California Property Taxes Mapped

Post by xtiansimon » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #14

twblalock wrote: post #2

This is a good illustration of bad tax policy, specifically Prop 13. Zoom in on a residential street, particularly in the Bay Area, and you will see a row of houses which are roughly equivalent in value. Some homeowners pay several times as much annual property tax as their neighbors, because they bought their homes more recently and paid more for them. That's kind of insane, and nobody would design the property tax…

It's kind of insane. But it's also kind of insane that when the housing prices double or triple, you can expect your property tax to go up quite a bit as well, which makes it hard to plan for the future. I think if the value increase cap was raised (gradually) to something like 4-5% per year, you would still have assessed values trailing market values, but not by nearly as much. People could still make worst case pro…

Post by oceanghost » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #89

oceanghost wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a correlation though between city expenses and property values for large moves in property value? Just because property values double doesn't mean the cost of pothole repair doubles?

Pretty much must be, because the city is spending the money on something. If the city isn't using the money on something essential, they could reduce taxes. Might be a struggle to get tax reductions past the voting public. But I think a bit of political elbow grease could get it done.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

babesh wrote: post #60

arrosenberg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's gotten to the point that we have ballot amendments carving out exceptions for senior citizens, so they can take their old property tax rates with them when they buy new homes, but only if they move between certain counties that have a reciprocity agreement, blah blah blah. Clearly not the kind of policy a sane system would result in. And there is another ballot prop on this years' ballot (prop 19) being pushed…

That’s a scam like most of the other propositions. Most of this year’s propositions are poison laced candy. They offer you one thing and take away something far more valuable. Go read the whole proposition. They supposedly let you do it 3 times. That is the candy. Too bad many counties already let you do it once. So you haven’t gained much if anything. The poison is transfer to children resets the property tax for an…

Post by avmich » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 8:48 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #101

avmich wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more generic tax would be a wealth tax. Don't tax real estate at all; instead, tax net worth. However, if all you have is a house in an area with rapid price growth, this change won't save you.

Presumably it would "save" you because your end tax would still be lower (as people whose multi-million dollar homes comprise only a fraction of their wealth would subsidize you). It's a bad idea for a bunch of other reason, though.

Post by Enginerrrd » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #48

Enginerrrd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2) Nobody has the right to own an asset for pennies on the dollar indefinitely That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government? If that logic applied to you car and computer and clothes, and prized heirlooms from your family, I think you'd object. Thats a fundamental assa…

> That's a ridiculus assertion. When I buy something, having paid income tax and the government gets paid the taxes on the sale, why should I have to permenantly rent that item from the government? Upkeep != Rent. The government uses that money to pay for the roads and services, mainly police and fire (you know, the people who protect your property).