It would also push out the long-time landlords who’ve been getting thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies every year. And it would eliminate the subsidies for corporations and other RE “investors” who’ve been getting an incredibly unfair deal at the expense of other taxpayers.
Enough is enough. It’s one thing to keep a person from being taxed out of their only home, but to pay thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands, or more) per year to subsidize the profits of very wealthy people…that is totally unjustifiable.
I will show you why repealing Prop 13 protection for non-owner-occupied properties would lower housing prices and free up more inventory for people who are looking to buy a primary residence. Stay tuned…[/quote]Do you have data to prove that it’ll push the long time landlords out? flyer is one of those long time landlord and he said this won’t change his position one bit. I would agree with him. If I’m the long time landlord w/ a paid off home, I’m not going to sell my investment just because my cost went up a few thousand a year. The appreciation will more than cover that and the rental income would still be very sweet. Now, if price doesn’t appreciate but depreciate, then my tax burden would also decrease. So, unless removing prop 13 for non primary also reduces rent, it’s not going to for and long term landlords who have paid off house to sell.
FYI, 45% of Californian are subsidizing the wealthier 55%. So, why aren’t you all hell bent in protecting the poorer 45%?
