• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is this true about Ahhhhhhhnuld ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"please explain to me how prop 13 has helped create a housing price bubble."
By reducing the amount of inventory available because people would rather stay put rather than buy another house and reset their property taxes.

Prop 13 is like a pyramid scheme. If you got in at the bottom you're fine. In at the top and you're shafted.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,318
4,015
126
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"please explain to me how prop 13 has helped create a housing price bubble."
By reducing the amount of inventory available because people would rather stay put rather than buy another house and reset their property taxes.

Prop 13 is like a pyramid scheme. If you got in at the bottom you're fine. In at the top and you're shafted.
Yeah, you should be able to take your discount and apply it to your next house.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"please explain to me how prop 13 has helped create a housing price bubble."
By reducing the amount of inventory available because people would rather stay put rather than buy another house and reset their property taxes.

Prop 13 is like a pyramid scheme. If you got in at the bottom you're fine. In at the top and you're shafted.
Yeah, you should be able to take your discount and apply it to your next house.
MB: I believe you can do that, however you have to be retirement age and I think you can only do it once.

Back to the topic at-hand, I feel that any politician who attempts to cancel Prop 13 will be recalled faster than Davis.
 

Macro2

Diamond Member
May 20, 2000
4,874
0
0
RE:"Back to the topic at-hand, I feel that any politician who attempts to cancel Prop 13 will be recalled faster than Davis."

We've reached a point now that if property taxes were allowed to float that a lot of people would get a reduction in taxes because they wouldn't have to make up for the freeloaders.

OTOH, your likely correct about the politicians who would repeal 13..
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"please explain to me how prop 13 has helped create a housing price bubble."
By reducing the amount of inventory available because people would rather stay put rather than buy another house and reset their property taxes.

Prop 13 is like a pyramid scheme. If you got in at the bottom you're fine. In at the top and you're shafted.
You arer blaming the lack of affordable housing on prop 13?

OK I just gotta ask one question. -> HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?

TO say that prop 13 has driven the price of housing up makes about as much sense as saying the reason there was an electrical blackout on the northeast was because I bought donuts on thursday. ANd I live in MN.

The reasons for the insane property values is simply supply and demand. Does prop 13 restrict building? NO.

Why are there not more homes built in california? This is due to the fact the the local and state politians have decided that building permits would be a nice sourse of revenue. If you want to build a house in the city of Poway, CA your permits will cost you close to 40K. PERMITS not inspection (that costs more). Also if there is a chance that the building will in some way effect the spotted hoirned ass knat then well the proce goes up.

IN Santee, California about 4 years ago there was a developer that wanted to build a golf course and about 400 condos. The city wanted an addional 2 million to help build on to a freeway that some of the people might use. also they DEMANDED that they not be proced lower than 250K. Why? taxes. Think about that demand of 2 million dollars over 400 units, that is an addional 5K per unit, UP front before buildiong could begin and in addional to almost 35K in permit fee plus inspection fees. This of course doesn't even begin to briong in to account the electric company and water district. Santee water gets almost 10K per meter. That is the cost of the hook up that is the cost of THE METER which you must buy from the city in order to get city water (or building permits). When you consider that your 1200 sq ft house is having more money go to the gov than to the lumber yard something is wrong.

The water distric of RAMONA, CA came up with a plan to raise revenue which inclusded charging 17K to HOOK UP to city water. the price before was high enough at 9K and the money went straight in to general fund spending.

Add the high cost of workmans comp in California, one of the highest in the country and the LACK OF LAND and you have your lack of housing.

Nice try but the average house in califonia changes owner about every 10 years so the cost isn't that bad and it prevents seniors on fixed incomes being taced out of there lifelong homes.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.

If I had the conifdence that the state would run around reassesing houses whenever then needed a few million more to hand out for health care for illegal aliens I would be all over repealing it. When I get that assurance you can call me but no until.

Prop 13 has done exactly what it is supposed to do. It allow people to stay in their homes over time.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.

If I had the conifdence that the state would run around reassesing houses whenever then needed a few million more to hand out for health care for illegal aliens I would be all over repealing it. When I get that assurance you can call me but no until.

Prop 13 has done exactly what it is supposed to do. It allow people to stay in their homes over time.
So until then you are fine with having people who just got raped on buying a house also getting raped subsidizing someone else's share of property taxes, while the guy whose net worth has grown through appreciation seats back and leeches off his newly moved in neighbors?
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.

If I had the conifdence that the state would run around reassesing houses whenever then needed a few million more to hand out for health care for illegal aliens I would be all over repealing it. When I get that assurance you can call me but no until.

Prop 13 has done exactly what it is supposed to do. It allow people to stay in their homes over time.
So until then you are fine with having people who just got raped on buying a house also getting raped subsidizing someone else's share of property taxes, while the guy whose net worth has grown through appreciation seats back and leeches off his newly moved in neighbors?
Why is it that some people have no problem taxing the hell out of someone because they "can afford it"

If I choose to stay in the same house for multiple years chances are I am a benifit to my neighborhood. Yes I may have had an appreiation on my property but why should I be taxed on that until it is realized? If tommorow my house that I paid 115K for 2 years ago was worth 250K I would actually be worst off then I am today. My taxes in MN would go through the roof due to the nature of MN's "PROGRESSIVE" propertyu tax structure.

I would begin paying a larger amount of taxes and what addition gain would I have? NONE. And while you may say well just sell and realize the gain there is a small problem with that logic.

IF my house suddenly doubled in value wouldn't also the houses in my area also rise. I should uproot my family just because I had the luck to buy a little lower. This actually hurts property value rather than helps it.

The people that prop 13 helps for the most part are thoose living on fixed incomes and retirees. My parents would have lost there house had it not been for prop 13. and when they do decide to move they will pay dearly through the nose on capital gains tax seing as the first house they purchased was aroung 12K they will have a "gain" of almost 400K. If sopmeone wants to save and make a house a "home" they should not be driven out of there house. Hasn't anyone in california noticed the bussiness running for there lives out of state and setting up shop in Nevada or for the love of god South Dakota:Q Why is it that south dakota is now a better place to run a bussiness. The weather sucks, the people do not have the education level and did I mention the weather sucks?

The state drove theese companies out with the heavy handed regs and taxation that have driven that state close to the brink.

Do do it to your citizens as well/.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.

If I had the conifdence that the state would run around reassesing houses whenever then needed a few million more to hand out for health care for illegal aliens I would be all over repealing it. When I get that assurance you can call me but no until.

Prop 13 has done exactly what it is supposed to do. It allow people to stay in their homes over time.
So until then you are fine with having people who just got raped on buying a house also getting raped subsidizing someone else's share of property taxes, while the guy whose net worth has grown through appreciation seats back and leeches off his newly moved in neighbors?
Why is it that some people have no problem taxing the hell out of someone because they "can afford it"

If I choose to stay in the same house for multiple years chances are I am a benifit to my neighborhood. Yes I may have had an appreiation on my property but why should I be taxed on that until it is realized? If tommorow my house that I paid 115K for 2 years ago was worth 250K I would actually be worst off then I am today. My taxes in MN would go through the roof due to the nature of MN's "PROGRESSIVE" propertyu tax structure.

I would begin paying a larger amount of taxes and what addition gain would I have? NONE. And while you may say well just sell and realize the gain there is a small problem with that logic.

IF my house suddenly doubled in value wouldn't also the houses in my area also rise. I should uproot my family just because I had the luck to buy a little lower. This actually hurts property value rather than helps it.

The people that prop 13 helps for the most part are thoose living on fixed incomes and retirees. My parents would have lost there house had it not been for prop 13. and when they do decide to move they will pay dearly through the nose on capital gains tax seing as the first house they purchased was aroung 12K they will have a "gain" of almost 400K. If sopmeone wants to save and make a house a "home" they should not be driven out of there house. Hasn't anyone in california noticed the bussiness running for there lives out of state and setting up shop in Nevada or for the love of god South Dakota:Q Why is it that south dakota is now a better place to run a bussiness. The weather sucks, the people do not have the education level and did I mention the weather sucks?

The state drove theese companies out with the heavy handed regs and taxation that have driven that state close to the brink.

Do do it to your citizens as well/.
Question for you:
Should two familes, making same amount of money, living in identical houses, whose kids go to the same schools, who use the same roads and government sevices pay the same amount of taxes for those government services, or should the family who moved in later subsidize the family that has been there for a while? What is your answer?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I try not to criticize my future home too much . . . but Prop 13 is dodo. You guys have way too much time and twits that cobble together these donkey poo initiatives. Why not just exempt the first 100K of homestead value and then apply a flat tax for the remainder for all citizens regardless of when their purchase took place?

Fixed income and the low wage get a reduction in their tax burden which will increase slowly over time b/c the tax exemption *should* always occupy a significant portion of their total home value. The average Bay Area or SoCal homeowner at 450K gets the same deduction plus the tax code would no longer punish mobility.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
For the flag wavers crying . . . "everybody should have to pay something" . . . I challenge you to find a significant number of habitable family abodes for less than 100K. Of course, the 100K exemption should be cost adjusted annually.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool

Question for you:
Should two familes, making same amount of money, living in identical houses, whose kids go to the same schools, who use the same roads and government sevices pay the same amount of taxes for those government services, or should the family who moved in later subsidize the family that has been there for a while? What is your answer?
The fact is peoples income does not rise at nearly the rate of the cost of property.

My parents could never afford the house they are in now.

My uncle could not afforsd to buy the house he lives in now. because in the last 15 year his property value has risen astronomically.

I assure you the people sho bought the nouse next to mt folks make considerably more than they do. My folks could not afford to have a 3000 dollar payment. They would have trouble with a 4K tax bill. They should lose there house because ithey weren't able to have their incomes rise at the same levels?

In california the number of people in houses who could never afford it had they notr bought even five years ago is astronomucal.

My old boss who lived in a house iun solana beach that is worth around 750K had paid around 150K 15 years ago. I know he would have had trouble with the tax bill. Well he could just lay off an employee to keep his home.

rarely do two people living in idenical house purchased even three years apart make the same amount. Prices rise too fast. As a homeowner I for one don;t like the idea of being taxed out of my house. I do like the idea of having STABILITY for my family.

I don't thnk it's fair that while I pay a tax rate of around 8% on my ioncome my sister actually pays zero tax and get more back than she paid in. If you want to talk about injustace there it is my freind not with the the SMALL percentage of people who are really getting a benifit off of prop 13.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The problem is you have to make waAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too many assumptions to justify your position. It's logical in isolation but why apply such a law when it essentially shifts the tax burden instead of making the system fair? Intelligent state and local governments use a balance of taxation so revenues remain: 1) relatively stable, 2) somewhat progressive to meet the needs of a growing community, 3) unlikely to exert a disproportionate burden on a particular demographic.

CA is a popular place and real benefits have accrued to people living in the Golden Gate state. Your boss . . . assuming he had the good sense to refinance recently . . . could extract the original purchase price of his home twice. He could pay off his mortgage, buy a new car, AND pay his fair share of progressive property taxes to help defray the costs of CA's expansion. The same expansion which by definition created the wealth in his home. If the real estate bubble bursts and his home decreases in vaue by 50%, he could sell and still have enough equity to make a good downpayment in his current market.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,318
4,015
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The problem is you have to make waAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too many assumptions to justify your position. It's logical in isolation but why apply such a law when it essentially shifts the tax burden instead of making the system fair? Intelligent state and local governments use a balance of taxation so revenues remain: 1) relatively stable, 2) somewhat progressive to meet the needs of a growing community, 3) unlikely to exert a disproportionate burden on a particular demographic.

CA is a popular place and real benefits have accrued to people living in the Golden Gate state. Your boss . . . assuming he had the good sense to refinance recently . . . could extract the original purchase price of his home twice. He could pay off his mortgage, buy a new car, AND pay his fair share of progressive property taxes to help defray the costs of CA's expansion. The same expansion which by definition created the wealth in his home. If the real estate bubble bursts and his home decreases in vaue by 50%, he could sell and still have enough equity to make a good downpayment in his current market.
What many old people want is not to owe. You may see leveraging your future by pilling on debt because you have a nice income stream and are confident in your earning potential. Other people want out of the rat race. There should be no tax on ones right to exist. Part of that right, I think, extends to a single home at least up to median value for that neighborhood. Leave the people who exist alone and tax what they do through sales and income tax. Property tax on the basics of life should be illegal. At a minimum the state should be required to provide a structured local volunteer state work program as a substitute for cash. It is hideous that a person needs to make money to live. The pursuit of happiness requires that a man be free.

 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

At a minimum the state should be required to provide a structured local volunteer state work program as a substitute for cash. It is hideous that a person needs to make money to live. The pursuit of happiness requires that a man be free.


Interesting. A "required...volunteer state."

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Bleep
Who in the heck is. Ahhhhhhhnuld ?

If you are talking about California someone somehow is going to have to pony up the money to get the state out of the huge debt that it has aquired when Enron and the deregulaters stole all the money.

Bleep
Well my sincere hope is that they'll slash whatever PORK is in the budget and tell the special interests to go find a giant stick to slide down, a$$ first.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imagine a world in which people had wings. Imagine how many houses we could have built since the time of Egypt and their quality if we lived without war. We could have billions of houses all over the earth empty, waiting for the wondering guest. Imagine a world in which you walked all over the earth staying a time here and a time there seeing all the sites. Only a fool fenses heaven.
Moonbeam.

Crack Pipe.

Down.

Jason
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
0
www.alirazeghi.com
There is almost no 'good thing' on prop 13. It's as if you wanted a haircut, got cancer and lost all your hair in chemo, and you view that as a good thing. lol.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
"President Bush is supporting Arnold but a lot of Republicans are not, because he is actually quite liberal. Karl Rove said if his father wasn't a Nazi, he wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all." ?Bill Maher
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,318
4,015
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

At a minimum the state should be required to provide a structured local volunteer state work program as a substitute for cash. It is hideous that a person needs to make money to live. The pursuit of happiness requires that a man be free.


Interesting. A "required...volunteer state."
Yeah, you would volunteer for what type of service you wanted to do and volunteer in lieu of paying taxes. You are just intentionally being obtuse. :D

 

desertdweller

Senior member
Jan 6, 2001
588
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: tm37
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Prop. 13 has to go. It's unfair. Why should people who just bought a house pay a lot more taxes than someone who has an identical house, even if they make same money.
Can't afford taxes? Too bad. Sell and move to an area you can afford. Don't expect someone who just moved in to pay your share.
Ok guy builds a mall a mile from your house. You property value doubles your payment increases by 300 a month. You should just move.
No, the guy who buys a house next to you should pay your share of estate taxes, even if he has the same house.
He is getting screwed on buying a house that is more expensive, and paying higher property taxes. You are getting a sweet deal of appreciation on your house, without having to suffer the side effects of that appreciation. It's an unfair law. It has to go.
And yes, if you can't afford property taxes on your house, you need to move. At least you are making out like a bandit on the appreciation.

If I had the conifdence that the state would run around reassesing houses whenever then needed a few million more to hand out for health care for illegal aliens I would be all over repealing it. When I get that assurance you can call me but no until.

Prop 13 has done exactly what it is supposed to do. It allow people to stay in their homes over time.
So until then you are fine with having people who just got raped on buying a house also getting raped subsidizing someone else's share of property taxes, while the guy whose net worth has grown through appreciation seats back and leeches off his newly moved in neighbors?
Why is it that some people have no problem taxing the hell out of someone because they "can afford it"

If I choose to stay in the same house for multiple years chances are I am a benifit to my neighborhood. Yes I may have had an appreiation on my property but why should I be taxed on that until it is realized? If tommorow my house that I paid 115K for 2 years ago was worth 250K I would actually be worst off then I am today. My taxes in MN would go through the roof due to the nature of MN's "PROGRESSIVE" propertyu tax structure.

I would begin paying a larger amount of taxes and what addition gain would I have? NONE. And while you may say well just sell and realize the gain there is a small problem with that logic.

IF my house suddenly doubled in value wouldn't also the houses in my area also rise. I should uproot my family just because I had the luck to buy a little lower. This actually hurts property value rather than helps it.

The people that prop 13 helps for the most part are thoose living on fixed incomes and retirees. My parents would have lost there house had it not been for prop 13. and when they do decide to move they will pay dearly through the nose on capital gains tax seing as the first house they purchased was aroung 12K they will have a "gain" of almost 400K. If sopmeone wants to save and make a house a "home" they should not be driven out of there house. Hasn't anyone in california noticed the bussiness running for there lives out of state and setting up shop in Nevada or for the love of god South Dakota:Q Why is it that south dakota is now a better place to run a bussiness. The weather sucks, the people do not have the education level and did I mention the weather sucks?

The state drove theese companies out with the heavy handed regs and taxation that have driven that state close to the brink.

Do do it to your citizens as well/.
Question for you:
Should two familes, making same amount of money, living in identical houses, whose kids go to the same schools, who use the same roads and government sevices pay the same amount of taxes for those government services, or should the family who moved in later subsidize the family that has been there for a while? What is your answer?
I don't think I've ever posted here in P&N, but, theres a first for everything right? :)

I personally think that property taxes should be Constitutionally illegal.

I think they need to do away with property taxes and make the difference up with adjustments
to income taxes. I cannot think of one single reason as to why property taxes are a "Just" tax.

No one should have to worry about the government taking away thier bought and paid for
home.

Of course, I also don't think there should be any deductions for home ownership either, but
thats a different topic.

DD
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY