« First « Previous Comments 17 - 56 of 111 Next » Last » Search these comments
if prop 13 was killed ...what would the new typical tax rate be in CA? Assume we kept the total amount of tax revenue the same.
Your poor financial choices of buying things you can't afford, are not granny's fault.
Clearly granny isn't your enemy, the problem is out of control government spending and inflation that is brought on by government. Focus on that instead.
What are you talking about? You just said Granny is pulling in $1,100/Mo in social security. Sounds like Granny made some poor financial choices with her bare bones property taxes on a $1M+ shack.
So let's tax the productive people at 13% on the state level and then rip them a new one on property taxes when they buy a home when they're 30
So let's tax the productive people at 13% on the state level and then rip them a new one on property taxes when they buy a home when they're 30. This makes all the sense in the w
So, w/o prop 13, instead of paying a current 1% property tax rate, we could use 0.66% and maintain the same tax revenue.
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysDo you read? TYPE and size. You must be a Prop13-humper.Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
DASKAA saysPrivilegedtobeWhite saysDo you read? TYPE and size.Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
OK, change it to "in the small city in the middle of Mojave desert". Better?No
Still insist that parcels of the same size and type (residential, commercial) should be taxed the same per sq foot at both locations?Never insisted that about location. Why couldn't location play into it as well? So, type, size and location. Or, the alternative is the pathetic system we have now.
No one HAS to live in CA. If you can't afford it, get the fuck out.
Don't tax based on the value, but on the type and size of the parcel of land.
Never insisted that about location. Why couldn't location play into it as well? So, type, size and location.
Who decides local taxes today?
I get it. You have a law unfairly favoring you and you don’t want to lose it, but the key word there is “unfair”. It’s easy to forget about people getting screwed when you benefit, so you’ll keep blindly fighting against new ideas to fix it.
The facts are this. Taxes levied today are to pay for expenses of today, not of 20 years ago.
In CA, is because the base that the tax is charged against can't change beyond what it was set at at the time of the property's purchase. And the rate is constitutionally capped to 1%. A reassessment of the the property tax payment thus can only be made a) when the property ownership changes or b) there is construction done.
So a house that was bought for $200k would pay 1% at most on that $200k value for all time until it was sold or construction was done.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysHuh? No one said we wouldn’t have rules. I’m suggesting we have different rules. Your argument above is convoluted and makes no sense. Why is detaching from market price the “road to the abyss”? lol. Because you say so?Who decides local taxes today?
I get it. You have a law unfairly favoring you and you don’t want to lose it, but the key word there is “unfair”. It’s easy to forget about people getting screwed when you benefit, so you’ll keep blindly fighting against new ideas to fix it.
The facts are this. Taxes levied today are to pay for expenses of today, not of 20 years ago.
Today the taxes are based on transaction price and rules governing the increase. The rules were set by voters in a tax revolt. But at least we have rules. Going from the system based on rules to the system based on "fairness by fiat" and not anchored even to market price is the road to abyss.
Why is detaching from market price the “road to the abyss”?
We are already firmly on that road with highest electricity rates in the nation and shittiest electric transmission infrastructure causing forest fires like a fucking clockwork
highest gas taxes in the nation
highest per-pupil spending in the nation and schools among the shittiest
shittiest roads
highest state income taxes and not much to show for them
Right: let's tax the same amount per sq foot of land in Palo Alto and in the middle of Mojave desert. It's the only fair way to do it!
@DASKAA Where do you get the idea that those bits of land should be taxed the same?
No one is suggesting that.
Taxes should be proportional to land market values.
FortWayneIndiana saysBecause at old age people should pay less.
if prop 13 was gone
Quigley saysFortWayneIndiana saysBecause at old age people should pay less.
Who knew ? Fort Wayne is a socialist ?
Why shouldn't they just sell their million dollar home and live somewhere cheaper. Why are they so entitled ?
Oh yeah. Some republicans only like the kind of socialism that goes to the corporations and the wealthy.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysFirst off, Prop13 is completely unfair for the aforementioned reasons in this thread. Pinning it to market value is unfair for the "poor granny" reasons we've talked about, but more importantly, how does an increase in market value increase government expenses so that they would need more taxes? It makes no sense. Taxes should be levied based upon government need to spend them, not because the market goes ape-shit. If the market tanks, does that mean the government's expenses go down to maintain infrastructure? No. This is why taxes should be assessed in a different way...tying to the market makes no logical sense.Why is detaching from market price the “road to the abyss”?
Because it opens the door to assigning taxes and fees based purely on government fiat. And with pinko one-party government rule we have in CA it is exactly that - road to abyss. We are already firmly on that road with highest electricity rates in the nation and shittiest electric transmission infrastructure causing forest fires like a fucking clockwork, highest gas taxes in the nation and shittiest roads, highest per-pupil spending in the nation and schools among the shittiest, highest state income taxes and not much to show for them, etc.
So, what are the "rules detached from the market price" you propose? Use two 3-bedroom houses of the same size and on the same-sized plots in Palo Alto, CA and Mojave, CA as an example. I'm genuinely curious of what people talking about "fairness" really mean.
What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee
Why do Virtue Signalling right wingers always want big government to come in and interfere with The Market?
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysWow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee
Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.
What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee to levy on homeowners based upon the defined characteristics: size of land, type of land (residential vs commercial), location, etc.Why?
Add to that the number of school age children.
DASKAA saysPrivilegedtobeWhite saysWow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee
Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.
PrivilegedtobeWhite saysWow. You guys love having property tax linked to market value. Let me guess...you pay very little each year while your neighbors pay a lot, and you get to enjoy others paying more for services that you benefit from. Again, I understand why you want to keep Prop 13 because it unfairly benefits you, but it's still wrong no matter how you spin it.DASKAA saysPrivilegedtobeWhite saysWow, you’re smart. Did I miss any punctuation too? So what about responding to the important aspects to what I said?What I propose is that every municipality determine a flat fee
Property taxes are collected at county level, not municipal. Unincorporated areas have no "municipality" per se.
This is not important? The proposal is essentially to stop collecting property taxes at county level in lieu of collecting some Gosplan-calculated fee completely divorced from the property's value, but it completely misses to mention what will replace the revenue stream the county will lose with property taxes going away. Let me guess: another "carefully-calculated fee, not...
First off, Prop13 is completely unfair for the aforementioned reasons in this thread. Pinning it to market value is unfair for the "poor granny" reasons we've talked about, but more importantly, how does an increase in market value increase government expenses so that they would need more taxes? It makes no sense. Taxes should be levied based upon government need to spend them, not because the market goes ape-shit. If the market tanks, does that mean the government's expenses go down to maintain infrastructure? No. This is why taxes should be assessed in a different way...tying to the market makes no logical sense.
I challenge this. Real-life example: a house in AlCo bought in 2013 for ~$800K had property taxes set at ~$8.5K at that time. Current property tax ~$12.5 with Zillow showing zestimate at ~$1.2M (I know, I know) . Hardly a "1% at most on $200K value for all time". It seems that the current system does pretty good job tracking the raising prices.
« First « Previous Comments 17 - 56 of 111 Next » Last » Search these comments
Right now, you have this huge dichotomy in taxes - someone pays 2k per yr, while their neighbor pays 16k for a comparable house.
I think right now we pay about 1% of the assessed value in CA unless there's special junk like melo roos or w/e they're called. But, 1% would be way too much if everyone were paying it and the assessed value was updated yearly without any yearly growth caps.