Reminder: Your massive property taxes are due

[bearishgurl]

Awesome letter, edna. Thanks for sharing. I think as more “Prop. 13 original owners” die and leave their properties to their heirs, it will become more and more palatable to the voting public to have a closer look at Prop. 13 and find ways to dismantle it, either piecemeal (repealing Prop. 58) or in its entirety. It’s not a fair system for the vast majority of CA property owners today and is becoming less and less fair as the years roll by.

However, I’m all for leaving it in place for pre-1978 owners of their PRINCIPAL RESIDENCES only. This “grandfather” clause would eventually become moot, due to deaths. I agree that everyone else should be reassessed. Built into the system should be re-assessment triggers based upon the death of the original (Prop. 13) owner or a pre-death transfer of eligible property. To circumvent the (predicted) non-filing of death certificates with county recorders, ALL county health departments should furnish electronic lists of adult death certificates they issued to every county assessor once a month.

Sound a little like “Big Brother?” Prop. 13 proponents believe their rights to this perk are sacrosanct. If Prop. 13 was decimated, heirs would just take posssession but fail to take proper title if the property is in a trust or there are not enough assets to be probated. Who’s to know, anyway?? As long as they don’t want to borrow from the property, IMHO this could work, indefinitely.

[briansd1]

bearishgurl, if the heirs used their inherited houses as piggy banks, then they are indebted and they’ll lose the houses to foreclosure soon enough.

Just hang in tight and eventually the houses, will pass on to new owners.

If the banks loaned money to people without incomes to support the mortgages, then they deserve the losses that are coming to them.

[briansd1]

bearishgurl, if the heirs used their inherited houses as piggy banks, then they are indebted and they’ll lose the houses to foreclosure soon enough.

Just hang in tight and eventually the houses, will pass on to new owners.

If the banks loaned money to people without incomes to support the mortgages, then they deserve the losses that are coming to them.

[briansd1]

bearishgurl, if the heirs used their inherited houses as piggy banks, then they are indebted and they’ll lose the houses to foreclosure soon enough.

Just hang in tight and eventually the houses, will pass on to new owners.

If the banks loaned money to people without incomes to support the mortgages, then they deserve the losses that are coming to them.

[briansd1]

bearishgurl, if the heirs used their inherited houses as piggy banks, then they are indebted and they’ll lose the houses to foreclosure soon enough.

Just hang in tight and eventually the houses, will pass on to new owners.

If the banks loaned money to people without incomes to support the mortgages, then they deserve the losses that are coming to them.

[briansd1]

bearishgurl, if the heirs used their inherited houses as piggy banks, then they are indebted and they’ll lose the houses to foreclosure soon enough.

Just hang in tight and eventually the houses, will pass on to new owners.

If the banks loaned money to people without incomes to support the mortgages, then they deserve the losses that are coming to them.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.[/quote]

DIY is key to making real estate profits for most small investors.

It’s easy to spend $100k on landscaping and $100k on remodeling. If you can’t do the improvements yourself or don’t have connections with contractors… well, there goes your profit.

Most homeowners overspend on remodeling. For example, when remodeling a kitchen, they go too fanciful and end up a highly customized kitchen that has no value to a would be buyer.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.[/quote]

DIY is key to making real estate profits for most small investors.

It’s easy to spend $100k on landscaping and $100k on remodeling. If you can’t do the improvements yourself or don’t have connections with contractors… well, there goes your profit.

Most homeowners overspend on remodeling. For example, when remodeling a kitchen, they go too fanciful and end up a highly customized kitchen that has no value to a would be buyer.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.[/quote]

DIY is key to making real estate profits for most small investors.

It’s easy to spend $100k on landscaping and $100k on remodeling. If you can’t do the improvements yourself or don’t have connections with contractors… well, there goes your profit.

Most homeowners overspend on remodeling. For example, when remodeling a kitchen, they go too fanciful and end up a highly customized kitchen that has no value to a would be buyer.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.[/quote]

DIY is key to making real estate profits for most small investors.

It’s easy to spend $100k on landscaping and $100k on remodeling. If you can’t do the improvements yourself or don’t have connections with contractors… well, there goes your profit.

Most homeowners overspend on remodeling. For example, when remodeling a kitchen, they go too fanciful and end up a highly customized kitchen that has no value to a would be buyer.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]I no longer possess the “DIY” patience or personality for the landlord thing.[/quote]

DIY is key to making real estate profits for most small investors.

It’s easy to spend $100k on landscaping and $100k on remodeling. If you can’t do the improvements yourself or don’t have connections with contractors… well, there goes your profit.

Most homeowners overspend on remodeling. For example, when remodeling a kitchen, they go too fanciful and end up a highly customized kitchen that has no value to a would be buyer.

[CA renter]

[quote=edna_mode]OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of the problems with Prop 13 and commercial RE, and agree with the letter writter here.

Again, I strongly favor Prop 13 for **primary residences** ONLY where residential properties are concerned (and some possible exemptions for multi-family dwellings where the owner agrees to some sort of rent control — sharing the benefit of Prop 13 with the tenants instead of having taxpayers subsidizing the investors’ profits).

I’m mixed on commercial RE. I’d like to see it in effect for a single commercial property per SS number (or the SSN behind the EIN/TIN used for ownership of the building) or something, but not for multiple buildings belonging to a single family or entity.

It’s not as easy to deconstruct as one might initially think, and I staunchly support private property rights, so have a big problem anytime someone thinks a family (even heirs) should be taxed out of **their own** homes. IMHO, transferring assets within a family is a private matter, and should not trigger any kind of reassessment. That being said, if they want the benefit of their parents’ cost basis for property taxes, then they should not be able to step-up the cost basis at death/transfer for capital gains purposes. It should be one or the other. Perhaps people should have a choice when they inherit to either step up the cost basis for all purposes, or leave it at the original cost basis for all purposes.

Yes, you’re right about some of the deadbeat kids taking over mom and dad’s house after they die, then letting it fall apart. We’ve seen the same ourselves, and it’s a shame. Perhaps that could be dealt with in some other fashion (code enforcement?). IMHO, they deserve a home, too, and there is no reason for me or anyone else to feel entitled to take away their right to live in their own family’s home.

[CA renter]

[quote=edna_mode]OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of the problems with Prop 13 and commercial RE, and agree with the letter writter here.

Again, I strongly favor Prop 13 for **primary residences** ONLY where residential properties are concerned (and some possible exemptions for multi-family dwellings where the owner agrees to some sort of rent control — sharing the benefit of Prop 13 with the tenants instead of having taxpayers subsidizing the investors’ profits).

I’m mixed on commercial RE. I’d like to see it in effect for a single commercial property per SS number (or the SSN behind the EIN/TIN used for ownership of the building) or something, but not for multiple buildings belonging to a single family or entity.

It’s not as easy to deconstruct as one might initially think, and I staunchly support private property rights, so have a big problem anytime someone thinks a family (even heirs) should be taxed out of **their own** homes. IMHO, transferring assets within a family is a private matter, and should not trigger any kind of reassessment. That being said, if they want the benefit of their parents’ cost basis for property taxes, then they should not be able to step-up the cost basis at death/transfer for capital gains purposes. It should be one or the other. Perhaps people should have a choice when they inherit to either step up the cost basis for all purposes, or leave it at the original cost basis for all purposes.

Yes, you’re right about some of the deadbeat kids taking over mom and dad’s house after they die, then letting it fall apart. We’ve seen the same ourselves, and it’s a shame. Perhaps that could be dealt with in some other fashion (code enforcement?). IMHO, they deserve a home, too, and there is no reason for me or anyone else to feel entitled to take away their right to live in their own family’s home.

[CA renter]

[quote=edna_mode]OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of the problems with Prop 13 and commercial RE, and agree with the letter writter here.

Again, I strongly favor Prop 13 for **primary residences** ONLY where residential properties are concerned (and some possible exemptions for multi-family dwellings where the owner agrees to some sort of rent control — sharing the benefit of Prop 13 with the tenants instead of having taxpayers subsidizing the investors’ profits).

I’m mixed on commercial RE. I’d like to see it in effect for a single commercial property per SS number (or the SSN behind the EIN/TIN used for ownership of the building) or something, but not for multiple buildings belonging to a single family or entity.

It’s not as easy to deconstruct as one might initially think, and I staunchly support private property rights, so have a big problem anytime someone thinks a family (even heirs) should be taxed out of **their own** homes. IMHO, transferring assets within a family is a private matter, and should not trigger any kind of reassessment. That being said, if they want the benefit of their parents’ cost basis for property taxes, then they should not be able to step-up the cost basis at death/transfer for capital gains purposes. It should be one or the other. Perhaps people should have a choice when they inherit to either step up the cost basis for all purposes, or leave it at the original cost basis for all purposes.

Yes, you’re right about some of the deadbeat kids taking over mom and dad’s house after they die, then letting it fall apart. We’ve seen the same ourselves, and it’s a shame. Perhaps that could be dealt with in some other fashion (code enforcement?). IMHO, they deserve a home, too, and there is no reason for me or anyone else to feel entitled to take away their right to live in their own family’s home.

[CA renter]

[quote=edna_mode]OK, I bring examples, and analysis in the form of an open letter to Warren Buffett by a Menlo Park resident who researched the effect of Prop 13 on not only resident properties, but commercial properties:

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=6256

I wonder what a similar analysis for San Diego would look like. Maybe the ire of all these homeowners is misdirected at each other, and they should be looking more deeply into what the inherited mom-and-pop shops are paying for fire, sewer, water, police, courts, and an educated work force.

Deconstruct away.[/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of the problems with Prop 13 and commercial RE, and agree with the letter writter here.

Again, I strongly favor Prop 13 for **primary residences** ONLY where residential properties are concerned (and some possible exemptions for multi-family dwellings where the owner agrees to some sort of rent control — sharing the benefit of Prop 13 with the tenants instead of having taxpayers subsidizing the investors’ profits).

I’m mixed on commercial RE. I’d like to see it in effect for a single commercial property per SS number (or the SSN behind the EIN/TIN used for ownership of the building) or something, but not for multiple buildings belonging to a single family or entity.

It’s not as easy to deconstruct as one might initially think, and I staunchly support private property rights, so have a big problem anytime someone thinks a family (even heirs) should be taxed out of **their own** homes. IMHO, transferring assets within a family is a private matter, and should not trigger any kind of reassessment. That being said, if they want the benefit of their parents’ cost basis for property taxes, then they should not be able to step-up the cost basis at death/transfer for capital gains purposes. It should be one or the other. Perhaps people should have a choice when they inherit to either step up the cost basis for all purposes, or leave it at the original cost basis for all purposes.

Yes, you’re right about some of the deadbeat kids taking over mom and dad’s house after they die, then letting it fall apart. We’ve seen the same ourselves, and it’s a shame. Perhaps that could be dealt with in some other fashion (code enforcement?). IMHO, they deserve a home, too, and there is no reason for me or anyone else to feel entitled to take away their right to live in their own family’s home.

[Author]

Posts