California Property Taxes Mapped • Hacker News Board

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#31

Post by babesh » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #29

babesh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are already flat taxes per parcel.

So you are taxing an owner of a rental on their total income rather than the income they earn on the property?

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#32

Post by seiferteric » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #27

mehrdadn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The image of 90 year old widows being forced out of their home was how prop 13 was passed so...

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#33

Post by mehrdadn » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #27

mehrdadn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, duh! I'm so dumb. If only the rest of us were smart enough to think of these simple and fair solutions ourselves :)

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#34

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:39 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…

fortunately there is a financial instrument for exactly this situation: the reverse mortgage. it's kind of absurd to treat the quintupling in value of one's home as some sort of hardship.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#35

Post by HideousKojima » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #27

mehrdadn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or abolish property taxes and fund cities with consumption taxes or some other tax

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#36

Post by babesh » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #31

twblalock wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are already flat taxes per parcel. So you are taxing an owner of a rental on their total income rather than the income they earn on the property?

What if a corporation owns the property? If you do this, I would transfer the property to a corporation and then rent it back to myself for a $1 a year. The corporation would have only $1 of income per year.

This is so badly thought out.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#37

Post by ladberg » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:41 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 can just sell your house and buy another one in a less expensive area and make insane profits. The people who support prop 13 are literally lottery winners who are complaining about paying taxes on their winnings.

If you don't want to move then you can get a reverse mortgage and still profit, you just won't get to pass the house to your children. Still, you'll make way more from the property value increases than anything you would have paid in taxes and can pass those gains on to your children.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#38

Post by twblalock » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #31

twblalock wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are already flat taxes per parcel. So you are taxing an owner of a rental on their total income rather than the income they earn on the property?

No, I'm proposing taxing city residents on their income regardless of whether they own or rent. If the owner of the parcel doesn't live in the city then he wouldn't pay a dime of income tax to the city -- he would pay the parcel tax to the city where the parcel is located, and he would pay income tax wherever he lives.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#39

Post by Enginerrrd » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #26

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.

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.

>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 assault on freedom and property rights.

Taking it to the extreme, it means ONLY the very wealthy could ever own things like land and that is just a fundamentally unamerican idea.

Re: California Property Taxes Mapped

#40

Post by refurb » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 1:42 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…

What’s really unfair is someone whose home goes from $100k to $2M, for a total capital gain of $1.9M gets a 90% discount on their property taxes.

The people with the greatest ability to pay are the ones getting the biggest tax break.