Edward

Hmmm, ok so let me try and get this straight:

Home owners who have a de facto vested interest in the well-being of their property, their community, and their state should pay a disproportionately higher tax bill, which increases over time, and for what, and toward what ends?

Answer: toward a bloated central governing body (in this case the State, but we can extend the logic toward Fed taxation) that spends without conscience nor consultation with the very base from whom the source of revenue is generated.

Moreover, said spending is more-often-than-not frivolous spending on failed programs, and such spending is largely devoid of the entire public interest (which is the very premise of taxation) as much as it is focused on a narrow sector toward whom this massive central governing body feels it is beholden to.

OK, so if anyone feels like their tax dollars are insufficient in covering what the government feels it needs to accomplish, again without consultation/representation, then please, by all means, feel free to send them a larger percentage of your wages.

I, for one, will continue to do all I can within this representative democracy to make my voice heard and my wishes felt by those who are elected to serve my wishes.

Edward

goofballdeluxe

Warren Buffett had a great diatribe against Prop 13, and I sorta agree with it. He says that property taxes should be based on size of property, not on when you bought.

For example, Mr. Buffett bought a 4,000 sq. ft. seaside estate in Laguna for $1 million in the early 1970s, when $1 million bought a huge estate on the sand. Now, he pays less property taxes than someone who bought a modest home of 1200 sq. ft., say, 3 years ago. So, the middle class subsidizes one of the world's richest men. Is that fair?

Why should the middle class be paying more property tax for a smaller lot, than a billionaire with a larger home on more property?

Property taxes should be based on the size of one's property, nothing else. The more property your lot encompasses, the more you should pay, regardless of WHEN you bought.

That's why I'm against Prop. 13. It punishes those who want to buy homes now, in favor of those who own larger parcels with lots of equity who happened to be lucky enough to buy homes when they were priced reasonably. Not really fair.

race911

In 1988 my house (then, under my parent's ownership) was probably worth $150K. I purchased in in 1995 for about that. Today, after peaking maybe around $650K, it's down to about $375K. So if my fixed-income retiree neighbor was faced with a tax bill peaking near $12K three years ago I guess under your system it's just tough ____?

(The specifics I mentioned in my post above, and fall on a deaf ear to those who would scrap Prop 13 were as follows, as best I can remember: Grandmother's house tripled in assessed valuation from about 1973 to 1977, which meant the taxes went from under $1K to almost $3K. What was Social Security then, $400/mo? I remember the apartment she got moved into was $100/mo.)

Edward

I understand completely your take on this, and I appreciate your POV.

My POV is different: one's property taxes at today's level is what it is, i.e. it reflects the market at this time, the time of purchase. That is no "punishment" ...it is the assessment of this day.

Contrast: what prop 13 does is simply protect those who bought homes in the past ... yes, those innumerable middle-class home buyers who worked equally hard at earning and acquiring their homes in that economy. They are protected in this one facet of their taxed-burdened lives. They still are 100% beholden to all other taxes, state, federal, sales, etc. But in this one point of helping them get along in an ever-increasingly demanding economic climate, prop 13 protects them. This is a perk or "reward" for having bought when they did, not a punishment on future buyers.

Add to this the very fact that innumerable folks protected by prop 13 are elderly who, by this point, are on fixed incomes. So, who is prop 13 really protecting?? The individual home owner who, far more-often-than-not is no Warren Buffet or property tycoon.

Moreover, what do I care if some wealthy guy benefits from what is legal and beneficial to me, the little guy? Am I the only one who should benefit and anyone above my tax bracket should be socked? How is that "fair"? This word "fair" is all too often bandied about which, IMHO, is more about what one guy thinks he "deserves" over another.

So let's see what is truly "fair": guy A and guy B both buy property in year X. Irrespective of their own incomes/net worth, both have to pay taxes based on their respective property values; and both are equally protected by the same piece of legislation. That, friend, is fair. To change the rules for one guy simply because of his net worth is nothing but unfair.

All, of course, IMHO. And too, I dig this kind of discussion, so absolutely nothing against GBD or anyone with contrary ideas! Peace all, gents!!


Edward

race911

Where AREN'T property taxes based on the size of the property, e.g. the value of the land. In part, anyway, since there are those pesky structural improvements most have on the land. Or is it that an acre is an acre is an acre. An acre of beachfront estate is the same as an acre of bombed out urban paradise in Detroit (or Oakland).

What does the size of the property have to do with equity? And how does that even relate remotely to the timing of a purchase? What IS a "reasonable price", anyway? 33% of the average public employee's salary? With or without benefits considered? For only one wage earner in the household? How about if someone's into "Big Love" and has more than two wage earners? See how absurd it becomes trying to micromanage?

But the government had their chance, and they _____ up. Did you vote for Jerry Brown? It was on his watch the state constitution was amended by public vote, with rather draconian terms (2% annual cap on raises of assessed value and 2/3 threshold for raising taxes). Funny how 35+ years later the Democrats are seemingly ready for his encore performance.

Amfab

I wonder how much prop 13 really affects revenue when the average person moves every 5-7 years anyway

User 121721

Representation without taxation is tyranny -- by the people who don't pay and live off those who do.

Van1

I believe Warren stated that he pays more in taxes on his Omaha home valued at just over $700k than he does on his SoCal home valued at several million dollars. He has owned his Omaha home for many decades as well.

CaptainGSR

I apologize for starting this rant on Rennlist. I just feel like my generation is constantly getting screwed these days.

I don't think I should pay ten times more in taxes than my next door neighbor. I don't earn 10 times more than He did 20 years ago, and the cost of living as gone up too. It is not fair!
He should have saved his money for his own retirement. It was his responsibility to do so. Not mine!

I am not justifying the state's outrageous spending in any way. I just don't want to be stuck with the bill!

twinreds

You already ARE stuck with the bill, and sponsoring ANY kind of taxation is allowing the thieves into your home. Someone might say exactly the same thing you just said (above) 20 years from now, this time about you, and I'm sure you won't agree to raise your taxation then (that is, if California can get out of the hole it is in).

goofballdeluxe

When I found out from my accountant that I was no longer getting my tax deduction for my interest on my mortgage because I fell under the AMT (Alternative Minumum Tax), I sold my home in 2005. Best thing I ever did. I made buckets of money because of the real estate morons, er, speculators, and I never looked back.

I rent a place for half of what it would cost me to own a similar place, and I no longer get a huge property tax bill. The less tax I pay to The Incompetents in control, the better.

It's one of the many reason why I keep my 993. My registration is less that $100 a year. A new Porsche's registration the first year alone would probably be $1200.

My only regret is wishing I was born 50 years earlier so I could've been a part of this country when it was great. It doesn't seem so much any longer.

tjangi

Once we finish with this rant, lets chat about the new health care bill...

Edward

...I'm tempted

In truth, no "rants" here that I have noticed. This Rennlist community behaves, far more often than not, with maturity and respect, despite opposing viewpoints.

And to Johan,
No apologies necessary ...why in the world would you apologize for voicing your opinion? Thankfully, we have not yet come to pass thought-police legislation. That we disagree on various points is irrelevant.


Edward

Martin S.

My TomTom in Spain would call out speed cameras with a warning tome. I believe the same feature was on the TomTom in Italy. These were TomTom rental units from AVIS.

Saw one cop car in a week in N. Spain...they just rely on the cameras to do the work. The cameras appear to be permanently mounted with their GPS coordinates plugged into TomTom by some "saint".

Aren't we talking about photo radar here? Doesn't Valentine 1 pick up photo radar?

There is a device for motorcycles that rotates their license plates out of sight. This could be a little cumbersome on a automobile.

If it gets real bad enforcement wise, I too would strap a bogus plate on the front of my car, something from out of a junk yard.

f8vr993

Its definitely a "Socialist California" now.
I only have two words for where we are as state...octomom and Fabien Nunez... Only in California! YIKES!