The political winds are changing direction in re: Prop 13 loopholes

[spdrun]

I do understand it. The 2% per year increase is a good thing. It allows landlords to plan financially, save for repairs without suddenly being hit by a big unexpected tax bill.

Also, it encourages long-term ownership, which means stability. As well as long-term tenancy. If expenses don’t go up much from year to year, rents for existing tenants can rise very slowly and the tenants will stay.

I’d support removing the loopholes for transfer outside of a family, and maybe support removing it for corporate-owned property, but that’s about it.

[CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, spdrun. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=CA renter]
As for the subsidy:

“Definition of ‘Subsidy’

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

…..

tax subsidy
noun [C or U] TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
› a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

[Which Prop 13 largely fails to do, BTW, since most LLs charge market rent, irrespective of the subsidies they receive.]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy
—–

Prop 13 is absolutely the very essence of a tax subsidy to those who least need it (people who own more property than they can use for themselves). It is unconscionable that we are providing these subsidies when the state and local governments are so strapped.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/comment/reply/18092/243011?quote=1#comment-form

[Author]

Posts