California Property Taxes Mapped • Hacker News Board

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#21

Post by bradlys » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #20

bradlys wrote: post #11

I think I've seen this map before (it isn't loading as I write this). However, what I'd love to see is: What the property taxes are and what they would be if the property was purchased today. I'm not sure if an absolute amount or a percentage would be more impactful when comparing the two. I'm sure it hits hard to see your neighbors paying 10% of what you pay - but probably just as much seeing $2,000 vs $20,000 in as…

I think you can pretty much look at the highest tax being paid on a particular street and assume that everyone else would pay the same. Most of the time, all the houses on a street in California are roughly similar in value, because they were all built around the same time by the same developer and are very similar, barring extreme examples like Atherton or Beverly Hills where everyone has a custom home.

I know you think that's true but we have houses on my street varying by ~2x in value and I'm not in Atherton, Palo Alto, or Woodside. It's not extremes like 10x or 5x but these kinds of maps don't really give you great detail. I think the comparison is still needed because there are streets where nearly everyone bought a long time ago.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#22

Post by toast0 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:24 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #9

seiferteric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Why should your property taxes go up just because the market around you skyrockets, when this is completely outside of your control? The bay area is a prime example of this.

Maybe the solution is to stop making property tax the main way that cities are funded. Among other things, this method of taxation tightly couples school funding to local home values. Areas with expensive homes have the best schools. (And areas with cheap homes have bad schools, which is not really what you want if you are trying to do something about inter-generational poverty.) This is self-reinforcing because now…

In California, cities are totally independent of school districts (except in that San Francisco is a combined county and city and its city counsil and mayor are also its county board of supervisors, and county boards and the state school board both supervise school districts).

School district funding in most districts is property taxes supplimented with state funds to a specific level per student. There are a small number of school districts that have property tax revenues above that, but most don't. IIRC, in the sf bay area, Santa Clara, one of the Palo Alto districts, and maybe one or two others are not getting state funds, but I think Cupertino is on the state funding schedule, and is well regarded.

Only the hardest hit counties like Fresno saw property tax decrease in the 2008 time frame. Although market values dropped, many properties were still below their capped assesment, and so their taxes would increase either by the yearly cap or because they were sold and triggered a fresh assessment. I don't know about other counties, but Santa Clara's assessor did assess down automatically; but the tax rolls still increased. So in that way, it's a lot more dependable than an income tax.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#23

Post by buss » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

Best way to change this is to vote with YIMBY. Check out https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements

Also, check out this organization I'm part of: https://techworkers.vote

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#24

Post by mehrdadn » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #12

seiferteric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Why should your property taxes go up just because the market around you skyrockets, when this is completely outside of your control? The bay area is a prime example of this.

Because the money is being used to pay for local services that "you" are enjoying. Someone has to pay the taxes. It is difficult to see a good argument that having been a landholder for a long time gives some sort of moral right to be supported by others.

It's not exactly hard to imagine what problems occur here. You spend a huge chunk of your life saving to buy a home, and you plan it so that you can pay the taxes on it when you retire, then the rest of the city forces you to "enjoy" higher taxes you never demanded, predicted, or wanted, based on an income stream that you no longer have to pay it with, suddenly driving you out of the home/neighborhood/town you worked your entire life to finally afford. In many senses it's hardly "fair".

I don't know what the answer is here; I see it as a tough policy challenge. There might very well not be a solution that's "fair" to everyone. If you think there's an easy "moral" solution and you can't think of decent arguments for both sides, I feel like you're only kidding yourself.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #22

twblalock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the solution is to stop making property tax the main way that cities are funded. Among other things, this method of taxation tightly couples school funding to local home values. Areas with expensive homes have the best schools. (And areas with cheap homes have bad schools, which is not really what you want if you are trying to do something about inter-generational poverty.) This is self-reinforcing because now…

In California, cities are totally independent of school districts (except in that San Francisco is a combined county and city and its city counsil and mayor are also its county board of supervisors, and county boards and the state school board both supervise school districts). School district funding in most districts is property taxes supplimented with state funds to a specific level per student. There are a small n…

[deleted]

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#26

Post by georgeecollins » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

seiferteric wrote: post #4

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…

Counterpoint: Why should your property taxes go up just because the market around you skyrockets, when this is completely outside of your control? The bay area is a prime example of this.

1) One of the reasons why prices skyrocket is because people who would feel the pinch of the rising prices and probably move, don't. 2) Nobody has the right to own an asset for pennies on the dollar indefinitely. Because property tax rates are heritable and transferable geographically (once you reach a certain age and only in certain counties) you are creating a tax advantaged class of people in California.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#27

Post by pc86 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:31 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #24

roenxi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the money is being used to pay for local services that "you" are enjoying. Someone has to pay the taxes. It is difficult to see a good argument that having been a landholder for a long time gives some sort of moral right to be supported by others.

It's not exactly hard to imagine what problems occur here. You spend a huge chunk of your life saving to buy a home, and you plan it so that you can pay the taxes on it when you retire, then the rest of the city forces you to "enjoy" higher taxes you never demanded, predicted, or wanted, based on an income stream that you no longer have to pay it with, suddenly driving you out of the home/neighborhood/town you worked…

Then you move. That's how it works; if you can't afford the property taxes, you can't afford to live there.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#28

Post by ladberg » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:31 AM UTC

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…

I found a few places in Beverly Hills where people were paying over 100x less than their neighbors, which is insane. I wonder if posting screenshots of this map up in various neighborhoods showing nearby inequality would be enough combat the "poor old grandma getting kicked out of her house" counterpoint that's pretty much entirely fictional.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#29

Post by twblalock » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:33 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #19

twblalock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the solution is to stop making property tax the main way that cities are funded. Among other things, this method of taxation tightly couples school funding to local home values. Areas with expensive homes have the best schools. (And areas with cheap homes have bad schools, which is not really what you want if you are trying to do something about inter-generational poverty.) This is self-reinforcing because now…

This comment is wrong on a fundamental basis. Richer areas get less state funding than poorer school districts. These districts have to scramble to just narrow the gap rather than have more funding. The richer areas have higher scoring schools because wealth correlates with school scores probably due to a combination of natural ability and a more conducive parental and community environment (all multiplicative and co…

> An income tax per parcel does not scale. How do you tax rentals? Who pays the tax? What if you want to own multiple homes?

I was not proposing an income tax per parcel, I was proposing a flat tax per parcel and also an income tax on everyone who lives in the city.

Parcel taxes should be paid by the owner of the parcel. Income taxes should be paid by the earner of the income. It's not hard to deal with.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#30

Post by cameldrv » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:34 AM 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…

The solution is to let people run a tab with the government. Make the minimum payment the Prop 13 rate, but if there's a change in ownership, you have to pay back the difference plus a fair rate of interest.

This ensures that no one has to move because their home appreciated, but it also ensures that no one gets to pay taxes like their home never appreciated, but then pocket appreciation at sale time.