.

Yes and NYC needs multiple changes as well such as to strengthening and expanding rent control, finding ways to stop the insane NIMBYism you mention, and zoning law adjustments.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Why shouldn't the property taxes be similar if both residences are similar?
Because if they had to pay the same tax rate it's possible that the person who bought their house for $50,000 and can now sell it for $1.6 million might have to move and pocket their $1.55 million profit. Better to put the tax burden on the people already struggling to afford a home, kids, etc.

Then people say 'well the new purchasers are rich, they can afford it!' without thinking of the fact that their housing policies have made it so only the rich can buy a house at all. Household income to be able to afford a home in San Diego is now ~$200,000, which is well over double the actual median household income for the area. Most people have just given up on ever buying a home there or they are waiting on relatives to die to give them enough money to do it. NIMBYs have killed the idea of home ownership for the average person.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Immaterial if there is little to nothing to buy especially at an acceptable price point. If you sell a house in a town that doesn't have say any condos to actually move into because they don't allow them to be developed you're SOL.

So doing away with prop 13 would solve that? No, of course it wouldn’t, so your point is what exactly? Because while California certainly does have a nimby problem and an housing shortage like the rest of the country, there is new housing being built everywhere and it may require people to move away from their current location, again so what?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Because if they had to pay the same tax rate it's possible that the person who bought their house for $50,000 and can now sell it for $1.6 million might have to move and pocket their $1.55 million profit. Better to put the tax burden on the people already struggling to afford a home, kids, etc.

Then people say 'well the new purchasers are rich, they can afford it!' without thinking of the fact that their housing policies have made it so only the rich can buy a house at all. Household income to be able to afford a home in San Diego is now ~$200,000, which is well over double the actual median household income for the area. Most people have just given up on ever buying a home there or they are waiting on relatives to die to give them enough money to do it. NIMBYs have killed the idea of home ownership for the average person.

So on one hand you advocate that people be forced out of their homes because they can no longer pay taxes and yet at the same time you acknowledge there is a housing shortage. So basically you are advocating for more homelessness.

However, besides that inconvenient truth, can you show me any study that shows the economic stability one gets from owning a home is better if people are forced to move when they can no longer afford their property taxes?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,246
37,658
136
So doing away with prop 13 would solve that? No, of course it wouldn’t, so your point is what exactly? Because while California certainly does have a nimby problem and an housing shortage like the rest of the country, there is new housing being built everywhere and it may require people to move away from their current location, again so what?

It would probably help yea. There are a ton of underused commercial properties that would see redevelopment if property taxes were not basically frozen.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
It would probably help yea. There are a ton of underused commercial properties that would see redevelopment if property taxes were not basically frozen.

Yeah maybe for commercial property but that’s not an issue for residential property Al because people don’t buy land for personal use just to sit on it. For commercial properties that’s really just masking the real issue: costs to develope such a property and all the red tape that comes with it.

I’ve agreed before that prop 13 should only apply to people and not businesses but that’s no reason to scrap it all together.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
So on one hand you advocate that people be forced out of their homes because they can no longer pay taxes and yet at the same time you acknowledge there is a housing shortage. So basically you are advocating for more homelessness.
So to be clear, you think that people will own a piece of property so enormously valuable that they can no longer afford property taxes on it but will then also become homeless after selling it for an enormous profit? I'm struggling to understand how this makes any sense.

However, besides that inconvenient truth, can you show me any study that shows the economic stability one gets from owning a home is better if people are forced to move when they can no longer afford their property taxes?
I don't know what you're asking here. If you're looking for the economic benefits or harms of prop 13 though sure, lots of study on that. TLDR: Prop 13 is bad!


For our benchmark calibration, the introduction of Proposition 13 leads to an 18% increase in house prices and a 17% decrease in the probability of moving. We study the transition dynamics of moving from an economy featuring Proposition 13 to alternative revenue-neutral regimes with proportional real estate taxes. Overall, our findings indicate that elimination of Proposition 13 leads to small changes in house prices and modest increases in mobility depending on how revenue neutrality is achieved. Welfare gains of reform are quite large and stem mostly from the decline in the tax burden when young and borrowing constrained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane