California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate • Hacker News Board

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#51

Post by veeralpatel979 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:08 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #36

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #28

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artific…

> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is p…

> The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments

This is smart. I'm stealing this :)

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#52

Post by amunicio » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:16 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #24

generalpass wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well the only solution is a ballot initiative to repeal prop 13. That will change things. This seems to always be stated as if stating it makes it true. Prop 13 has little to do with high housing prices and a lot to do with getting more revenue for governments. Prices are influenced by supply and demand. The artificial limiting of supply by all of the governments in California is the biggest factor in why the price…

Exactly right. And every time a property is turned over, the base tax rate gets reset, plus prop 13 allows for a 2% increase every year. California has the highest sales and income tax (for incomes over $500,000) in the Nation. They don't need the highest property tax, too.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too.

Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate.

It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time.

It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas tend to remain there. Even when younger people who would benefit more from living in these areas would be willing to pay more, providing an incentive for retired owners to move to a less concentrated area and making a profit.

But with Prop 13, we have instead a system that artificially distorts the housing market(and not in a "just" or "deserving" way).

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#53

Post by fortran77 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

amunicio wrote: post #52

fortran77 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. And every time a property is turned over, the base tax rate gets reset, plus prop 13 allows for a 2% increase every year. California has the highest sales and income tax (for incomes over $500,000) in the Nation. They don't need the highest property tax, too.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas…

So a retired person should be forced to move from his little 3 bedroom house because some Googler decided the house next door was worth $3.5MM and his property tax goes up to $75,000/year? That's pure evil.

I fully supported SB50. Build. More. Housing.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#54

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #37

lern_too_spel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason California has the highest sales and income taxes is that it has the lowest property tax. People who have held property for a very long time are taxed very little relative to how they would be taxed in other states, and people who are new are taxed a lot.

California does NOT have the lowest property tax. It is very distasteful for you to try to win an argument by lying. http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state And if you rank the states by percentage revenue from property tax, you'll see they are right in the middle https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

It is also very distasteful to accuse others of lying. It's about the least charitable assumption you could make, and therefore against the site guidelines.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is lying. Not everyone who disagrees with you and is factually wrong is lying. Some repeat what they've heard. Some just lazily assume without doing the research. Some mis-remember.

State that they're mistaken. Cite the evidence. But don't claim that they're lying unless you can prove that they are deliberately stating what is false.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#55

Post by aeternum » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

seasoup wrote: post #47

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

People don't move to a place because that place has cheap housing, otherwise people would be piling into the countryside. People move places with better economic opportunities for them and their families, generally that means jobs but it also means low crime, good schools, entertainment options and more. As for companies moving, there is good and bad about your hq being located close to other hqs and good and bad loc…

Many employees cannot or are unwilling to up and move so it is quite difficult for a company to relocate a headquarters. Companies can open a regional office elsewhere but that has its own problems with communication and distributed teams. Problems which are manageable but can require new processes and training.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#56

Post by jahlove » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:26 PM UTC

40acres wrote: post #44

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

Network effects I suppose. When this economy was based on land and natural resources it made sense to move (and subdue the native population) to open land and gain an advantage, with a service based economy it makes greater sense to cluster at population centers and leverage that. The rise of remote work will probably alleviate this a bit but education, health care, entertainment, hospitality (aka. the fastest growin…

I think it's more precisely referred to as "agglomeration effects" [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#57

Post by generalpass » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:26 PM UTC

amunicio wrote: post #52

fortran77 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. And every time a property is turned over, the base tax rate gets reset, plus prop 13 allows for a 2% increase every year. California has the highest sales and income tax (for incomes over $500,000) in the Nation. They don't need the highest property tax, too.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas…

Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planned for retiring?

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#58

Post by pdonis » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:27 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #36

veeralpatel979 wrote: post #28

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artific…

> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is p…

> governments are the least-worst solution

No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments.

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#59

Post by fortran77 » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

generalpass wrote: post #57

amunicio wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They don't need the highest property tax, too. Prop 13 doesn't change the property tax rate, it changes WHO pays the full "nub" rate and who enjoys a "nobility" rebate. It disincentives home owners from moving, even when their new jobs are far away, increasing commuting time. It also creates a resource allocation imbalance. Folks that are retired and don't benefit so much by living in highly concentrated job areas…

Do you feel that it is fair to evict an old couple because they purchased their house in the 70s when it was in the woods, but now that people have built up a town around them, they have to go because they didn't plan on paying $7,400 per year in property taxes in their retirement planning, and then also can't afford to take on a new mortgage in the region, so move really far away from where they saved for and planne…

Right. And $7,400? Try $30,000! That's what the starting property tax is on a $2.5MM house in Sunnyvale is today.

That's what people moving into Sunnyvale California in 2020 are paying.

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate-california-property-...

Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate

#60

Post by harikb » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #33

There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…

California, at least Bay Area in particular, has a slightly different problem that is keeping people stuck here.

People can’t live here without both husband and wife working full time. Now to move to a different city or state, both husband and wife needs a job there or the new salary + cost of living must equal the other person quitting their job. That is just a difficult mental model to get over. It will happen, but only at the breaking point