Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#61

Post by [deleted] »

malvosenior wrote: post #7
rcpt wrote: post #2

> California also has a distinct burden: Proposition 13, a measure approved by voters in 1978 that limits property-tax increases on homes until they’re sold. That’s been a boon for Baby Boomers who’ve lived in their houses for decades and aren’t assessed at anything close to their property’s market value. But it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation. yup

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

[deleted]

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#62

Post by tmh79 »

malvosenior wrote: post #7
rcpt wrote: post #2

> California also has a distinct burden: Proposition 13, a measure approved by voters in 1978 that limits property-tax increases on homes until they’re sold. That’s been a boon for Baby Boomers who’ve lived in their houses for decades and aren’t assessed at anything close to their property’s market value. But it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation. yup

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

>> The alternative is that we basically force people out of houses they've bought by gouging them with taxes. That seems much more unfair than the alternative.

This... isn't true at all. The alternative is that people pay accrued property taxes plus a small amount of interest on the sale of the property. Many states do this and it works great. Sorry that when you sell your 2m dollar home you're only netting 1.6m instead of 2m because you werent able to pay property taxes for 35 years....

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#64

Post by tstrimple »

fortran77 wrote: post #45
tstrimple wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More houses? Not in MY back yard! Building more houses will depress housing prices. Home owners tend to value their equity more than ensuring housing is affordable for others.

I own a house in Silicon Valley and I would love for them to build more housing. Keep building until housing is affordable again. Many homeowners here feel the same way.

Sure. It's never about the individual. Individually, there are plenty of great homeowners who would hurt themselves financially to help out their fellow man. Unfortunately, as is shown by reality, there aren't enough of them in aggregate to overcome the NIMBY class. Otherwise there would be action taken instead of just maintaining the status quo.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#65

Post by bryanlarsen »

malvosenior wrote: post #7
rcpt wrote: post #2

> California also has a distinct burden: Proposition 13, a measure approved by voters in 1978 that limits property-tax increases on homes until they’re sold. That’s been a boon for Baby Boomers who’ve lived in their houses for decades and aren’t assessed at anything close to their property’s market value. But it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation. yup

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

There are plenty of ways to benefit from the appreciation in value without selling the house.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#66

Post by malvosenior »

FreakyT wrote: post #15
malvosenior wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

> The alternative is that we basically force people out of houses they've bought by gouging them with taxes. I would argue that being able to afford a place in the 1970s does not endow one with an inalienable right to remain there forever. Locking the property taxes creates an artificial incentive to hold onto property forever, thus creating market stagnation.

I would argue that buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose). Anything else is basically the elimination of the concept of private property.

Kicking people out of their houses is not a sign of a healthy society.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#67

Post by seiferteric »

malvosenior wrote: post #7
rcpt wrote: post #2

> California also has a distinct burden: Proposition 13, a measure approved by voters in 1978 that limits property-tax increases on homes until they’re sold. That’s been a boon for Baby Boomers who’ve lived in their houses for decades and aren’t assessed at anything close to their property’s market value. But it’s especially unfair to their children, who are in effect subsidizing their parents’ generation. yup

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

Two things, property values would be a lot different (lower) today if prop 13 never existed. Second, the absolute property tax rate could be lower if everyone had to pay the same rate.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#68

Post by malvosenior »

coenhyde wrote: post #14
malvosenior wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

Because they have a house and ~$1.9M in free equity. The younger generation doesn't have that opportunity. If they can't afford the property tax they can downsize easily. It's not easy for young people to afford $2M houses, especially when paying high state income taxes to make up for the lack of sufficient property taxes.

The younger generation can do the same thing the older generation did and buy a house in a cheaper real estate market. It's funny that people feel entitled to buy a house in the most expensive place on earth. I think a lot of the people who bought houses for 100k in California in the 1970s would not have expected to buy a condo at the same time on 5th Ave in Manhattan (for instance). It's a recent phenomena that young people feel they should own property in world cities.

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#69

Post by thrower123 »

collias wrote: post #52
x0x0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should someone who bought a house for $100k get $2m years later?

Why should someone who bought $100k of Apple stock get $2m years later?

You can't live inside of Apple stock.

Well, I suppose you might be able to make some kind of structure if you had enough physical stock certificates...

Re: How California Became America’s Housing Market Nightmare

#70

Post by malvosenior »

nerfhammer wrote: post #39
malvosenior wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that it's more "unfair" to the younger generations to not increase property taxes than it would be to the home owners to do so. Why would someone who bought a house for 100k be expected to pay taxes on 2M years later? A lot of these people probably had normal jobs and incomes, they didn't chose for Google/Apple/Facebook to move into town and send the property prices sky high. Yes, they benefit as owners…

You're saying that taxes on a 2 million dollar windfall is unfair.

It's not a windfall if you live there for 35 years and don't sell. It's just your home.
Post reply on HN