3
0

Mark Zuckerberg is spending millions like never before to overhaul Prop 13


 invite response                
2020 Oct 15, 7:11pm   2,127 views  80 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://www.vox.com/recode/21508914/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-proposition-13-split-roll-california-politics

When Proposition 13 passed in California four decades ago, it capped both residential and commercial property taxes by assessing most property’s value based on how much it was worth as far back as 1976, with minimal established tax increases. Homeowners and businesses alike embraced the legislation, but critics say it has left California with far less money for schools, roads, and other social services for its 40 million residents. Studies say that California, which has the highest poverty rate in the country and is grappling with a housing crisis, needs as many as 3.5 million new homes by 2025 and $22 billion more in school funding.

This year’s Proposition 15 would reform Prop 13 so it only applies to residential and agricultural properties. Homeowners’ taxes would stay the same while many businesses’ property tax payments would go up. That’s why it’s called “split roll.”

The split-roll fight was expected to be explosive — but then the coronavirus pandemic overwhelmed California politics and took up voters’ attention. That might be why you haven’t heard as much as you might think you would about the chance to finally amend a landmark law that undergirds so much of life in California. The most recent polls have shown the split-roll effort with just over 50 percent support.


I agree with Zuckerberg on this one.

Commercial property should not be exempt from property tax increases because businesses can live forever, never resetting their tax basis.

Comments 1 - 40 of 80       Last »     Search these comments

1   Dholliday126   2020 Oct 15, 7:15pm  

Bingo, I agree. I also think that an old tax basis should not be inherited either. I voted yes on both propositions.

Quite frankly if they just got rid of prop 13, housing would crash down to texas like levels and everyone would win.

But yeah, I pay almost 10K a year on property taxes and my numb nuts neighbor who inherited his house from his parents pays like 2K a year in taxes.....fuck that.
2   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Oct 15, 7:25pm  

I got flyers from that shithead to vote for prop 15. That fucker.

Oh and the flyer was deceptive. My issue with this prop is that it’s worded ambiguously enough to raise taxes on everyone after.

Absolutely no guarantee that anything will improve. Just a blank check to government. And in my lifetime every time we have them one, they took it and asked for more.

Prop 15 is gonna murder a lot of businesses here.
3   RWSGFY   2020 Oct 15, 7:36pm  

#FuckZukFuck

Him being in favor of something makes me extra suspicious. The fucker is a fucking snake. He does not have your best interest in mind.
4   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2020 Oct 15, 7:39pm  

They will come after residential prop 13 next. California is majority renter, the party is over.

The leftists in Callifornia have relentlessly fapped away at the thought of this day for the past couple decades.

Note this is not a defense of the dumb fucks who have held properties intergenerationally in California. They are their own special kind of greedy/stupid and I hope they choke on what they are going through during the covid related shutdowns.

But California is horribly stupid as well especially every mentally challenged Democrat (ie all of them) and no one should voluntarily hand the California government(ie Democrats) any more money.
5   Tenpoundbass   2020 Oct 15, 8:02pm  

I hope people get what they wish for. Because they'll just undervalue the RE prices, then still pay reasonable taxes. Then property will be so cheap, they'll acquire even more of the available stock. While being perfectly free and clear to send rent soaring through the roof.
Anyone worrying about what the other guy makes, and not enough about how to make their own way. Is destined to continue handing that guy over all of their money.
6   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Oct 15, 8:22pm  

Tenpoundbass says
I hope people get what they wish for. Because they'll just undervalue the RE prices, then still pay reasonable taxes. Then property will be so cheap, they'll acquire even more of the available stock. While being perfectly free and clear to send rent soaring through the roof.
Anyone worrying about what the other guy makes, and not enough about how to make their own way. Is destined to continue handing that guy over all of their money.


In CA it won’t be cheap. Cost will just go up. It’ll be more gentrification here.
7   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 15, 8:37pm  

Much of current Prop 13 greatly increase "wealth inequality." It's obscene that kids of super-rich parents can inherit not just the mansion, but also the dirt cheap tax basis for that mansion. Typical "kids" are 50 years old when they inherit that mansion, so they're already living somewhere else and that tax break is just a freebie on that all-profit rental.

Prop 13 also applies to corporations, where it distorts and destroys free-market competition.

My prescription: If you want any Prop 13 at all, it should apply ONLY to a person's "primary residence." (i.e.: if you want Prop 13 bonus, you have to pay California income tax)

Better would be that the total property tax revenue would be limited to increases of 2% per year, but all property is realistically appraised and the % tax rate is adjusted (downard) so that total revenue is limited to increasing at that 2%. If everyone's property values double, then that tax rate would be cut in half so that the total increase would be limited and nobody would see a huge tax increase except those people who really did see a massive value increase over and above most of the other property in the state.
8   Patrick   2020 Oct 15, 8:44pm  

Dholliday126 says
Quite frankly if they just got rid of prop 13, housing would crash down to texas like levels and everyone would win.


I think Prop 13 is just about the worst possible tax law, letting very rich people, landlords, and corporations suck up services while not paying for them.

What we need is a land-value tax, where the building is not taxed at all, just the land. No income tax, no sales tax, just the land-value tax, ie Georgism.

Income tax discourages work, so that's bad.
Sales tax discourages commerce, so that's bad.
Land value tax discourages monopolization of land, so that's good.

Of course the land value tax has to be limited so that people don't find it more profitable to abandon their land.

And if the elderly cannot pay it, just tack the land-value tax onto the amount that the state gets when the land is next sold.
9   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2020 Oct 15, 9:05pm  

Patrick here is one most important thing to understand about this in my opinion.

Only reason prop 13 is alive is because there is money protecting it. As long as businesses are protected by it same as residential, they'll spend money fighting to keep it. Once they are split off, they won't have any incentive to protect residential properties. And residents are not business coalitions, they absolutely do not spend money to fight bad props. People aren't organized. So once this splits us, next they'll come after residential properties, because there will be no one left to defend it... which means poverty in private sector and small businesses.

It's kind of like that old poem from "First they came...". It's exactly that. First step is splitting. Second is taxing the small group that can't defend itself. We are all getting fucked by this, which is why splitting anything is bad.

If this passes, expect soon after them to come after residential properties, with carve outs for "minorities" and shit like that to appease SJW groups. We are getting fucked, and getting fucked hard, all of us.
10   krc   2020 Oct 15, 9:29pm  

If anyone would care to read the fine print, the taxes essentially go to the CTA and government administrative costs. And, yes, as other posters have noted, if prop15 passes then prop13 will be next (split roll between commercial and residential will be tough to manage/assess). Hard to see how older businesses survive without passing costs on to the consumer/buyer or simply go out of business. CA politicians have blamed prop13 for all social problems in California, and yet we are easily in the top 10 if not the top 5 of most taxes per capita by state. And we want to give government MORE money? Are we insane? Money to a single party state that is monolithic in its socialist views? That is suicide...

Really, though, the objection to prop13 is typically from folks that "recently" purchased - and is basic jealousy. Then don't buy in CA! And, yes, I have done the same (bought recently in 2010 - and I know an 80 year old living next door that when I look at their taxes it is a fraction of mine - but SO WHAT! ). It gives me comfort to know what my taxes will be in the foreseeable future without the typical political manipulation we see in other states, and that there is limited "political" interference to jack with the taxes I pay. I could have chosen to look at what others were paying tax-wise for equivalent property and simply decided not to buy if the disparity bothered me that much.

If anyone cared to look at the history of prop 13, there were several corruptions scandals involving assessors driving property taxes high to line their pockets / union pockets or force older people out of established neighborhoods so they could buy at a discount, or city would recover in defaulted tax payment.

In an ideal world, prop 13 would not be needed. CA political environment is not that.
11   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 15, 9:38pm  

krc says
the objection to prop13 is typically from folks that "recently" purchased

Progressives are all about helping the poor and the young and the immigrants. Prop 13 is a huge obstacle. Also, renters complain that Prop 13 adds another barrier to entering the market. And then there's the fact that California is making up for the non-payers by having the highest income tax and (almost) the highest sales tax. Should we talk about how Prop 13 distorts the market, too?

"Wealth inequality," a major complaint from the so-called "compassionate" progressives, is another issue. Can you imagine any (other) situation where people think INHERITING a tax advantage (a huge government handout) — through no merit at all — is going to help create a "just and equitable" situation? Inherit a free house from your parents AND inherit a tax loophole too? Wow! Next we'll move on to a college admission situation where you automatically get into a college if your parents went there; plus, you're tuition will be the same $400/year that your parents paid. Wharton, here I come! Yeah!
12   mell   2020 Oct 15, 10:10pm  

there's a simple solution, revoke prop 13 for everybody but lower property taxes for everybody proportionally and enact a moratorium on raising them.
13   krc   2020 Oct 15, 10:19pm  

Haha... and you get benefits just because you don't work or get addicted to drugs, etc... just by living here. Amazing how that works!

We already have college tuition means testing at the UC level. Below a certain income, tuition and room/board are free (as long as you are a state resident).
All taxes distort the market as they are applied simply to cover expenditures by state/city agencies. So, there is really no cap other than the limit by which the people vote (and in CA this is done by the initiative process and not the legislature in general - which is why attacking the initiative process as well as prop 13 has been discussed for years by the political elites). And the proof of this limitless revenue need is consistent with the rise of income and state sales taxes / gas taxes as well as various "use charges." And let's not even discuss the "progressiveness" of the income tax.

Prop 13 wouldn't be needed if it was not so easily manipulated by the political establishment. Everyone understands income tax, sales tax, and use taxes. But the idea that your property tax will change dramatically from year to year because the market is "strong" is not understood - and is prone to manipulation (easily - cities that need more revenue in good school districts won't develop land (to increase taxable revenue as and keep housing at a reasonable price ) - instead - they would simply rely on appreciation to collect "free money") Too much corruption happens with assessment of property - and you really don't have that "value" until you actually "sell" and have cash on the barrel.

As for inheritance - fine - get rid of the tax basis inheritance. But do it for ALL - not just for the wealthy (which again is just another means test and a tax again). And don't let people move tax basis between houses/counties. Whatever - that is a small and absurd reason to abandon the entirety of prop 13.

The state legislature could have chosen to close some of the loopholes that prevent re-assessment of commercial real estate by not allowing partial ownership sales of their stake and yet retain the original basis through an original holding company. There are certainly commercial "abuses" but those could be remedied if the legislature wanted to do that. This is COMMON in real estate transactions to preserve original basis. But that would be too simple and sane - and probably not as big a pot of money.

https://www.realestateinvestorlaw.com/articles/using-exclusions-to-avoid-reassessment/
14   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2020 Oct 15, 10:22pm  

mell says
there's a simple solution, revoke prop 13 for everybody but lower property taxes for everybody proportionally and enact a moratorium on raising them.


that's basically redoing prop 13, which is not a bad idea. but it won't happen. people like Zuckerberg don't think we are all paying enough. This is the same guy who hides all his money overseas to not overpay a penny, so he can have more money for himself and his socially fashionable causes.
15   krc   2020 Oct 15, 10:26pm  

mell says
there's a simple solution, revoke prop 13 for everybody but lower property taxes for everybody proportionally and enact a moratorium on raising them.


That would be fine. BUT - that is complete fairy tale land. This is a pure revenue grab - and that is all - with the long term intention of eliminating prop13. The only hope for prop 13 is that many CTA members will be affected by a re-assessment. To simply stop split roll and then "give a break anyway to the rich" (which is everyone who owns a house it seems) will never fly.

The purpose is not creating an equitable assessment but to simply pull in 12 billion in revenue a year to feed to the CTA and government agencies.
16   krc   2020 Oct 15, 10:34pm  

I realize I was looking for this abuse:

1. The Legal Entity Exclusion (Revenue and Taxation (R&T) Code Section 64(a)(c)

and (d))



One method of avoiding reassessment is to hold the property in a legal entity such as a limited-liability company (LLC) or corporation. For this method to work, upon purchase of the property, you must transfer the property immediately into a legal entity. (Do not delay as each year price of property goes up). Once the property is transferred into the legal entity, the property must remain in the legal entity to avoid reassessment.



The benefit of holding a property in a legal entity is that you can change ownership in the legal entity without triggering a reassessment. For example, if you bought a property and transfer the property into an LLC, you can easily change the ownership of the LLC without changing the ownership of the property: just sell the ownership interest in the LLC.
17   just_passing_through   2020 Oct 15, 10:42pm  

Tenpoundbass says
Anyone worrying about what the other guy makes, and not enough about how to make their own way. Is destined to continue handing that guy over all of their money.


Envy is bad, jealousy is righteous and greed is good.

I voted aGAINst!
18   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 15, 11:27pm  

mell says
there's a simple solution, revoke prop 13 for everybody but lower property taxes for everybody proportionally and enact a moratorium on raising them.

Yes! 100x yes. Put out a proposition where we cancel Prop 13 AND then cap the total collection of property taxes at 2% increases. Everyone gets "fairly" assessed (let the complaining begin!) and the % amount you are taxed is set low enough so that the total amount collected state-wide meets the target. New buyers will see their % dropped from 1% down to 0.4% and the ancients (and super-rich people who inherit stuff for free) will see their 0.05% rate increase to 0.4%. Maybe this could happen over a 10 year period.

This would give most of the much-vaulted "stability" falsely claimed to sell the original idea in the 1970's without the market distortion that was the inevitable (and predictable) long term result.
19   krc   2020 Oct 15, 11:39pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
Yes! 100x yes. Put out a proposition where we cancel Prop 13 AND then cap the total collection of property taxes at 2% increases. Everyone gets "fairly" assessed (let the complaining begin!) and the % amount you are taxed is set low enough so that the total amount collected state-wide meets the target. New buyers will see their % dropped from 1% down to 0.4% and the ancients (and super-rich people who inherit stuff for free) will see their 0.05% rate increase to 0.4%. Maybe this could happen over a 10 year period.


So are you saying a reset to a new basis for everyone, or on the property itself "one time"? And then instead of 1% a year you do 2% a year? And when the market goes up 10% per year for a house and someone buys, they will be paying much more in taxes for the same house? Not following... Or will the "assessed value" no matter who owns it never go up more than 2% at most? (I could live with that as well but it will never pass) If you limit increases and the market gets hot and housing doubles, don't you have the same problem? I don't see how you can cap increases if you don't want a disparity between market volatility and the taxes paid at that purchase time. Perhaps some sort of 5 year running average? But now we are getting into major public policy changes with likely major unintended consequences.... l
20   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2020 Oct 15, 11:42pm  

krc says
SunnyvaleCA says
Yes! 100x yes. Put out a proposition where we cancel Prop 13 AND then cap the total collection of property taxes at 2% increases. Everyone gets "fairly" assessed (let the complaining begin!) and the % amount you are taxed is set low enough so that the total amount collected state-wide meets the target. New buyers will see their % dropped from 1% down to 0.4% and the ancients (and super-rich people who inherit stuff for free) will see their 0.05% rate increase to 0.4%. Maybe this could happen over a 10 year period.


So are you saying a reset to a new basis for everyone, or on the property itself "one time"? And then instead of 1% a year you do 2% a year? And when the market goes up 10% per year for a house and someone buys, they will be paying much more in taxes for the same house? Not following... Or will the "assessed value" no matter who owns it never go up more than 2...


There is also the original reason for prop 13 that is still there. Which is that old people will be on the street if you increase their taxes. It was the case when fucking unions were going nuts with taxes and people were on the street, hence the tax revolt. Society used to actually care about dignity for old folks. In fact, best option would be to eliminate all property taxes for absolutely everyone. There are places in this world with no property taxes, and they are just fine. There are states with no income taxes, and those are fine too. I'm telling you, CA is a fucked up high tax place and no matter how much you give, it's never enough.
21   krc   2020 Oct 15, 11:48pm  

And, not sure if you were doing the math, but going .05 to .4 is 8x the previous taxes - and that is for the "ancients" who are likely on fixed income. I know many retired folks who couldn't make that fly. To take folks that are elderly, on fixed income/SSI/S and then take that size of a hit on their property will not be pretty. And no political party will do that. So now we get into the ever-popular "exemptions" so that it becomes another muddled mess.


The beauty of prop 13 is that if you believe in CA and want to buy in CA, you don't have to be subject to the whims of the property assessment process that afflicts so many other states. You buy once - you get the benefit as long as you continue to hold that property.

Again, if you have resentment because someone "bought earlier" then simply don't buy.
***** NOTE **
Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," may be increased only by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property has a change of ownership.
22   Hircus   2020 Oct 15, 11:48pm  

FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut says
Only reason prop 13 is alive is because there is money protecting it. As long as businesses are protected by it same as residential, they'll spend money fighting to keep it. Once they are split off, they won't have any incentive to protect residential properties.


Bingo.

I'm not against changes to how CA RE is taxed, and I do think we should change it - some of the tax bill disparities are too wide. But I don't like prop 15.

This will utterly screw many small business owners, with a razor focus on them, while being very mild to most people. I bet there's a lot of sandwich shop type businesses that don't really make a killing, but do cash flow. But this bill can easily tack on an extra 50k a yr in taxes. I'd be pretty damn pissed if my paychecks got taxed 50k a yr, if you're only profiting 100-200k anyway.

And then like ftwayne said, they will come for residential.

I read somewhere that the purpose of the inherited tax basis was to help families retain their homes after parents die, opposed to the loss of the sentimental home, and making it more likely the remaining children need to move. Sounds reasonable to me, although maybe the reduced tax basis should gradually ramp up over time, allowing children some time to get their money on and plan. But, I do agree that homes used as rentals shouldn't get an inherited basis - only child-occupied homes.

Prop 15 does allow 1 child to inherit the tax basis for their parents primary home, if the child moves in within 1 yr. But, it only works for 1 home. I think it should work for as many homes as there are children to occupy them.

btw prop 15 includes some new verbiage about taxes going up according to some new CA RE price index. Get ready for index algo corruption to maximally fuck you in the ass to optimize their tax revenues.
23   krc   2020 Oct 15, 11:54pm  

Dholliday126 says
Quite frankly if they just got rid of prop 13, housing would crash down to texas like levels and everyone would win.


Doubtful. I don't see prop 13 as suppressing house building and development. It is really more about NIMBYism and "saving the hills", etc... Basically, very specific local policies are the culprit. For better or worse, Californians are more interested in "controlling" what is built out around them. Texans don't give a crap - very little restriction compared to CA.
24   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 15, 11:56pm  

krc says
So are you saying a reset to a new basis for everyone, or on the property itself "one time"? And then instead of 1% a year you do 2% a year? And when the market goes up 10%

Sorry. I'm not explaining this well. Let me try again.

Last year, with Prop 13 still active, California collected (lets say) $100 BIllion dollars for all property taxes. As a new homeowner, I paid $20k — 1% of of the "assessed value" of the shack I just bought for $2MM. My ancient neighbor payed 1% also, but that amounted to only $975 — 1% of an identical shack with "assessed value" of only $97,500 thanks to Prop 13.

This year, with my plan, everyone has their shack re-assessed accurately. My shack is $2MM and my neighbor's is also $2MM (not $97,500). California intends to collect the same as last year with a 2% increase. That means $100B + 2%, which is $102B dollars. After summing up all properly assessed property values, California determines that the accurate total assessed value of all properties is $22T. So, to collect $102B the tax rate for EVERYONE is set to 102B/22T = 0.463%. So, I pay $2MM x 0.463% = $9,260 and the neighbor with identical property pays that, too. (We need some phase-in or other protections so we don't kick grandma out of her house, etc.)

If, the year after that, the total value of all property in the state increases from $22T all the way up to $25T then, to collect $104B (after that 2% increase) the rate is set to 104B/25T = 0.416% so that the state collects the $104B. So, even though my house went from $2MM to $2.3MM (woo hoo!), everyone's tax rate % went from 0.463% down to 0.416%; my first year was $2MM x 0.463% = $9,260 and my second year was a very modest increase: $2.3MM x 0.416% = $9,568 even though my house value (and everyone else's) went up a lot.

That achieves pretty good tax stability (from the homeowner standpoint and from the tax collector standpoint too). It also removes market distortion — if you sell your shack, the buyer will face the exact same taxes as you paid the previous year (plus 2%).
25   Hircus   2020 Oct 16, 12:06am  

btw I made a post on here years back, and calculated (w/ napkin math) that if we got rid of prop 13, while holding total RE tax revenue constant, then instead of people paying 1% of assessed value, they could pay about 0.66%, w/o affecting revenue. This was specifically residential RE tax figures.

Not that I'm suggesting it, but it's an interesting figure to show how much of a free ride some get.
26   krc   2020 Oct 16, 12:39am  

Seems like that only works if the real estate market reverts closer to a 2% pricing gain in the long run - right? Otherwise, total revenue to the state, limited by the 2% max across all properties, will see a decline relative to market value and vs current revenue with prop13. I can't see the state living with that either as the argument will be that "rich owners" are benefiting by holding an appreciating asset that is not taxed "fairly." I can't see the state accepting that as the current prop13 would be better in an appreciating market since they get the reset immediately at a value that is much higher than a 2% appreciation.

So, if you wanted to match current revenues, I think you would need closer to a 6% because of the frequency of the reset at an appreciation rate that is much greater than 2%.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

California, under prop 13:

“Personal income in California -- an approximate measure of the size of the state’s economy -- has grown at an average annual rate of 6.3 percent since 1979,” Taylor’s 2012 report says. “Over the same period, revenue from the 1 percent property tax rate has grown at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent.”

How is that possible?

While Proposition 13 limits taxes on any particular piece of property as long as it remains under the same ownership, taxable values are upgraded when it changes hands. That, along with ever-rising market values, accounts for much of the steady increase.
27   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 16, 12:44am  

krc says
only works if the real estate market reverts closer to a 2% pricing gain in the long run

Correct. That's an inherent problem with setting that 2% limit. Probably why California now has the highest state income tax and (nearly) highest sales tax. Maybe it should be "rate of inflation" increases instead. Or something. If you're really crazy (insane), the CA government should set a budget for the year and then set the tax % at the right amount to exactly grab that amount of money. That could actually work if only homeowners are allowed to vote (isn't that exactly how voting worked back in the old days?).
28   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 16, 1:02am  

krc says
revenue from the 1 percent property tax rate has grown at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent.”
How is that possible?

Simple: Assessed value of all the properties has increased at a rate of 7.3%.
If you build a whole bunch more houses and those houses are assessed at a huge amount of money, you would grow total assessed value.
If someone sells their house, the new owner is re-assessed at "fair market value," which might be massively higher. My neighbor's shack, for example is assessed at a value of about $100k, but if she dies/sells, the new tax donkey will be assessed at $2MM. Taxes will go from $1k to $20k overnight.
29   Ceffer   2020 Oct 16, 1:19am  

I won't vote for it, not because of issues, because I entirely mistrust California government at any level. They ALWAYS find a way to fuck the voter and the middle class. Those who haven't learned this lesson and choose to trust them, well, it's Linus and Lucy with the football again. If you want to trust the grifty grafty crooks and sociopaths who already have fucked California to the gills, then go ahead and keep up the progress of the suicide of the State by giving them more graft and more control. Keep getting less and less infrastructure and services for more and more money.

Shit, they have this last year abdicated their protection of the citizenry, but will attack and fine the citizens for protecting themselves. At the very least, they could toss you a carbine and give you a foxhole instead of tying your hands behind you and releasing you to the tender mercies of the recently sprung prison population, cartels, ghetto whompers and illegals who have now been deputized.

It probably doesn't matter, anyway. Most taxes are raised by the voters who don't pay the taxes. That's why California keeps the immigrants flooding in and barefoot and pregnant. The voters are their sheep, and they do not experience the consequences. They see it as free schools, lunches, and baby sitting with some other free shit tossed into the equation. Businesses and middle class will just continue to flee, and we have already seen many of the results of that.
30   epitaph   2020 Oct 16, 1:57am  

In this rare instance Mark Fuckerberg is right, prop 13 has been a huge disaster gutting public funding for California. The entire thing should be repealed, all of it. Having to move away isn't the worst thing that can happen, haha it might be the best.
31   BayArea   2020 Oct 16, 5:29am  

The one time I agree with Fuckerberg
32   B.A.C.A.H.   2020 Oct 16, 8:55am  

krc says
basic jealousy


Yes, yes, I know: F*ck Off, I got mine. Screw your ass. You're just jealous.
33   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Oct 16, 9:21am  

B.A.C.A.H. says
krc says
basic jealousy


Yes, yes, I know: F*ck Off, I got mine. Screw your ass. You're just jealous.


It’s not that. Just government wants more money. And as usual it’s tax increases on everyone while sone suckers think it’s tax on rich only. It’s simply not the case. Those boys upstairs always try to figure out how to get more out of us by putting up against each other
34   Blue   2020 Oct 16, 9:28am  

Thanks to Mr. Mark Zuckerberg for the initiate.
1978 Prop 13 = Go and rob all your neighbors legally through the government by "accusing" the government to keep robbing.
Look at your neighbors taxes:
https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/
35   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Oct 16, 9:34am  

Blue says
Thanks to Mr. Mark Zuckerberg for the initiate.
1978 Prop 13 = Go and rob all your neighbors legally through the government by "accusing" the government to keep robbing.
Look at your neighbors taxes:
https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/


I don’t care about my neighbors taxes. I’m not operating from jealousy, and yes I pay more than my old neighbors.
36   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Oct 16, 9:40am  

They should imo limit number f times property taxes can be inherited. That would make sense. But it must come with guarantees of where money will go. Right now any taxes go into bottomless pit for Gavin to give out to his wealthy friends.

I’m still pissed off about money laundering under excise that it was for illegals.
37   krc   2020 Oct 16, 9:59am  

epitaph says
In this rare instance Mark Fuckerberg is right, prop 13 has been a huge disaster gutting public funding for California. The entire thing should be repealed, all of it. Having to move away isn't the worst thing that can happen, haha it might be the best.


How did Prop 13 "gut" public funding when we are easily in the top 5 per capita for highest tax burden? (by state)
38   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 16, 10:39am  

Fortwaynemobile says
They should imo limit number f times property taxes can be inherited.
If you mean limit it to 0, then sure! A single inheritance would push the "fix" off for an additional 30 years. California will simply not last long enough to see that happen.
39   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Oct 16, 10:41am  

Blue says
Thanks to Mr. Mark Zuckerberg for the initiate
I've got a much better way that The Zuck could help: stock should be marked to market yearly and taxed on the paper gains (with some holdback in case of a subsequent stock slump). Plus, income taxes should be paid on any money going to a foundation (slush fund) or other tax-avoidance scheme.
40   NuttBoxer   2020 Oct 16, 10:45am  

Patrick says
Commercial property should not be exempt from property tax increases because businesses can live forever, never resetting their tax basis.


Fuck! California already has one of the most unfriendly private business environments in the country. And that's despite Prop 13. Prop 15 will just accelerate the bloat in the most bloated public sector in the US. Don't hold your breath waiting for those trickle down tax dollars to make it to you..

Comments 1 - 40 of 80       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions