big house

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t see how taxing wealth (property) is regressive.

Under the current CA system of property taxes, someone living in a million dollar house in La Jolla (with the income to match and money and property passed down several generations) could be paying less than someone who just bought a new tract house in El Cajon. That’s pretty regressive to me.

BTW, the CA system suits me just fine.[/quote]

Typically, taxation based on net worth (especially when that is disproportionately expressed as property value) over income level, is viewed as regressive.

The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.[/quote]

Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits.

BTW, despite problems with Prop 13, I support it because it restraints local government spending.

Not sure about other states, but they may they have deferral program for property taxes on the low-income elderly.

In addition to Prop 13, we used to have such program also in CA until they were terminated.
http://www.sdtreastax.com/ni_faqs.html#2

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.[/quote]

Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits.

BTW, despite problems with Prop 13, I support it because it restraints local government spending.

Not sure about other states, but they may they have deferral program for property taxes on the low-income elderly.

In addition to Prop 13, we used to have such program also in CA until they were terminated.
http://www.sdtreastax.com/ni_faqs.html#2

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.[/quote]

Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits.

BTW, despite problems with Prop 13, I support it because it restraints local government spending.

Not sure about other states, but they may they have deferral program for property taxes on the low-income elderly.

In addition to Prop 13, we used to have such program also in CA until they were terminated.
http://www.sdtreastax.com/ni_faqs.html#2

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.[/quote]

Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits.

BTW, despite problems with Prop 13, I support it because it restraints local government spending.

Not sure about other states, but they may they have deferral program for property taxes on the low-income elderly.

In addition to Prop 13, we used to have such program also in CA until they were terminated.
http://www.sdtreastax.com/ni_faqs.html#2

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
The prototype polemic example is the old widow on ssi who only has the house she always lived in. That was the primary rhetorical referent when prop 13 was passed.[/quote]

Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits.

BTW, despite problems with Prop 13, I support it because it restraints local government spending.

Not sure about other states, but they may they have deferral program for property taxes on the low-income elderly.

In addition to Prop 13, we used to have such program also in CA until they were terminated.
http://www.sdtreastax.com/ni_faqs.html#2

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]
Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits. [/quote]

The reality of Prop 13 is not the same as its sell job.

My point was that the whole “poor granny” was an effective advertising tool.

I don’t support it.

Even though it was and is good for property prices, it means that california has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the US (when adjusted for cost of living). In unadjusted dollars, we have a New York cost of living and a Nebraska or Georgia school spending budget.

For me its somewhat personal.
My wife is a teacher who regularly has classes of 40 students (80% of whom have english as their second language).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]
Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits. [/quote]

The reality of Prop 13 is not the same as its sell job.

My point was that the whole “poor granny” was an effective advertising tool.

I don’t support it.

Even though it was and is good for property prices, it means that california has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the US (when adjusted for cost of living). In unadjusted dollars, we have a New York cost of living and a Nebraska or Georgia school spending budget.

For me its somewhat personal.
My wife is a teacher who regularly has classes of 40 students (80% of whom have english as their second language).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]
Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits. [/quote]

The reality of Prop 13 is not the same as its sell job.

My point was that the whole “poor granny” was an effective advertising tool.

I don’t support it.

Even though it was and is good for property prices, it means that california has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the US (when adjusted for cost of living). In unadjusted dollars, we have a New York cost of living and a Nebraska or Georgia school spending budget.

For me its somewhat personal.
My wife is a teacher who regularly has classes of 40 students (80% of whom have english as their second language).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]
Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits. [/quote]

The reality of Prop 13 is not the same as its sell job.

My point was that the whole “poor granny” was an effective advertising tool.

I don’t support it.

Even though it was and is good for property prices, it means that california has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the US (when adjusted for cost of living). In unadjusted dollars, we have a New York cost of living and a Nebraska or Georgia school spending budget.

For me its somewhat personal.
My wife is a teacher who regularly has classes of 40 students (80% of whom have english as their second language).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]
Good point, but Prop 13 protection can be passed on to wealthy heirs and protect wealthy corporations that survive in perpetuity. You can transfer the share of the corporation (and thus ownership of property) but keep the Prop 13 benefits. [/quote]

The reality of Prop 13 is not the same as its sell job.

My point was that the whole “poor granny” was an effective advertising tool.

I don’t support it.

Even though it was and is good for property prices, it means that california has some of the lowest per pupil spending in the US (when adjusted for cost of living). In unadjusted dollars, we have a New York cost of living and a Nebraska or Georgia school spending budget.

For me its somewhat personal.
My wife is a teacher who regularly has classes of 40 students (80% of whom have english as their second language).

[Author]

Posts