damnit, i missed that. now i am annoyed too, it was a terrific resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbowski
Printable View
damnit, i missed that. now i am annoyed too, it was a terrific resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbowski
Yeah, it's a complex problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
The only savings in SC vs NH is no air conditioning and minimal heat needed.
The upfront cost is one thing, but I'm having a hard time with the annual property tax. I do appreciate the prop 13 tax law for existing. That's cool for the locals who grew up there, but jeezus, if they want to move across town they're fucked.
I can appreciate some of the sentiment behind prop 13 (though I believe there was some straight up anti-tax ideology that was behind its original promotion?), but I think the problems/inequalities it’s creating vastly outweigh any benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackstraw
Haha. Texas and VT are in the same range. Haha. I'll stay in VT, thx.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
It was a crude means to reign in spending, which had in some cases gotten profligate.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Santa Cruz will never build itself cheap because there’s not enough water. The SCWD is mostly surface water, surrounding areas are in several cases 100% ground pumped, some in the past unsustainably so, or with potential pollution issues.
This is I think the misdirection in tax stuff - California has a myriad of local districts that do their own thing and charge you, but aren’t counted as taxes. E.G. Santa Cruz county has a half dozen water districts, over a half dozen sanitation districts, parks districts, etc etc. all with workers and generally with far less oversight
Yeah, I was looking at the wallethub source info, per the map graphic. My point was there's a Toyota Tax to live in CA. Except it's real estate. And the RPP data bears that out (with only Hawaii being higher)Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Yep, agree. And I did point out that housing is expensive in my original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker
That said - going back to the point I was originally making - I still find it annoying that people are always saying CA is a high tax state, when they really mean rich people in CA would like taxes to be lower.
Oh yeah, definitely. And really they're pushing for a rightward swing of the political pendulum.
I'm sure there was some anti-tax ideology behind it. But it was also driven by a lot of long-time homeowners getting forced out for the simple reason they couldn't afford the taxes after assessed home values rose significantly more than their incomes (many were retirees on fixed incomes). That was in the 1970s when it was legitimate demand from population growth and inflation driving price increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
These days you also have the wealthy buying second homes, offshore cash-only buyers, institutional investors snapping up homes, airbnb operators, and house flippers all driving prices sky high while removing housing stock from the market for personal gain.
If anything prop13 insulates homeowners from this price inflation allowing them to stay in their homes. I'm not sure how you see this as creating inequality.
The reason prop13 passed is 100% because there were a lot older folks getting taxed out of their homes. Was that the real reason Jarvis and Gann pushed it? Probably not but it was the political spearhead that got the whole thing thorough the referendum passage. At the time, I’d say less than 1% knew that prop 13 applied to corporations as well. If they had, my suspicion is it would have had a much more difficult if not impossible time passing.Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
I’m not sure it’s bad for home owners to be able to lock in a tax rate at the time of purchase. I mean in essence isnt property tax infinitely repeating sales tax? While in my neighborhood, I pay 10k a year less than one of my neighbors and 10k more than another. It seems weird but at least you know what your signing up for - although the capped rate gann and Jarvis pitched doesn’t seem so capped anymore for homeowners. Yet Corps seem to have not much difficulty evading it. At any rate, the only guy I know if my hood that thinks his rate is unfair is a libertarian anyway. So fuck him just because.
The ability for Corps to magically avoid step ups in property does annoy me though
I’m sure you can find some detailed explainer of the disadvantages, but three I can think of off the bat:Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
Fairness - why should two people living in equal homes potentially be paying vastly different amounts in taxes? You could have two near-retirees living next to one another, making the same income, but if one’s life circumstances required several moves whereas the other was able to stay in one place, the person who was luck6 enough to have a stable life/career/ etc. gets a big tax break.
Revenue volatility - property taxes are very stable, so in times of recession there aren’t huge drop offs in state revenue - that keeps vital services like schools, police, etc. from having to be drastically cut. If property taxes are kept low, that requires making up the difference from more volatile avenues.
Housing supply - since long term homeowners are sheltered from the increased house prices, they are insulated from the lack of housing being built in CA. It’s NIMBY’s everywhere, and they are able to block new construction, driving up house prices - including their own - and they just get to benefit from that without incurring the cost that would be incurred if they had to pay taxes on those inflating house prices.
Has any other other state enacted a policy similar to Prop 13? Shouldn’t someone have if it was good policy?
If the issue is actually concern about retirees being forced out of their homes, there are better, more targeted policies that could address that.
Attachment 452871
Attachment 452872
I'd be interested to hear what those better policies are.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Fairness - Lots of things aren't fair when it comes to taxes. Lets say the two neighbors have similar cars/driving habits but one drives an ICE car while the other drives an EV thus paying no gas tax (and got a big tax credit for buying the car). Is that fair? Or they make the same income but one neighbor pays no income tax because he has a bunch of deductions not available to the other. Is that fair? Not much different than your guy whose circumstances required him to move a few times while the other pays low property taxes because he has owned his home for many years. They're each just following the tax rules that are in place. You can't account for all the factors in everyone's life that might change how those rules apply. Like Mcski said, at least with Prop 13 you know what you're signing up for when you buy a place.
The neighbor who is taxed on the full market value isn't paying that because a bunch of tech bros and snow birds bought places around him and drove up his assessed property value. He IS the tech bro or snow bird driving up property values. He was able to afford the full purchase price and would have factored property taxes on that price into his offer. If taxes were a problem, he wouldn't have bought the place. I have a hard time sympathizing with him for that reason.
The long-time homeowner on the other hand could have done everything right all along - plan for retirement, save up, pay off mortgage. But now through no fault of his own he gets taxed out simply because others with lots of money move in around him. It's one thing if that was other local families competing for limited housing stock. But as I said prices in areas like SD coast are driven up more by the wealthy paying cash for second homes, offshore buyers, institutional investors, and airbnb operators snapping up housing stock. I don't think it's fair that people get taxed out of their homes simply because other people who may not even live there full time want somewhere to park their money. So yeah I really don't have a problem with the long-time homeowner getting a tax break. Taxing people out of homes will just ensure even more wealth transfers to the rich.
Revenue volatility - property taxes do have volatility during recessions. Look at 2008-09 and subsequent years. There was a significant decrease in assessed values in CA as the housing market tanked. It took many years for that to recover. Things like water sources drying up and inability to get fire insurance could impact property values significantly and trigger reassessments and lower tax revenue across the state. Whether some people get a break due to Prop 13 or not property taxes are still more predictable than other sources like sales and capital gains tax.
Housing supply - I don't buy your argument. If you pay big money to move into a neighborhood, you're buying there for a reason and won't want the area changed. And having money you're more likely to have connections and influence to help keep it that way. NIMBYs are going to NIMBY whether they are new to the neighborhood or not. Last one in closes the door to keep everyone else out.
I got a coupon in the mail from my Toyota dealer for a $50 oil change, and my RAV4 is due, so I took it in. Before I even got my coffee cup out of the cup holder they had me up to $700 in "major services" needed for my car.
I pulled up the Toyota website and showed them the recommended services for my mileage, and the guy pulls out a piece of paper with words on it and says,
"See this paper here is from a company called Yotota, and it says you need to replace your blinker fluid every 3,000 miles or your car will blow up."
"Ok, I get that, but the literal maintenance website says that all I need is this, so I'm going to just do what they say."
"Sir, you don't understand, this paper says differently"
"Ok, I get that, but there is a disconnect, and I just want my $50 oil change please."
"Sure, we can do that, but if you don't pay us $10,000 to replace every screw in your car we are going to call Ron Desantis and tell him you're running a drag brunch for infants."
"Ok, well I live in Oregon, I think I'll be fine."
"Sounds good, we'll have your car ready for you in June."
I did this to myself, but holy hell.
The report was prepared by Terri Sexton, an economics professor at California State University, Sacramento, and associate director of the University of California, Davis, Center for State and Local Taxation, and by Mark Haveman, executive director of the Minnesota Taxpayers Association. They recommend four alternatives to Proposition 13:Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
• "Circuit breaker programs" that cut taxes when they rise above a certain percentage of income.
• "Truth in taxation" measures that require public notice or even elections before tax revenues may exceed the prior year's total.
• "Deferral options" that permit qualifying owners to delay tax payments until their home is sold or estate is settled.
• "Partial exemptions" for owner-occupied housing units, and "classified tax rates" that permit rates to rise for commercial and industrial properties.
https://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2107
That’s why CA YIMBY’s have been pushing for state level zoning reform - to keep localities from closing those doors.Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
The EV argument is BS: the goal is intentionally to treat those two owners differently, to incentivize the purchase of EVs. You may disagree with that goal, but there’s a purpose to it.
The tax system is never going to be perfectly fair, but treating individuals in same socioeconomic situation should be one of the goals.
All sources of revenue are going to have some volatility but, on average, property taxes are less volatile, so there’s a benefit to getting a larger proportion of state revenue from them.
More literal "shit" that is annoying. Freaking feral cats been going to town on my raised gardens. Have a nice bumper crop of strawberries coming in nicely and the asshole cats have decided to party in there each night using it as a litterbox. Just spent the last 1/2 hour dispatching of all the turds. We don't feed the cats but are backed up to a commercial space with a couple restaurants so there's too many to deal with. Dog's doing his best to keep chasing them out of the yard but I guess it's their turf at night. This means war! Working on preparing a chili spray right now. Grrrrr.... lil' bastards.
https://media.tenor.com/yBksw5IM0qsA...-bunny-war.gif
But that's what's worng with your argument--the people paying different prperty taxes on essentially the same houses are not in the same socioeconomic situation. Given that housing prices in CA have gone up much faster than income--the person who bought the house he could afford 40 years ago for 119,000 has not had their income increase enough to pay the taxes on that house if is assessed at 1M. Presumably the person who buys the house next door--same size--for 1.3M can afford the taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Yes there are problems with Prop13 but they pale beside the problem of retirees being forced to sell because they can't pay the taxes. Where do they live? I was there when Prop 13 passed (I voted against it). It was a real problem. A law where the taxes on the actual value are deferred to sale might make sense, if there were exceptions to allow people to be able to afford to downsize in retirement. (Tht's Prop 19--it allows people to transfer the assessed value of their old house to a new house. I voted against that one too.)
The bigger equity problem than Prop13 is stepped up basis, which is what allows wealthy families to increase their wealth gap over the less fortunate. When heirs sell the house the capital gain should be based on the original purchase price. (That would really suck if your mansion was built by your ancestor in 1850 for $10,000.) And while we're at it, tax capital gains like ordinary income (but allow the gain to be adjusted for inflation.)
The people aren’t always of the same socioeconomic status, but they often are, and the fact that the law is structured in a way that it would treat them vastly differently is a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
This issue isn’t unique to CA, and there are better alternatives available.
Two more negative consequences:
Lock-in: If you’ve lived in your home for a long time and are benefiting from the artificially low tax rate, then there’s a disincentive to move, even if it’s an opportunity that would make your life better (career, more desirable location). That’s a negative for individuals, and it’s bad for productivity in the economy.
Commercial real estate - potentially never need to move or sell.
Attachment 452939
Huge disparity on commercial properties right next door to one another.
Or how about private golf courses: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...30-column.html
Huge subsidy for wealthy recreation. That land would be put to much more productive use if the clubs had to pay taxes on the actual land value.
Edit: My neighborhood is relatively new, construction started right before the housing crisis. Almost everyone on my street has kids in school, and are upper-middle-class working professionals. Some bought at the bottom of the crash, we moved in about six years ago, a couple have moved in in the last two years. We’re all paying drastically different amounts in taxes right now.
I think the stepped up basis is a good thing in general. But maybe a cap to prevent the Uber wealthy from creating more generational money.
I was shockedQuote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Cats don't give a shit about pepper or garlic or whatever. The only thing that works is small wire mesh rolls. Make the mesh small enough to keep the birds away too and it's a double win.Quote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
Biggest issue with prop 13 is that it doesn't keep up with inflation. 2% per year maximum upward adjustment based on the county assessor. I bought in 2008 near the bottom of the crash. Now my house is worth probably about double, 15 years later. It will take 21 more years for my taxes to catch up to today's value. And guess what? In 21 years my taxes will be even further behind that.
This creates an issue because the towns and cities that have a housing supply that doesn't turn over. Over time, they will not get the tax revenue they need to keep up with basic services, so localities are finding other ways to tax property owners. Change the maximum annual adjustment to 4% for residential housing and something even higher for businesses and let taxes catch up over time.
It annoys that that annual residential property tax is even a thing. Property should be taxed once like everything else, not repeated trips to the well. City services and infrastructure can get funded in other ways.
Noted. Damn. Will chicken wire work? I got a good bit left over from my grape trellis I just did.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
So you pay tax only when you buy a new house? Yeah, don’t see any issue with that….Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
Land value tax would be even better though (assessment is based on the value of the land only, not the improvements on it). Not putting land to productive use, sucks to you, you’re still paying taxes on it because you’re keeping others from being able to put it to good use:
Milton Friedman stated: "There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."