Reminder: Your massive property taxes are due

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]That’s the argument for Prop 13. It allows people on fixed income to remain in their homes.

If they heloc’ed away then the next generation won’t be living there.[/quote]

Briansd1, I agree with you that this was the intended purpose of Prop. 13. HOWEVER, the original “Greatest Generation” purchasers, in my ‘hood, could AFFORD gardeners, roofers and handymen on their fixed incomes. ON the OTHER hand, their CHILDREN (my fellow “baby boomers?) don’t appear to be able to maintain the property on a similar fixed income. What’s the difference?

Illustrated, plain and simple, the difference is in VALUES. Even though children of “savers,” the heirs I am observing here are NOT savers and, for the most part, have NO ASSETS. Several of them have (admittedly) never had a full-time job. Even given no mortgage and Prop 13 tax treatment, once obtaining deed to real property, they IMMEDIATELY SEE IT AS A MONEY MACHINE AND BLOW THE $$. Now they are trying to pay it back on a fixed income. Never having been homeowners, it never dawns on them (until it happens) that water heaters break, roofs leak, etc.

NOW, WITH ALL THE TD/HELOC $$ SPENT, they are trying to pay back the encumbrance(s) AND live on their (yes, same) fixed income.

Their parents never would have done this, just so they could leave behind this “legacy.” And for what? The parents would have been better off selling while they were still alive and going around the world and then settling in a Sr. complex or an assisted living facility. The whole thing is just sad and I feel that my block is a microcosm of many thousands in the state just like it, all due to Prop. 13, which allows heirs to live nearly FREE in their parent’s (unencumbered) property (+ utilities, of course).

As a market-rate owner and taxpayer, I don’t enjoy having all these “unmotivated overgrown-children” neighbors and am reluctant to make improvements to my own property because of this. Even though properties in newer neighborhoods wouldn’t be eligible for Prop. 13 tax treatment and having an HOA would do away with some of the problems I am mentioning here, I AM grateful I don’t have to pay MR and HOA dues and would NOT choose a property that had them, in any case.

[dbapig]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] but prison guards (and cops, in general) have one of the toughest jobs out there.[/quote]

Tough has nothing to do with pay. It’s supply and demand.

Fruit pickers have tough jobs. But the state doesn’t pay them high wages.

If we want good schools, we need to cut back elsewhere or raise taxes. I don’t believe the voters want higher taxes.

But I so see the school bond issues getting passed. That’s because parents are selfish and want to pass the cost of their children’s education onto future generations. We can’t do that forever. One day, there won’t be enough money to pay back the debt (unfortunately, I don’t know when that day will be).[/quote]

Parents wanting good education for kids = selfish? I disagree.

[dbapig]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] but prison guards (and cops, in general) have one of the toughest jobs out there.[/quote]

Tough has nothing to do with pay. It’s supply and demand.

Fruit pickers have tough jobs. But the state doesn’t pay them high wages.

If we want good schools, we need to cut back elsewhere or raise taxes. I don’t believe the voters want higher taxes.

But I so see the school bond issues getting passed. That’s because parents are selfish and want to pass the cost of their children’s education onto future generations. We can’t do that forever. One day, there won’t be enough money to pay back the debt (unfortunately, I don’t know when that day will be).[/quote]

Parents wanting good education for kids = selfish? I disagree.

[dbapig]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] but prison guards (and cops, in general) have one of the toughest jobs out there.[/quote]

Tough has nothing to do with pay. It’s supply and demand.

Fruit pickers have tough jobs. But the state doesn’t pay them high wages.

If we want good schools, we need to cut back elsewhere or raise taxes. I don’t believe the voters want higher taxes.

But I so see the school bond issues getting passed. That’s because parents are selfish and want to pass the cost of their children’s education onto future generations. We can’t do that forever. One day, there won’t be enough money to pay back the debt (unfortunately, I don’t know when that day will be).[/quote]

Parents wanting good education for kids = selfish? I disagree.

[dbapig]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] but prison guards (and cops, in general) have one of the toughest jobs out there.[/quote]

Tough has nothing to do with pay. It’s supply and demand.

Fruit pickers have tough jobs. But the state doesn’t pay them high wages.

If we want good schools, we need to cut back elsewhere or raise taxes. I don’t believe the voters want higher taxes.

But I so see the school bond issues getting passed. That’s because parents are selfish and want to pass the cost of their children’s education onto future generations. We can’t do that forever. One day, there won’t be enough money to pay back the debt (unfortunately, I don’t know when that day will be).[/quote]

Parents wanting good education for kids = selfish? I disagree.

[dbapig]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] but prison guards (and cops, in general) have one of the toughest jobs out there.[/quote]

Tough has nothing to do with pay. It’s supply and demand.

Fruit pickers have tough jobs. But the state doesn’t pay them high wages.

If we want good schools, we need to cut back elsewhere or raise taxes. I don’t believe the voters want higher taxes.

But I so see the school bond issues getting passed. That’s because parents are selfish and want to pass the cost of their children’s education onto future generations. We can’t do that forever. One day, there won’t be enough money to pay back the debt (unfortunately, I don’t know when that day will be).[/quote]

Parents wanting good education for kids = selfish? I disagree.

[bearishgurl]

I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.

[bearishgurl]

I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.

[bearishgurl]

I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.

[bearishgurl]

I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.

[bearishgurl]

I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]

In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.

The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).

The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]

In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.

The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).

The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]

In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.

The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).

The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]I would like to comment that in South County, the voting population that was at least 50% responsible for passing the school construction bonds in recent years, were. . . you guessed it, RENTERS! Of course, as renters, they want improvements in their own children’s schools but this tax doesn’t come off their backs. Only owners pay it in their property taxes.

And no, I don’t buy the argument that rent is usually enough to cover the owner’s mortgage(s), HOA dues (if applic.) and property taxes. In my experience, it’s usually negative.

Neither do I buy that apartment rents are necessarily a positive cash flow for owners, unless they own a very large complex and/or purchased a long time ago and didn’t bleed the property.[/quote]

In every case that I’m aware of, prior to the housing bubble, rents absolutely cover property taxes.

The whole “I’m a landlord with negative cash flow ‘investor'” comes with bubble territory. My parents were RE brokers, landlords, and investors for decades. They would NEVER have purchased a property where rents didn’t cover all expenses and provide a profit on top of that. They never had a negative cash flow in any of their properties, and I know many other long-time landlords who are in the same boat (my current landlords, included).

The negative cash flow “investors” are hoping for capital gains. Those aren’t real RE investors.

[Author]

Posts