But they PROMISED!!!!

[recordsclerk]

“The way i look at it. Renters should pay prop taxes to support the “infrastructure” where they are using too. Don’t they get a free ride?”
This would be double taxation since the property owner already pays the taxes. Renters pay the rent which goes towards the carrying cost for the landlord or profit. But since we are trying to be fair, why not let the renters pay their fair share.

[barnaby33]

Renters do pay their fare share, its called rent.

Mello roos don’t seem unfair to me, you are told up front what the cost is going to be and it doesn’t change over time. Its paid by all the people who buy into the development. So far as I know a Mello-Roos is just a bond issued by the developer to pay for infrastructure that the govt makes him build. Whats unfair about that.

Prop 13 is a totally different animal. It sets unfair taxation policies that favor one type of resident over another, even though all residents demand civic services.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Renters do pay their fare share, its called rent.

Mello roos don’t seem unfair to me, you are told up front what the cost is going to be and it doesn’t change over time. Its paid by all the people who buy into the development. So far as I know a Mello-Roos is just a bond issued by the developer to pay for infrastructure that the govt makes him build. Whats unfair about that.

Prop 13 is a totally different animal. It sets unfair taxation policies that favor one type of resident over another, even though all residents demand civic services.

Josh

[no_such_reality]

Actually, since we’re paying through the landlord, to be fair, our rent should be tax deductible…

[no_such_reality]

Actually, since we’re paying through the landlord, to be fair, our rent should be tax deductible…

[Coronita]

"The way i look at it. Renters should pay prop taxes to support the "infrastructure" where they are using too. Don't they get a free ride?" This would be double taxation since the property owner already pays the taxes. Renters pay the rent which goes towards the carrying cost for the landlord or profit. But since we are trying to be fair, why not let the renters pay their fair share.

 

 

It's not like double taxes don't exist.

[Coronita]

"The way i look at it. Renters should pay prop taxes to support the "infrastructure" where they are using too. Don't they get a free ride?" This would be double taxation since the property owner already pays the taxes. Renters pay the rent which goes towards the carrying cost for the landlord or profit. But since we are trying to be fair, why not let the renters pay their fair share.

 

 

It's not like double taxes don't exist.

[Coronita]

Actually, since we're paying through the landlord, to be fair, our rent should be tax deductible…

 

Won't happen. government is broke. The mortgage rate deduction probably exists because of big lobbying groups from banks to encourage home buying.

…unless you can organize a big lobbying group on behalf of renters.

 

[Coronita]

Actually, since we're paying through the landlord, to be fair, our rent should be tax deductible…

 

Won't happen. government is broke. The mortgage rate deduction probably exists because of big lobbying groups from banks to encourage home buying.

…unless you can organize a big lobbying group on behalf of renters.

 

[meadandale]

@Josh
“Prop 13 is a totally different animal. It sets unfair taxation policies that favor one type of resident over another, even though all residents demand civic services.”

You should read the link I posted above as well as this one:

http://www.hjta.org/content/ARC000024D_Prop13.htm

NN. We all get the same services, but I pay more. How can this be fair?

A. In California, just like other states, services have never been related to the amount you pay in property taxes. If services were tied to what you paid, you might see four fire trucks assigned to a costly home while only one would protect a less expensive residence.

In fact, property taxes are not allocated for specific services. They go into the general fund along with other taxes and it is local public officials who determine how the money will be spent.

Or

NN. That’s easy for your to say, you’re still paying less than I am.

A. That may be true, but I’ve been paying for years. It’s the neighbors that were here ahead of you that paid for all these local improvements you now enjoy.

[meadandale]

@Josh
“Prop 13 is a totally different animal. It sets unfair taxation policies that favor one type of resident over another, even though all residents demand civic services.”

You should read the link I posted above as well as this one:

http://www.hjta.org/content/ARC000024D_Prop13.htm

NN. We all get the same services, but I pay more. How can this be fair?

A. In California, just like other states, services have never been related to the amount you pay in property taxes. If services were tied to what you paid, you might see four fire trucks assigned to a costly home while only one would protect a less expensive residence.

In fact, property taxes are not allocated for specific services. They go into the general fund along with other taxes and it is local public officials who determine how the money will be spent.

Or

NN. That’s easy for your to say, you’re still paying less than I am.

A. That may be true, but I’ve been paying for years. It’s the neighbors that were here ahead of you that paid for all these local improvements you now enjoy.

[sdcellar]

Yes, meadandale, that’s a perfectly unbiased source–the folks who penned the proposition in the first place.

[sdcellar]

Yes, meadandale, that’s a perfectly unbiased source–the folks who penned the proposition in the first place.

[bubba99]

The infrastructure for the project is already built by the developer – water, sewer, power, roads. Mello-Roos is for “other”services like schools, fire, police. An expense, not a capital cost. Unless the Mella Roos developments get better schools, or better fire, or better police service, it is again disparate.

As to the arguement that “existing” residents have been paying longer, that would almost make sense if home sellers were refunded their payments and new owners of existing housing paid Mella Roos just like the buyers of new housing.

It is just another bull shit tax on new home buyers along with building permits, meter connection charges, and land offsets for “permission to build”. By the time most new homes are started, the builder is $100k into each housing start because of fees. This should offset the cost of a new fire house, but instead morons argue that any tax you know about is fair.

[bubba99]

The infrastructure for the project is already built by the developer – water, sewer, power, roads. Mello-Roos is for “other”services like schools, fire, police. An expense, not a capital cost. Unless the Mella Roos developments get better schools, or better fire, or better police service, it is again disparate.

As to the arguement that “existing” residents have been paying longer, that would almost make sense if home sellers were refunded their payments and new owners of existing housing paid Mella Roos just like the buyers of new housing.

It is just another bull shit tax on new home buyers along with building permits, meter connection charges, and land offsets for “permission to build”. By the time most new homes are started, the builder is $100k into each housing start because of fees. This should offset the cost of a new fire house, but instead morons argue that any tax you know about is fair.

[Author]

Posts