401–410 of 461 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The land isn’t more valuable because of some inherent virtue of the land. It’s only more valuable because tech bro’s want it.
You could say the same thing for almost all goods and services which are subject to consumption taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same thing for almost all goods and services which are subject to consumption taxes.
The cost of police, fire fighters, schools, roads, etc. don’t go up with the value of the home. There is no reason that you couldn’t charge a flat rate to every property owner - including businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I understand this point but the ratio between rents and property values varies wildly. So yes you can compute an average ratio and say it is "equivalent" to a tax on imputed rent if you adjust by that ratio, just as you could average out the number of bathrooms in each house and say it is "equivalent" to a bathroom tax. But it's not a very compelling argument!
ratio between rents and property values varies wildly Does it vary all that much within a specific property tax jurisdiction?
- There is no usable building on your property.
- There are plans to build a highway through your neighborhood in five years.
- Amazon has announced plans to build an office in your neighborhood two years from now.
- There are harvestable (with further development) natural resources on your property.
Many of these have impacts on hypothetical future consumption, but hopefully you agree that a tax on anticipated future consumption indefinitely into the future is not a consumption tax.
I don't have data as to precisely how strong the correlation is, but I think it's pretty clear that it is not 1, and furthermore if we really wanted to tax imputed rent directly we could presumably do so (we'd have to guess what it is but the same challenge applies to valuations of properties that haven't sold recently). So I just don't think "consumption tax" is a good way to look at a tax that clearly captures, and is designed to capture, other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im in favor of any housing that makes sense but dont espouse the logic that just because someone wants to move to a town everyone has to agree to let giant apartment blocks get put up. I did indeed buy where Im at because I enjoyed the small town culture but I understand the need for managed growth. My town is already overwhelmed with infrastructure and water issues that poorly planned growth will exacerbate. There i…
All of your arguments have the side effect of increasing the value of your home, thereby making you more dependent on Prop 13.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of your arguments have the side effect of increasing the value of your home, thereby making you more dependent on Prop 13.
So youre for poorly planned cities or gentrification? The value of my property is simply that it is the house in which my family and I live. I gain no benefit from the market increase until I actually sell my house (I suppose there is financial wrangling that could be done but I dont have the money or time for that). Anyone that buys my house or any house in a high value area is going to be paying a higher tax rate s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One obvious difference is that property taxes are applied uniformly and predictably --- a whole industry exists to plan around them --- and eminent domain is not, so widespread application of ED would create uncertainty that would discourage positive activity.
What’s “predictable” about having to pay taxes on a property that you don’t know how much will appreciate? Someone who bought a house 30 years ago while they were working, paid it off and had enough in savings to pay their bills but not pay taxes on a house that went up 10x the rate of inflation couldn’t predict their tax bill. What happens when they can’t pay their taxes? The government takes it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone proposes a four plus one housing development around the corner from your house to help address the state's housing shortage, would you oppose it? You can't move if you don't like it, after all, since you'd lose your property tax break. If you oppose such developments, then the higher value of your home _is your fault_.
Another point tho ... where I live doubling the taxes and pricing out those holding on with fingernails will only speed the gentrification. I would have no problem selling my house right now at market value and the buyers from the valley wouldnt bat an eye at the taxes ... not even including the foreign buyers coming in to hide the peoples squandered moneys. Prop 13 aids those like myself by keeping us out of the mar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So youre for poorly planned cities or gentrification? The value of my property is simply that it is the house in which my family and I live. I gain no benefit from the market increase until I actually sell my house (I suppose there is financial wrangling that could be done but I dont have the money or time for that). Anyone that buys my house or any house in a high value area is going to be paying a higher tax rate s…
Each time you interact with anyone employed in your area, you should ask about their commute. There's a good chance that the staff who care for your children, the staff who stocks your groceries, the staff that cleans your workplace, all have soul-crushing commutes. Your "managed growth" policy forces _them_ to pay for your "small town culture" with their time. That's gentrification, by definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While Environmentalism is definitely classist, and CEQA has played a part in preventing affordable development in cities, there are so many other factors that boiling it down to environmentalism is absurd. If anything, CEQA and other environmental regulations have contributed more to improving the quality of life for working class people and the poor than it has contributed to their detriment. California is the media…
California is at the bottom for poverty on the only measure that matters (the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for cost of living): https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prop 13 and rent control both highly encourage NIMBYism and I would say are more important factors than property values. If a large apartment is built next to your house and you don't like the extra noise, the big shadow, and lots of people looking into your back yard, you could decide to move. Without prop 13 selling your house and moving a few blocks over to a location you like better is a pain in the ass and you h…
This logic makes no sense and people like myself can afford to keep our houses mainly because of prop 13. Since buying my house almost 8 years ago the market has double at no fault of my own. This would double my taxes making a good portion unable to be written off thanks to new IRS rules. Yet, you want to call that locked-in? I love my house and where I live but it would be painful with that extra $2k a month tax bi…
California property tax mostly goes to the state and it funds schools by giving money back to the local districts (except about 60 really rich ones that opted out!) based on the number of student days/school. I'm not really sure, but I think that prop 13 passed after the state started taking property tax money. That would make sense as people like to have control of how there taxes are spent.