patrick.net

Reality says

Taxation has nothing to do with mutually agreed transactions. It is armed robbery dressed up in legality. When you are robbed at gun point, you are not exactly getting a service called "being allowed to live." Duress makes the contract invalid. Taxation does not pretend to be a contract. Only morons would dream up "social contract" because they don't understand what "meeting of mind" is in contract law.

There are tax takers and tax givers. Most ANTI prop 13 are communist tax takers. Occasionally there are just some jealous young who don't want to work for anything, and just whine that their neighbor has more than they do, such as evilmonkeyboy. But mostly it's just envy.

>Renters pay 0% in property taxes, so why is it fair when owners pay taxes and renters dont?

Renters pay rent. Owner of rented property pay property tax. Do you think two entities (renter as well as owner) pay property tax for one property?
Have a clear thinking.

Blurtman says

it certainly was all about Granny getting evicted because her $40k starter was now worth $1 million. Hey Granny, take out a HELOC.

My own grandmother - God rest her soul - was forced, FORCED, to live in a $650,000 home in Santa Monica which had only appreciated 9000% from her initial investment.

Though she had paid off the $6500 mortgage by 1970 - a hard sacrifice over the first 20 years of owning - well she knew that Jerry Brown and his moll Linda Ronstadt were as good as parked in the street in front of her home, with fedoras, cigars, and tommy guns.

Prop. 13 saved her from not having to do anything, since she was easily paying her 1978-level property taxes (how the ghost of Stalin must have smiled at the thought of such rates) on her modest pension.

Never forget: choosing individuals for lenient tax treatment is not the same thing as just writing a check to those individuals; totally different thing, so stop saying that. Writing a check to one person, using money paid for by other taxpayers, is completely different from just not taxing that person: the first is totally welfare, while the second is not. Every conservative understands this, because it is a fundamental principle of the constitutional mind. Conservatives have the capacity for strategic and constitutional thought which enables them to understand this distinction, a constitutional principle those of less constitutional minds do not grasp. Another example: all government spending is waste, but the Pentagon is not the government. Constitutional. Sober. Prudent.

I have Prop. 13 to thank for saving Grandma from dirty liberals and immigrant union thugs.

Onebuyer says

>Renters pay 0% in property taxes, so why is it fair when owners pay taxes and renters dont?

Renters pay rent. Owner of rented property pay property tax. Do you think two entities (renter as well as owner) pay property tax for one property?

Have a clear thinking.

Yeah, even though I rent I'd assume that the property taxes are somewhat passed into the rent (if still affordable), so there's no easy escape just by renting ;)

FortWayne says

marcus says

We haven't had a raise in pay since 2006. In fact we only just had our pay get back up to that 2006/2007 level last year, it was cut from 2009 - 2011.

Do you even realize what happened in the rest of the non-unionized private sector world that is paying taxes to pay your salary? Nobody had any raises, many lost jobs or took lower paying jobs. You have nothing to complain about. Be happy you didn't lose yours like many people did.

I wasn't complaining. I was just pointing out what your supposed union bloodsucking actually looks like.

Onebuyer says

>Renters pay 0% in property taxes, so why is it fair when owners pay taxes and renters dont?

Renters pay rent. Owner of rented property pay property tax. Do you think two entities (renter as well as owner) pay property tax for one property?

Have a clear thinking.

Property taxes are paying for government services, not for a privilege of living in a house. Benefits everyone enjoys. Besides most "owners" are paying mortgages... it's not exactly free. We paid cash for ours, but we saved for years in order to do that. No one gave us all that cash.

I'm not advocating renters pay taxes on what they rent. I was just using it as an example because some of those communist agitators on this site scream "life is unfair" when they don't want to work for it, and see their neighbor pay less in taxes.... they just want everything given to them. Their version of fair is beating everyone else who has more into poverty, like Bolsheviks.

marcus says

I wasn't complaining. I was just pointing out what your supposed union bloodsucking actually looks like.

Fine. But what about those BART stikers? Putting the state in jeopardy just so they can strong arm beat down taxpayers into giving them more money. In a normal world they would all be fired for destructive stunts like that.

We don't have any prop 13 here in pennsylvania, and the old aren't displaced by burdensome prop taxes increases.

Commie bastards

errc says

We don't have any prop 13 here in pennsylvania, and the old aren't displaced by burdensome prop taxes increases.

Commie bastards

Starbucks-sucking Stalin-loving fruitbats, the lot of them. I hope their Birkenstocks stick under their Subaru brake pedals and they all crash into those trees they love to hug so much.

What Pennsylvania has become would make even Karl Marx vomit.

FortWayne says

But what about those BART stikers?

I don't know much about it, but I know the cost of living is very high up there in SF.

You have to realize, that without collective representation, workers would not get raises often enough. Sure nobody including most union employees have received pay increases since 2008. Maybe Bart employees were overdue for a raise in 2008. Again, I don't know. But you can be sure that if they are willing to go on strike (if they vote for it) in this economic environment and with the current public perception of unions and govt workers (in some corners), then they probably deserve to receive some serious negotiations.

John Bailo says

Bay Area homes are sky high because of Prop 13, forcing people to rent in urban density.

The wouldn't be anywhere near a subway if they could get real homes.

There are plenty of real homes near a subway. Walnut Creek or Pleasanton are not exactly models of "urban density".

Here, I found this.

$80,000: Median pay for BART employees, according to the Los Angeles Times.

$80,703: Income required for a single parent with two kids “to attain a secure yet modest living standard” in the Bay Area, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

You can argue that it's excessive, or not fair if all similarly skilled jobs don't pay the same. But this is 2013 in SF.

The biggest thing you miss is that this affects other jobs. Without govt jobs holding the line on what is a fair pay level, everyones standard of living collapses even faster.

What I always hear you rooting for is a faster collapse and disappearance of the middle class.

You don't need to repeat the same old line about taxes - I get it - there are two sides to this. THat's why the median pay for govt workers isn't much higher. The question is where is the balance ? What's best for everyone ?

Sorry if I'm making it too complex. I know you prefer the overly simplified "unions and government workers are bloodsucking scum." Sorry if it's too late for you to learn anything or to appreciate the more subtle and complex aspects of most important questions.

I know that black and white is easier. "These are the good guys and these are the bad guys." It would be so much easier to understand the world if things were more like this. But unfortunately seeing the world in that way often involves dishonesty.

John Bailo says

errc says

We don't have any prop 13 here in pennsylvania, and the old aren't displaced by burdensome prop taxes increases.

Texas has the highest property taxes in the country.

2% !

And they have low cost homes because of it.

Texas!!!

This is true, and shows that people will do things that are in their best interest. At 2% tax, every $100,000 tacked on to a house is another $2k on tax the owner must pay, so people don't see a path to wealth in ever increasing prices. Example: Austin is a popular city, and went through its own bubble recovery this year. The difference is that LA rose around 20% or 100k per house, while Austin rose 8% or around $20k per house.
Hmmmmmmmm.

Some would say that prop13 is the reason California government is so dysfunctional and the primary reason that taxes here are so very high. When you're not taxing half or more of the properties at anything like a regular mil rate, you get far less revenue from RE taxes, and thus must make up for this in:
1) high fuel tax
2) high registration tax
3) high state income tax
4) high utilities taxes, cell phone, Internet, cable, energy
And there are many other taxes.

Point is: giving long-time landholders a huge break on RE taxes means all of us have to pay far more in other taxes. There's no free lunch. Unless you're on welfare, then it's free. But for those of us paying the taxes, things should be a lot more fair.

I propose a reduction in income tax by 3% across the board, gas taxes go down 25 cents a gallon, and the car registration tax reduced by 50% in return for a repealed prop 13, with a fixed rate of 25% of assessed amount for seniors over 65 years of age.

We'd be a lot better off. Who's in favor?

marcus says

You can argue that it's excessive, or not fair if all similarly skilled jobs don't pay the same. But this is 2013 in SF.

By the way. If everything were privatized or in other ways those working directly or indirectly for the govt were paid part time wallmart level wages, then eventually they would all have to receive food stamps and other supplemental subsidies, including health care, which comes out of your taxes anyway. But it might cost you a little less. And the quality of the services would be lower too. Maybe by a lot.

Everyone loses under such a scenario. Even the plutocrats (your gods). They're just too myopic to realize it.

Regarding argument that prop 13 discourages selling homes in order to preserve tax basis - assuming that someone is 55 years or older, prop 60 allows one time preservation of original tax basis if new property is same or older market value and is in the same county. Prop 90 is also out there where you can switch homes of equal or lesser market value on an inter-county basis - there are 8 counties that recognize prop 90 - alameda, el dorado, los angeles, orange, san diego, mateo, santa clara and vetura. So, the geezers are not exactly locked into their homes for a lifetime no matter what.

You know who else taxed everyone at the same rate, without consideration to length of property ownership?

Adolf Hitler!

HydroCabron says

You know who else taxed everyone at the same rate, without consideration to length of property ownership?

Adolf Hitler!

You do understand they go up by 2% every year, that is constant, even with prop 13? Just prop 13 keeps it down to 2% so that if bubbles arise your taxes do not. We bought our place in the early 90's. Our property taxes have gone up almost every year since that day by 2% annually. Today my taxes are same as if you were to buy my place today. So there isn't a massive tax break like all the communists like to pretend out here there is.

But my taxes did not skyrocket during the housing bubble when for no bloody reason our condo was worth 3 times what it is worth today because wall street was gaming the system. And it kept us protected from the market bubble. And it also saved a lot of our neighbors who are retired on fixed income. All of us would have been living on a street probably by now if we had to pay ballooned tax bills during market manipulation years when our incomes didn't go up, just property prices did.

FortWayne says

And it also saved a lot of our neighbors who are retired on fixed income.

Yes, and they were sitting on huge gains in capital, but money was taken from other taxpayers and given to them as a rebate on part of their share of taxes.

This is redistribution from those who bought more recently to those who bought long ago. I am in favor of redistribution, but you, apparently, are not. So why do you keep repeating these points about saving granny from the wolves while pretending that you oppose government handouts?

Or is it that you are fine with handouts to those who own property? Property which, I add, should have little to no debt load by the the time it has been held for 20+ years by a responsible owner?

If granny has lived within her means, granny should have no mortgage and enough taxes to pay the tax bill for a massively appreciated asset. Why are you in favor of handouts to those who have been irresponsible?

HydroCabron says

FortWayne says

And it also saved a lot of our neighbors who are retired on fixed income.

Yes, and they were sitting on huge gains in capital, but money was taken from other taxpayers and given to them as a rebate on part of their share of taxes.

So what you suggest, they sell their house and live on a street because of government racket and expropriation? It's their house, a place with a roof, it's not "capital gains".

You'll understand how this works once you move out of your parents basement. Besides prop 13 is in CA, not in CO so don't bother.

HydroCabron says

If granny has lived within her means, granny should have no mortgage and enough taxes to pay the tax bill for a massively appreciated asset. Why are you in favor of handouts to those who have been irresponsible?

Grannys income is $800 a month. That's poverty level. The only irresponsible here are the selfish ignorant communist pricks like you who want to expropriate property from those who have just so they can go down to your level.

FortWayne says

You do understand they go up by 2% every year, that is constant, even with prop 13?

Wrong, they go up by either 2% or the amount that the property went up. Whichever is less.

humanity says

FortWayne says

You do understand they go up by 2% every year, that is constant, even with prop 13?

Wrong, they go up by either 2% or the amount that the property went up. Whichever is less.

For us it's been about 2% every year, they didn't raise it for the first 2 years I think. Last year we had it reassessed down a few hundred because our property taxes were a lot higher than property values in the area.

humanity says

FortWayne says

You do understand they go up by 2% every year, that is constant, even with prop 13?

Wrong, they go up by either 2% or the amount that the property went up. Whichever is less.

I don't see stock holders or bond holders having to pay asset tax based on their existing cost basis or annual market value of their securities. The only time they have to pay the tax is when they sell or when the mutual funds sell securities and distribute capital gains to shareholders. So why is prop 13 so unfair allegedly when housing is also a capital asset? With prop 13, you still pay the annual asset tax base + 2%.

"All you need to do is find a county tax collector's website and page through the atrocities."

I was looking at Maui's web site (which I posted here last month), and just gagging. SO much prime land locked away from the market, with their owners paying nominal tax burdens to await their time to sell.

Bellingham Bill says

SO much prime land locked away from the market, with their owners paying nominal tax burdens to await their time to sell.

If I remeber correctly, you can't buy the land there. You can buy the improvements, but the land is rented out, 100 years at a time.

That must make for some tricky transaction if you buy a property that is an awesome home, but the lease on the land under it is up in 15 years.
IT would have to be an interesting place to be a real estate law specialist and or broker.

I looked it up, and they aren't all leasehold (anymore) as opposed to fee simple in Hawaii. Still true though, that things are often more complicated there to be sure.

Bellingham Bill says

"What about other aspects of Prop 13 that you are ignoring? It keeps more money in the private sector which helps it grow"

This is the key bullshit belief right here.

The top 1% of the "private sector" is parasitical scum on the French Louis XV model. Money that goes there from the paycheck economy does not ever return to the paycheck economy.

Lets look at the bullshit some more..
well for one the private sector not only pays Real Property Taxes, it also pays for Personal Property Tax... overall they are liable for more Property Taxes.. do you get a bill for Property Tax on you auto,boat, motor bikes, home appliances, home entertainment, furniture and fixtures, lease hold improvements, tools and supplies. Fact is private sector pays taxes for all personal property this every year they posses such assets on their books.

Funny how things work in the real world.

Good one Thomas. Why don't all these anti prop 13 lefties get a does of their own medicine and start paying more in taxes... taxes on ownership of cars, cell phones, furniture... but no they aren't interested in paying.

They want others to keep on paying more and more, so they can keep on taking. And the most despicable part of it is that they are willing to throw grandma onto the street out of some deluded envy just so they can accomplish their envious temper tantrums. Most don't even complain about corporations gaming the system through some financial gimmicks, they complain about their neighbors grandma. Sick and whiny generation.

FortWayne says

Good one Thomas. Why don't all these anti prop 13 lefties get a does of their own medicine and start paying more in taxes... taxes on ownership of cars, cell phones, furniture... but no they aren't interested in paying.

They want others to keep on paying more and more, so they can keep on taking. And the most despicable part of it is that they are willing to throw grandma onto the street out of some deluded envy just so they can accomplish their envious temper tantrums. Most don't even complain about corporations gaming the system through some financial gimmicks, they complain about their neighbors grandma. Sick and whiny generation.

We all already do pay more for these things, precisely because of prop13. The state government can't get the money it wants for it's programs from property taxes, so all of us pay much higher income, car registration, gas tax, etc etc etc.

That's the reality.

I propose a reduction in income tax by 3% across the board, gas taxes go down 25 cents a gallon, and the car registration tax reduced by 50% in return for a repealed prop 13, with a fixed rate of 25% of assessed amount for seniors over 65 years of age.

Quigley says

We all already do pay more for these things, precisely because of prop13. The state government can't get the money it wants for it's programs from property taxes, so all of us pay much higher income, car registration, gas tax, etc etc etc.

That's the reality.

I think it's a spending problem not the tax problem. You give them $5, they'll take it and ask for $5 more. You give them $10, they'll take it and ask for $10 more. There is no limit to the desires of the tax takers. If they could tax 200% of everything we all own and make they would.

We are opposite of TX. There they have no income tax, property taxes collect very little too, they have their own version of prop 13 for seniors since they ran into senior homelessness problem with ever increasing prop taxes too. But their government offers very little services other than fire/police because of low tax base.

Out here in CA though, welfare state, we have government union thugs running amok constantly protesting when they don't get 5 - 10% annual increases to pay and pensions. Grey Davis and unions practically bankrupt the state with retroactive pension increases.

Constantly growing government programs that just cost more and more every year while providing less and less benefits. Most people don't make 5 - 10% more income every year, it's not stagflation anymore. Yet unions constantly demand those kinds of increases annually. That's why we are broke. Government offers very nice benefits to unions, and we taxpayers just don't have it to give. It's a wonderful idea, but if we have no money they need to get real too.

I bet if they addressed that we'd be fine. Otherwise we'll be all homeless and broke to support the tax takers. Prop 13 isn't a problem, it's just holding the tax takers back.

Right - like we need the geniuses bankrupting City after City in California to get a variable tax revenue stream that is pegged to California's volatile housing market. Just imagine how much worse the current economic crash in California would have been if the State and Municipalities in California were getting much higher tax revenue during the housing bubble years.

The house that I bought 18 months ago is apparently "worth" about $200K more than I bought it for in 2011. I am not foolishly taking any money out of my house or financially benefitting in any way due to this appreciation.

Is it really fair for someone like me to pay higher property tax in this situation?

socal2 says

Is it really fair for someone like me to pay higher property tax in this situation?

It's not like the states with normal property taxes track values and volatility the way that you imply. Reassessments are done periodically every few years or longer and there are limits (just not as low as 2%) in how much they can increase at once.

The increases lag the market by a lot, and assessed values are below true values. Taken together what this means is much less volatility in assessed values than real values, because of gradual increases (that don't keep up with fast increases in real values, but do catch up eventually (but even then assessed value is lower than actual value).

FortWayne says

Most don't even complain about corporations gaming the system through some financial gimmicks, they complain about their neighbors grandma. Sick and whiny generation.

In other words FW is looking forward to cashing in on prop 13 later. He's actually the envious one. He can't bare the idea, that his high cost of RE ownership, subsidizing granny won't be reciprocated by his getting the same sweet deal later, which is probably already kicking in for him very nicely now.

He accuses the critics of being selfish, but the fact is that only by considering the most selfish motives can you truly understand the right wing viewpoint.

socal2 says

Is it really fair for someone like me to pay higher property tax in this situation?

higher property taxes on the land value component would encourage more development, increase supply, and lower housing costs overall by reducing the scarcity rents in real estate.

LVT would remove land as a target of specuvestors, reducing the boom-bust mentality.

LVT would mean people could pay less taxes out of their wages, those who are willing to economize on their land usage would see more discretionary income.

LVT is a pretty good idea : )

But not going to happen in a million years since everyone who's got theirs thanks to Prop 13 is all 'fuck that noise'.

The Howard Jarvis people were very wise to include the middle class in their massive giveaway to the wealthy.

Nobody wants to tax corporate ownership of land now, even though it is the most logical thing we could do.

Rich people will mount a BS PR campaign saying "if they get us, you're next!" and that will be that.

humanity says

In other words FW is looking forward to cashing in on prop 13 later. He's actually the envious one. He can't bare the idea, that his high cost of RE ownership, subsidizing granny won't be reciprocated by his getting the same sweet deal later, which is probably already kicking in for him very nicely now.

Cashing in on my primary and only residence? You anti prop 13 people are just degrading your own argument... yeah I can't wait to sell my own property at the age of 80 so I can go live on a street like a bum.

Liberals today don't think, they just expropriate from the makers and the haves to give it to the takers.

humanity says

It's not like the states with normal property taxes track values and volatility
the way that you imply. Reassessments are done periodically every few years or
longer and there are limits (just not as low as 2%) in how much they can
increase at once.

Look at the Case/Shiller housing bubble graphs. They could increase quite a bit.

Hell - all of these cities in California are going bankrupt because the politicians and bueracrauts running the State and cities saw a temporary increase in revenue during the dot.com bubble and housing starts and promised it to their employees through increased pay and pensions thinking this level of revenue was the new norm.

There is absolutely no evidence that politicians (especially in California) are sober enough to budget a single fiscal year if a good portion of their tax revenue was pegged to our spikey house values.

I think California is a special case in that our perfect weather and nice envioronment/geography keeps propping up real estate (with some help from foreign investors) even during down economic times. So I don't think getting rid of Prop 13 would do much to tame California's house value ups and downs.

FortWayne says

humanity says

In other words FW is looking forward to cashing in on prop 13 later. He's actually the envious one. He can't bare the idea, that his high cost of RE ownership, subsidizing granny won't be reciprocated by his getting the same sweet deal later, which is probably already kicking in for him very nicely now.

Cashing in on my primary and only residence? You anti prop 13 people are just degrading your own argument... yeah I can't wait to sell my own property at the age of 80 so I can go live on a street like a bum.

Cashing in doesn't mean selling it to live like a bum. It means one of the following:

- Cashing in to live high on the hog in another state

or

-Cashing in by staying in your home where you will be reaping the rewards that come after many years of then getting to have your taxes subsidized by the newer owners.

or

-Cashing in by leaving your home to to descendants who then cash in in perpetuity via its far below market taxes

or

-Cashing in by selling or your estate selling, for the benefit of descendants.

Just because you get all emotional like this:

FortWayne says

Liberals today don't think, they just expropriate from the makers and the haves to give it to the takers.

- doesn't mean that you have made a decent argument or intelligently responded to mine.

That's just so much huey. You don't even have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that your motives are all about selfishness and that you are the taker in this discussion.

I would have more respect if you just said, "yeah, it's self interest,...I admit it. I subsidized the people that have lived here a long time in the early years of owning my home, and now as time goes on, I want to get my sweet deal just like they had. "

At least admit what's really going on here, instead of giving us the lame, us against them, "you libruls just want to take take take" bullshit.

Your entire argument is "how dare you have, when I don't have". Envy is a sin young man, it's a terrible sin because it infects and poisons the mind. It changes it from the mind of creation to a mind that desires expropriation and exploitation.... communism.

FortWayne says

Your entire argument is "how dare you have, when I don't have". Envy is a sin young man, it's a terrible sin because it infects and poisons the mind. It changes it from the mind of creation to a mind that desires expropriation and exploitation.... communism.

Nobody wants your crappy shit. Just pay your taxes, deadbeat.

FortWayne says

Envy is a sin young man, it's a terrible sin

Fascinating. Coming from the guy who envies the compensation of govt employees, and considering where you are truly coming from. How can you deny it ? What ? You think making up some nonsensical liberal straw man argument makes more sense than what any dimwit knows to be true about your point of view. Again...

humanity says

I would have more respect if you just said, "yeah, it's self interest,...I admit it. I subsidized the people that have lived here a long time in the early years of owning my home, and now as time goes on, I want to get my sweet deal just like they had. "

You're so envious of others getting that deal, and ironically you feel entitled, yes that's right, ENTITLED to have your RE taxes subsidized by others as you get older. You are a world class hypocrite. You aren't even capable of honesty, which is the sadest part of all.

I guess I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's all just stupidity rather than dishonesty. I personally would truly hate to be that out of touch with my motives. You're either lying to yourself or you don't understand yourself.