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.
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.
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!
The Lock-in Effect of California's Proposition 13
www.nber.org
The only thing that says you can't develop residential on commercial land is zoning and the state legislature has started chipping away at that with SB6/AB2011. Yes people will absolutely sit on unused or underused land because the taxes are negligible.
So do you think it’s better to address that one specific issue or scrap all of prop 13 and bring in all the economic instability it would create?
So do you think it’s better to address that one specific issue or scrap all of prop 13 and bring in all the economic instability it would create?
Like I said, working on Prop 13 has to be part of comprehensive property reform - from taxes to zoning to NIMBY's to development to rent control to affordable housing. Otherwise yes, just attacking one part of the problem will make other problems. Like playing whack a mole. Gotta hit at least a few moles at once to make it work.
I don’t think that and I’m very confident you know this. It was an example for simplicity’s sake. Also, the first $500,000 in PROFIT for a couple is not taxed and the rest is taxed at low capital gains rates. It’s about the least taxed profit anyone can make in this world.I’m surprised you think when you sell a house that it’s all profit and none of that money is taxed, payed to realtors, or used to pay off mortgages and other loans tied to the house.
They don’t have to buy another house! You said they would be homeless, which was an obviously false claim. If your horror case is that someone might have to pocket their $1,000,000 and then rent instead I don’t really care.I’m also surprised that you think in a market where houses are scarce that they will not only be cheaper then the house someone currently lives in but then their increasing property taxes will also be taken care of with their “enormous profit”.
I would think that studies showing that prop 13 makes people much worse off would be highly relevant. Why are you not concerned about this?I was also pretty specific with what information I was looking for so no I don’t need studies that don’t address my question.
You have my voteI think my remaining top in CA would be:
prop 13 reform
ban discretionary review
CEQA reform
ministerial approval of projects
timely permits or the state issues for you
no shenanigans with state required housing planning (zoning cemeteries, landfills, for homes, etc) or else
baseline allowable densities that escalate with available infrastructure (rail, bus) and services (grocery, retail, restaurants, etc)
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.
I think you mean ‘never argued for’, right? Because I never have.I believe he has ever argued for demolishing single family units and replacing them with higher density housing.
What if my house has a view, and you want to build a multi-story house that blocks my views and destroys my property value?I think you mean ‘never argued for’, right? Because I never have.
My only argument is if you own a property and you want to build housing on it you should be able to build whatever housing you want so long as it’s safe.
Nobody forced to do anything, just allowing people to do stuff if they feel like it.
If you wanted to preserve your view you are welcome to purchase the adjoining property so it won't be used for that purpose.What if my house has a view, and you want to build a multi-story house that blocks my views and destroys my property value?
Libertarian views on property deny the reality that your neighbors directly affect the property values and standards of living of your property.
Of course it's all about keeping my own money. I busted my ass for every cent I ever earned. I paid the taxes on all of it as well. When I bought my home I barely afford it, and sweat blood for the next ten years to keep it.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.
Right, but what you’re asking for here is to keep more of your money than your neighbor gets to, even if you make an identical salary and own an identical property. You’re saying your tax rate should depend on when your purchased your home, I think that’s a dumb tax standard.Of course it's all about keeping my own money. I busted my ass for every cent I ever earned. I paid the taxes on all of it as well.
You clearly aren’t fine with a flat property tax, that’s my position!When I bought my home I barely afford it, and sweat blood for the next ten years to keep it.
Old people being forced out by taxes was a real thing, it happened, and it was wrong.
I'm fine with a flat property tax, but the idea that my taxes go up because the guy next door over paid for his home is ludacris.
Right, but what you’re asking for here is to keep more of your money than your neighbor gets to, even if you make an identical salary and own an identical property. You’re saying your tax rate should depend on when your purchased your home, I think that’s a dumb tax standard.
IMO the entire tax system needs an overhaul. Get rid of property tax, get red of sales tax, get rid of carbon tax, get rid of all these other random little taxes on every little thing. Have a flat 10% income tax that applies to everyone including rich people with zero loopholes that is dispersed to all levels of government (federal, provincial/state, municipal). Maybe even let us vote where it should go and it's distributed based on the results within reason (ex: the people have a 30% influence or something). Government spending needs to be slashed across the board and there should be a much smaller, streamlined and more efficient government. By making tax only based on income at least it will not price people out of their homes, and if they stop making money, they stop paying taxes. I think this is the most fair approach.
How bout that Musk guy, huh?
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.
Yes and when those young people get older they’ll be paying considerably less than younger people. So what?
Get rid of property tax, get red of sales tax, get rid of carbon tax, get rid of all these other random little taxes on every little thing. Have a flat 10% income tax that applies to everyone including rich people with zero loopholes that is dispersed to all levels of government (federal, provincial/state,
I don’t think that and I’m very confident you know this. It was an example for simplicity’s sake. Also, the first $500,000 in PROFIT for a couple is not taxed and the rest is taxed at low capital gains rates. It’s about the least taxed profit anyone can make in this world.
Needless to say, by definition if their property taxes are going way up their equity has gone way up as well.
They don’t have to buy another house! You said they would be homeless, which was an obviously false claim. If your horror case is that someone might have to pocket their $1,000,000 and then rent instead I don’t really care.
On top of my ‘pay your taxes after death’ proposal I am also open to paying any old person’s property taxes until they die with the stipulation I get the deed upon their death. Once again though, nobody wants to take me up on this because what they REALLY want is to pay lower taxes than other people AND reap an enormous financial windfall.
I would think that studies showing that prop 13 makes people much worse off would be highly relevant. Why are you not concerned about this?
They find that Proposition 13 definitely furthered continuity and stability, because it caused a substantial increase in the average tenure of California households relative to that of households in other states.
Even from Canuckistan, the Trump humper has identified himself in this thread.IMO the entire tax system needs an overhaul. Get rid of property tax, get red of sales tax, get rid of carbon tax, get rid of all these other random little taxes on every little thing. Have a flat 10% income tax that applies to everyone including rich people with zero loopholes that is dispersed to all levels of government (federal, provincial/state, municipal). Maybe even let us vote where it should go and it's distributed based on the results within reason (ex: the people have a 30% influence or something). Government spending needs to be slashed across the board and there should be a much smaller, streamlined and more efficient government. By making tax only based on income at least it will not price people out of their homes, and if they stop making money, they stop paying taxes. I think this is the most fair approach.
I like how you say this, and the next thing I see from you is that $100K is chump change for an elderly couple. People love to lie about this when what they really mean is they want to live as good as they were when they were earning income. How do you think minimum wage people afford rent in CA?
The prospect of owning is worse as the years go for obvious reason, so ironically CA rewards people who jump into good careers right away or had help from being part of an affluent family. But moreover, it makes WAAAY more sense to not burden people in their better years. And old people do what with all that money? Spend several thousand a month on a nursing home in their last years?
Income tax is the dumb tax. It should not apply for the vast majority. Property tax is extracting some of the rental value that the owner otherwise would keep despite not being responsible for it.
Creating an exception for primary residence would be easy to justify because we already provided prevledged treatment of primary residence capital gains. But yes, if you borrow again any other real property's gain that should be treated as a realized gain.So taking out a loan using your real property that's appreciated as colleterial would be off the table?