We're number 1!!!

[Amused]

I think what he meant by "opinion" was that he wanted a concise factual summary as opposed to a link that would take him a while to read. Nothing wrong with your link. I think he just wanted something shorter.

OK.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not so much California, but most

Seems everyone except native Californians realize how F'up prop 13 is. It's I got my piece of heaven, new comers, pay my way.

Yup, we can’t let the poor who are still poor but property rich keep any of that wealth they can’t spend. How dare they pass that unspendable wealth to their equally poor kids. Boy, anybody lucky enough to have accidentally bought in a place of rapid escalation in value should never be ably to stay where they live. tax them into the desert so the cash rich who have spendable income can move in and all the desirable places to live are owned by the monied rich. Envy is an ugly thing.

 

[ivwshane]

It lowered property taxes from 3% to 1%. But it also changed the system whereby properties get reassessed for tax purposes. The tax bill is based on 1% of your property value. The ordinary system is that county assessors will do a new appraisal for each property periodically, like once every five years. Under Prop 13, properties aren't reassessed until they are sold to a new owner. So if your house was appraised at $70,000 back in 1978 when Prop 13 was passed, and you never sold it, then you're still paying 1% of $70,000 ($700) in taxes every year even though your house is now worth $1.3 million. Furthermore, if you die and leave your property to your kids, the property will not be reassessed then either. So if you keep the property in your family, you and your progeny will pay a pittance in property tax for all eternity.

All this means that people in CA have a strong incentive to never sell their houses. Even when they move, they will often keep the property and rent it out rather than sell it. That means low supply in the housing market, which in turn means high prices.

Your taxes still go up it’s just that they can only go up a certain percentage per year. So a homeowner pays their 1% property tax on their original purchase price and then in subsequent years, depending on how the house is assessed (as in an increase in value or a decrease in value), their taxes will go up by a max percentage 2% per year.

For example homeowner A buys a house for 300k. Their initial property tax would be $3000.
Let’s say the market really takes off and the house is now worth 400k the following year. Their new assessed value of 400k would put their new tax rate at $3060 (initial purchase price x 1%(1.02%).

 

[woolfe9998]

Your taxes still go up it’s just that they can only go up a certain percentage per year. So a homeowner pays their 1% property tax on their original purchase price and then in subsequent years, depending on how the house is assessed (as in an increase in value or a decrease in value), their taxes will go up by a max percentage 2% per year.

For example homeowner A buys a house for 300k. Their initial property tax would be $3000.
Let’s say the market really takes off and the house is now worth 400k the following year. Their new assessed value of 400k would put their new tax rate at $3060 (initial purchase price x 1%(1.02%).

That is essentially correct, but the 2% is not a "reassessment." It's just an annual inflation increase. The property will never be reassessed unless or until there is a "change in ownership" that is not an "interfamily transfer" after death. I think my parents paid $700 a year initially based on the 1976 appraisal of $70,000. When they finally sold the house 5 years ago, they were paying like $1200. Based on what the house sold for, they should have been paying about $13,000.

 

[ivwshane]

Either way, I’m cool with it. It makes zero sense to pay higher property taxes just because the house I’m living in that I’m not selling, increases in value.

The claim that it makes it less likely that people will move is true and that’s a good thing. A stable and predictable place to live is not only good for citizens, it’s good for society in general.

 

[woolfe9998]

Either way, I’m cool with it. It makes zero sense to pay higher property taxes just because the house I’m living in that I’m not selling, increases in value.

The claim that it makes it less likely that people will move is true and that’s a good thing. A stable and predictable place to live is not only good for citizens, it’s good for society in general.

The problem is that due to high housing costs, it isn't affordable for many people to live around here. Last I checked we were 5th worst in poverty and one of the worst in homelessness. Prop 13 was a republican "tax revolt" initiative to enrich existing property owners at the expense of everyone else, including renters who might want to buy some day and are in the meantime enjoying sky high rents, and anyone who might want to move here from another state. It's very much like Mayor Koch famously saying that there's no point in moving to Manhattan if you don't make at least $50K a year (back in the 80's.)

"Welcome to California, now go fuck off."

 

[senseamp]

California that is. Number on for mass murder (four people or more) in the US. 12% of the population, 20% of the mass murders. Toughest gun laws of the fifty states. I have absolutely no idea why that is, who's willing to take a stab at it?

You MUST provide a valid link when putting forth such very specific statistics. Not doing so constitutes trolling.

Perknose
Forum Director

Florida is 12% of mass shootings, 6.4% of population. Higher rate per capita than CA.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem is that due to high housing costs, it isn't affordable for many people to live around here. Last I checked we were 5th worst in poverty and one of the worst in homelessness. Prop 13 was a republican "tax revolt" initiative to enrich existing property owners at the expense of everyone else, including renters who might want to buy some day and are in the meantime enjoying sky high rents, and anyone who might want to move here from another state. It's very much like Mayor Koch famously saying that there's no point in moving to Manhattan if you don't make at least $50K a year (back in the 80's.)

"Welcome to California, now go fuck off."

I’m not seeing the connection. Our housing/rental prices are high because we haven’t been building out enough and it’s been that way since the 70’s. Sure you could blame prop 13 (or give it partial credit for it) but you’d be blaming a positive consequence. It would be similar to creating policies that raise the education level of people and then complain when a more educated workforce leads to higher educated people doing more menial jobs because of a shortage of high skilled jobs.

 

[woolfe9998]

I’m not seeing the connection. Our housing/rental prices are high because we haven’t been building out enough and it’s been that way since the 70’s. Sure you could blame prop 13 (or give it partial credit for it) but you’d be blaming a positive consequences. It would be similar to creating policies that raise the education level of people and then complain when a more educated workforce leads to higher educated people doing more menial jobs because of a shortage of high skilled jobs.

Blaming a positive consequence?

There are two problems which are choking off our housing supply. One is prop 13. The other is anti-growth policies at the local level which are spurred by NIMBYism. But actually, it's the same problem. These rich liberals NIMBYs who oppose all housing development are the same people who oppose modifying Prop 13, a GOP initiative back in the 70's that liberals screamed about at the time.

We have a greed problem here and it's making the state very inhospitable for those of modest means.

It's really a story of the United States of America, actually, not just its most populous state.

 

[ivwshane]

Blaming a positive consequence?

There are two problems which are choking off our housing supply. One is prop 13. The other is anti-growth policies at the local level which are spurred by NIMBYism. But actually, it's the same problem. These rich liberals NIMBYs who oppose all housing development are the same people who oppose modifying Prop 13, a GOP initiative back in the 70's that liberals screamed about at the time.

We have a greed problem here and it's making the state very inhospitable for those of modest means.

It's really a story of the United States of America, actually, not just its most populous state.

Lol wanting to be able to stay in a home you purchased and originally could afford, isn’t greed.
I’m also not sure why you think a “gop initiative” is a relevant argument against it.

It’s a lack of housing, period. We do agree on why there is a lack of housing though, nimbyism and zoning restrictions have been killer.

 

[K1052]

Lol wanting to be able to stay in a home you purchased and originally could afford, isn’t greed.
I’m also not sure why you think a “gop initiative” is a relevant argument against it.

It’s a lack of housing, period. We do agree on why there is a lack of housing though, nimbyism and zoning restrictions have been killer.

Yes it's greed and terrible policy as well. Freezing the housing supply with actions like this is a big factor in the state's low housing production, especially where it needs a lot more housing (where values have risen most).

Restrictive local control is the other side of this preventing higher utilization of land but these issues are walking hand in hand. If property taxes were reassessed regularly there would be a lot of political demand to up-zone not keep things as they are. Somebody paying 1970s era taxes on an owned asset they can pass to their kids without taxes doesn't feel like anything should (ever I guess) change.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think we're No. 2 if you take my meaning.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes it's greed and terrible policy as well. Freezing the housing supply with actions like this is a big factor in the state's low housing production, especially where it needs a lot more housing (where values have risen most).

Restrictive local control is the other side of this preventing higher utilization of land but these issues are walking hand in hand. If property taxes were reassessed regularly there would be a lot of political demand to up-zone not keep things as they are. Somebody paying 1970s era taxes on an owned asset they can pass to their kids without taxes doesn't feel like anything should (ever I guess) change.

The inheritance tax relief isn’t something I agree with and it wasn’t part of the original proposition 13 law. Two subsequent laws passed that allowed for this.

 

[senseamp]

California is still paying for 50 year old Republican policies. Effectively we are punishing people who are just entering the housing market, which are new parents, just as they have peak expenses but haven't reached peak earnings. Result is young people are delaying and cutting down on having kids, and we are slowly becoming an old geezer state with a landed tax privileged hereditary aristocracy to boot.