Reminder: Your massive property taxes are due

[EconProf]

Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

Thats not entirely right.

Our state ranks in the middle for per capita spending.
Considering that our population is likely under-represented due to a large number of undocumented residents, our per capita spending is probably even lower.
This does not even take into account that we rank near the top for cost of living.
So our average per-person spending is less than average when cost of living is taken into account.

We actually are far leaner than most states.

The only time we look fat is when you ignore the fact that we have more people.

Where exactly are you a professor of economics?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

Thats not entirely right.

Our state ranks in the middle for per capita spending.
Considering that our population is likely under-represented due to a large number of undocumented residents, our per capita spending is probably even lower.
This does not even take into account that we rank near the top for cost of living.
So our average per-person spending is less than average when cost of living is taken into account.

We actually are far leaner than most states.

The only time we look fat is when you ignore the fact that we have more people.

Where exactly are you a professor of economics?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

Thats not entirely right.

Our state ranks in the middle for per capita spending.
Considering that our population is likely under-represented due to a large number of undocumented residents, our per capita spending is probably even lower.
This does not even take into account that we rank near the top for cost of living.
So our average per-person spending is less than average when cost of living is taken into account.

We actually are far leaner than most states.

The only time we look fat is when you ignore the fact that we have more people.

Where exactly are you a professor of economics?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

Thats not entirely right.

Our state ranks in the middle for per capita spending.
Considering that our population is likely under-represented due to a large number of undocumented residents, our per capita spending is probably even lower.
This does not even take into account that we rank near the top for cost of living.
So our average per-person spending is less than average when cost of living is taken into account.

We actually are far leaner than most states.

The only time we look fat is when you ignore the fact that we have more people.

Where exactly are you a professor of economics?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

Thats not entirely right.

Our state ranks in the middle for per capita spending.
Considering that our population is likely under-represented due to a large number of undocumented residents, our per capita spending is probably even lower.
This does not even take into account that we rank near the top for cost of living.
So our average per-person spending is less than average when cost of living is taken into account.

We actually are far leaner than most states.

The only time we look fat is when you ignore the fact that we have more people.

Where exactly are you a professor of economics?

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we have a **spending** problem.

Still, there is no reason for investors/landlords to have Prop 13 protection unless they’re willing to be regulated by rent control (so taxpayers might be subsidizing poor tenants instead of wealthy landlords). Personally, I think everyone should be entitled to Prop 13 protection on their primary residences ONLY.

BTW, people only have to pay much higher property taxes if they **choose** to pay high prices. It is entirely voluntary. Buyers need to learn to include full PITI payments when they agree to a certain price. To hear people complain about the “inequity” in property taxes is a bit like listening to people complain about airport noise when they’ve bought right next to an airport. Buyers should have known about the property taxes when they bought **and volunteered** to pay higher taxes than other neighbors. If all buyers were rational, nobody would buy when prices are so outrageously high, then prices would drop so the tax “inequity” would be very small.

It’s largely because of property taxes that we are renting. We could easily afford the P&I payments, even at the peak, but couldn’t really stomach the higher prop taxes. That’s one of the main reasons we want lower prices vs. lower interest rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we have a **spending** problem.

Still, there is no reason for investors/landlords to have Prop 13 protection unless they’re willing to be regulated by rent control (so taxpayers might be subsidizing poor tenants instead of wealthy landlords). Personally, I think everyone should be entitled to Prop 13 protection on their primary residences ONLY.

BTW, people only have to pay much higher property taxes if they **choose** to pay high prices. It is entirely voluntary. Buyers need to learn to include full PITI payments when they agree to a certain price. To hear people complain about the “inequity” in property taxes is a bit like listening to people complain about airport noise when they’ve bought right next to an airport. Buyers should have known about the property taxes when they bought **and volunteered** to pay higher taxes than other neighbors. If all buyers were rational, nobody would buy when prices are so outrageously high, then prices would drop so the tax “inequity” would be very small.

It’s largely because of property taxes that we are renting. We could easily afford the P&I payments, even at the peak, but couldn’t really stomach the higher prop taxes. That’s one of the main reasons we want lower prices vs. lower interest rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we have a **spending** problem.

Still, there is no reason for investors/landlords to have Prop 13 protection unless they’re willing to be regulated by rent control (so taxpayers might be subsidizing poor tenants instead of wealthy landlords). Personally, I think everyone should be entitled to Prop 13 protection on their primary residences ONLY.

BTW, people only have to pay much higher property taxes if they **choose** to pay high prices. It is entirely voluntary. Buyers need to learn to include full PITI payments when they agree to a certain price. To hear people complain about the “inequity” in property taxes is a bit like listening to people complain about airport noise when they’ve bought right next to an airport. Buyers should have known about the property taxes when they bought **and volunteered** to pay higher taxes than other neighbors. If all buyers were rational, nobody would buy when prices are so outrageously high, then prices would drop so the tax “inequity” would be very small.

It’s largely because of property taxes that we are renting. We could easily afford the P&I payments, even at the peak, but couldn’t really stomach the higher prop taxes. That’s one of the main reasons we want lower prices vs. lower interest rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we have a **spending** problem.

Still, there is no reason for investors/landlords to have Prop 13 protection unless they’re willing to be regulated by rent control (so taxpayers might be subsidizing poor tenants instead of wealthy landlords). Personally, I think everyone should be entitled to Prop 13 protection on their primary residences ONLY.

BTW, people only have to pay much higher property taxes if they **choose** to pay high prices. It is entirely voluntary. Buyers need to learn to include full PITI payments when they agree to a certain price. To hear people complain about the “inequity” in property taxes is a bit like listening to people complain about airport noise when they’ve bought right next to an airport. Buyers should have known about the property taxes when they bought **and volunteered** to pay higher taxes than other neighbors. If all buyers were rational, nobody would buy when prices are so outrageously high, then prices would drop so the tax “inequity” would be very small.

It’s largely because of property taxes that we are renting. We could easily afford the P&I payments, even at the peak, but couldn’t really stomach the higher prop taxes. That’s one of the main reasons we want lower prices vs. lower interest rates.

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]Hibiscus: It is most unlikely you are paying 20 times what your neighbor is paying.
Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly in 1978, limited property taxes to 1% of value and no more than a 2% increase per year. It has been watered down over the years to allow the 1% to increase to about 1.2 or 1.25% in many areas by voter-approved bonded debt.
So your neighbor has likely had a 2% increase per year if he owned the same property in 1978. That is over 32 years so with compounding his tax has more than doubled, including the bonded debt portion. Prop 13 is indeed a boon to long-time owners and yes, some would call that unfair.
But CA is not starved for revenues due to Prop 13. Since it passed total property tax revenues are up by a factor of eight, due to assessed value increases, more property, more people, etc.
CA government spending has far outpaced the growth in population plus inflation. CA does not have a revenue problem. CA has a spending problem.[/quote]

I tend to agree with you that we have a **spending** problem.

Still, there is no reason for investors/landlords to have Prop 13 protection unless they’re willing to be regulated by rent control (so taxpayers might be subsidizing poor tenants instead of wealthy landlords). Personally, I think everyone should be entitled to Prop 13 protection on their primary residences ONLY.

BTW, people only have to pay much higher property taxes if they **choose** to pay high prices. It is entirely voluntary. Buyers need to learn to include full PITI payments when they agree to a certain price. To hear people complain about the “inequity” in property taxes is a bit like listening to people complain about airport noise when they’ve bought right next to an airport. Buyers should have known about the property taxes when they bought **and volunteered** to pay higher taxes than other neighbors. If all buyers were rational, nobody would buy when prices are so outrageously high, then prices would drop so the tax “inequity” would be very small.

It’s largely because of property taxes that we are renting. We could easily afford the P&I payments, even at the peak, but couldn’t really stomach the higher prop taxes. That’s one of the main reasons we want lower prices vs. lower interest rates.

[EconProf]

urbanrealtor:
Google “property taxes by state per capita” and you will find CA ranks 27th, thus placing us about in the middle for this particular tax. Not sure whether illegals are included in the per capita calculation, but doubt it would much change the outcome.
We are 10th in total state per capita spending among states. That’s not lean.
The best measure of tax burden is all state and local taxes paid per personal income. CA ranks 6th using this overall indicator.
The figures are worse if you include the tax hikes coming due to the looming deficit.
To answer your question, I taught economics for 23 years, mostly at SDSU, and left the field to invest in real estate. But I claim no special expertise–anyone can look up these facts.

[EconProf]

urbanrealtor:
Google “property taxes by state per capita” and you will find CA ranks 27th, thus placing us about in the middle for this particular tax. Not sure whether illegals are included in the per capita calculation, but doubt it would much change the outcome.
We are 10th in total state per capita spending among states. That’s not lean.
The best measure of tax burden is all state and local taxes paid per personal income. CA ranks 6th using this overall indicator.
The figures are worse if you include the tax hikes coming due to the looming deficit.
To answer your question, I taught economics for 23 years, mostly at SDSU, and left the field to invest in real estate. But I claim no special expertise–anyone can look up these facts.

[EconProf]

urbanrealtor:
Google “property taxes by state per capita” and you will find CA ranks 27th, thus placing us about in the middle for this particular tax. Not sure whether illegals are included in the per capita calculation, but doubt it would much change the outcome.
We are 10th in total state per capita spending among states. That’s not lean.
The best measure of tax burden is all state and local taxes paid per personal income. CA ranks 6th using this overall indicator.
The figures are worse if you include the tax hikes coming due to the looming deficit.
To answer your question, I taught economics for 23 years, mostly at SDSU, and left the field to invest in real estate. But I claim no special expertise–anyone can look up these facts.

[EconProf]

urbanrealtor:
Google “property taxes by state per capita” and you will find CA ranks 27th, thus placing us about in the middle for this particular tax. Not sure whether illegals are included in the per capita calculation, but doubt it would much change the outcome.
We are 10th in total state per capita spending among states. That’s not lean.
The best measure of tax burden is all state and local taxes paid per personal income. CA ranks 6th using this overall indicator.
The figures are worse if you include the tax hikes coming due to the looming deficit.
To answer your question, I taught economics for 23 years, mostly at SDSU, and left the field to invest in real estate. But I claim no special expertise–anyone can look up these facts.

[Author]

Posts