- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2011 at 12:28 PM #650345January 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649242
CoronitaParticipant[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]
And if I were a landlord, I’d just pass the cost on to my tenant…Because everyone else would do it too… (what, you thought landlords would just eat the extra cost???)
[/quote]You might as well be a landlord because you are as clueless as most of them. I know more than a few property managers who are managing properties for out-of-town landlords. Many of these landlords bought during the bubble, and there is no way they are ever going to recoup their costs. Most of them try to charge above-market rents and their rentals sit empty.
You see, there is this thing called the ‘market’ which has a major influence on rents. The market doesn’t care how much you pay in property tax it only cares what prospective renters can afford to pay in rent.[/quote]
Actually, Iforget/BigGovernmentIsGood I am a landlord in the Bay Area. And yes, I just raised rent by $200/month and guess what, it’s still lower than how much comparables raised their rents too and I do have few a other prospects who would nicely pay for more…You were saying?
Hmmm, if my choices were to be “clueless landlord” or “smart Iforget/BGIG”, I think I’d pick the former, because, well the former pays the bills while the later does didly sh!t.
And guess what else? My taxes for next year will enjoy their nice lower cap gains/dividend limits. Because Big Federal Government got a nice STFU from the elections.. So, fvck you too.
I love it!
January 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649313CoronitaParticipant[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]
And if I were a landlord, I’d just pass the cost on to my tenant…Because everyone else would do it too… (what, you thought landlords would just eat the extra cost???)
[/quote]You might as well be a landlord because you are as clueless as most of them. I know more than a few property managers who are managing properties for out-of-town landlords. Many of these landlords bought during the bubble, and there is no way they are ever going to recoup their costs. Most of them try to charge above-market rents and their rentals sit empty.
You see, there is this thing called the ‘market’ which has a major influence on rents. The market doesn’t care how much you pay in property tax it only cares what prospective renters can afford to pay in rent.[/quote]
Actually, Iforget/BigGovernmentIsGood I am a landlord in the Bay Area. And yes, I just raised rent by $200/month and guess what, it’s still lower than how much comparables raised their rents too and I do have few a other prospects who would nicely pay for more…You were saying?
Hmmm, if my choices were to be “clueless landlord” or “smart Iforget/BGIG”, I think I’d pick the former, because, well the former pays the bills while the later does didly sh!t.
And guess what else? My taxes for next year will enjoy their nice lower cap gains/dividend limits. Because Big Federal Government got a nice STFU from the elections.. So, fvck you too.
I love it!
January 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM #649899CoronitaParticipant[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]
And if I were a landlord, I’d just pass the cost on to my tenant…Because everyone else would do it too… (what, you thought landlords would just eat the extra cost???)
[/quote]You might as well be a landlord because you are as clueless as most of them. I know more than a few property managers who are managing properties for out-of-town landlords. Many of these landlords bought during the bubble, and there is no way they are ever going to recoup their costs. Most of them try to charge above-market rents and their rentals sit empty.
You see, there is this thing called the ‘market’ which has a major influence on rents. The market doesn’t care how much you pay in property tax it only cares what prospective renters can afford to pay in rent.[/quote]
Actually, Iforget/BigGovernmentIsGood I am a landlord in the Bay Area. And yes, I just raised rent by $200/month and guess what, it’s still lower than how much comparables raised their rents too and I do have few a other prospects who would nicely pay for more…You were saying?
Hmmm, if my choices were to be “clueless landlord” or “smart Iforget/BGIG”, I think I’d pick the former, because, well the former pays the bills while the later does didly sh!t.
And guess what else? My taxes for next year will enjoy their nice lower cap gains/dividend limits. Because Big Federal Government got a nice STFU from the elections.. So, fvck you too.
I love it!
January 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM #650035CoronitaParticipant[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]
And if I were a landlord, I’d just pass the cost on to my tenant…Because everyone else would do it too… (what, you thought landlords would just eat the extra cost???)
[/quote]You might as well be a landlord because you are as clueless as most of them. I know more than a few property managers who are managing properties for out-of-town landlords. Many of these landlords bought during the bubble, and there is no way they are ever going to recoup their costs. Most of them try to charge above-market rents and their rentals sit empty.
You see, there is this thing called the ‘market’ which has a major influence on rents. The market doesn’t care how much you pay in property tax it only cares what prospective renters can afford to pay in rent.[/quote]
Actually, Iforget/BigGovernmentIsGood I am a landlord in the Bay Area. And yes, I just raised rent by $200/month and guess what, it’s still lower than how much comparables raised their rents too and I do have few a other prospects who would nicely pay for more…You were saying?
Hmmm, if my choices were to be “clueless landlord” or “smart Iforget/BGIG”, I think I’d pick the former, because, well the former pays the bills while the later does didly sh!t.
And guess what else? My taxes for next year will enjoy their nice lower cap gains/dividend limits. Because Big Federal Government got a nice STFU from the elections.. So, fvck you too.
I love it!
January 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM #650360CoronitaParticipant[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=flu]
And if I were a landlord, I’d just pass the cost on to my tenant…Because everyone else would do it too… (what, you thought landlords would just eat the extra cost???)
[/quote]You might as well be a landlord because you are as clueless as most of them. I know more than a few property managers who are managing properties for out-of-town landlords. Many of these landlords bought during the bubble, and there is no way they are ever going to recoup their costs. Most of them try to charge above-market rents and their rentals sit empty.
You see, there is this thing called the ‘market’ which has a major influence on rents. The market doesn’t care how much you pay in property tax it only cares what prospective renters can afford to pay in rent.[/quote]
Actually, Iforget/BigGovernmentIsGood I am a landlord in the Bay Area. And yes, I just raised rent by $200/month and guess what, it’s still lower than how much comparables raised their rents too and I do have few a other prospects who would nicely pay for more…You were saying?
Hmmm, if my choices were to be “clueless landlord” or “smart Iforget/BGIG”, I think I’d pick the former, because, well the former pays the bills while the later does didly sh!t.
And guess what else? My taxes for next year will enjoy their nice lower cap gains/dividend limits. Because Big Federal Government got a nice STFU from the elections.. So, fvck you too.
I love it!
January 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM #649232Tillers
ParticipantEven at 1% the property tax in this state in ridiculous. I was just talking with my brother in Alabama last night. He bought a home about a year ago and he doesn’t even notice his property taxes they are so low. This is on a brand new house. He pays 0.62% of 20% value of the house. So, on his new $135,000 house, his annual property tax is $167!! Comparably, his house (1850 sq ft on 1/2 acre) out here would be $500,000 at least. So the state would be raking in $5,000! I’m conservatively basing his house value in an area outside of the city, as he lives about 20 miles outside of a city of 350,000.
What are we really paying this high of tax rate for? Not only do we have way more people, the median home prices are also much higher, the state is raking in much more from these taxes.
The sunshine tax, beach tax, mountain tax? These are things that can’t be taxed, they will be here regardless of how much or little we pay in taxes. If the state crumbles to the ground and falls into the ocean, those things will still be here.
Sure, it’s not fair the guys kids next door aren’t paying as much as I am, but then again it’s not fair I’m paying as much as I am. The kids next door aren’t the bad guys, the people collected and overspending the money are.
January 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM #649303ParticipantEven at 1% the property tax in this state in ridiculous. I was just talking with my brother in Alabama last night. He bought a home about a year ago and he doesn’t even notice his property taxes they are so low. This is on a brand new house. He pays 0.62% of 20% value of the house. So, on his new $135,000 house, his annual property tax is $167!! Comparably, his house (1850 sq ft on 1/2 acre) out here would be $500,000 at least. So the state would be raking in $5,000! I’m conservatively basing his house value in an area outside of the city, as he lives about 20 miles outside of a city of 350,000.
What are we really paying this high of tax rate for? Not only do we have way more people, the median home prices are also much higher, the state is raking in much more from these taxes.
The sunshine tax, beach tax, mountain tax? These are things that can’t be taxed, they will be here regardless of how much or little we pay in taxes. If the state crumbles to the ground and falls into the ocean, those things will still be here.
Sure, it’s not fair the guys kids next door aren’t paying as much as I am, but then again it’s not fair I’m paying as much as I am. The kids next door aren’t the bad guys, the people collected and overspending the money are.
January 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM #649889ParticipantEven at 1% the property tax in this state in ridiculous. I was just talking with my brother in Alabama last night. He bought a home about a year ago and he doesn’t even notice his property taxes they are so low. This is on a brand new house. He pays 0.62% of 20% value of the house. So, on his new $135,000 house, his annual property tax is $167!! Comparably, his house (1850 sq ft on 1/2 acre) out here would be $500,000 at least. So the state would be raking in $5,000! I’m conservatively basing his house value in an area outside of the city, as he lives about 20 miles outside of a city of 350,000.
What are we really paying this high of tax rate for? Not only do we have way more people, the median home prices are also much higher, the state is raking in much more from these taxes.
The sunshine tax, beach tax, mountain tax? These are things that can’t be taxed, they will be here regardless of how much or little we pay in taxes. If the state crumbles to the ground and falls into the ocean, those things will still be here.
Sure, it’s not fair the guys kids next door aren’t paying as much as I am, but then again it’s not fair I’m paying as much as I am. The kids next door aren’t the bad guys, the people collected and overspending the money are.
January 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM #650025ParticipantEven at 1% the property tax in this state in ridiculous. I was just talking with my brother in Alabama last night. He bought a home about a year ago and he doesn’t even notice his property taxes they are so low. This is on a brand new house. He pays 0.62% of 20% value of the house. So, on his new $135,000 house, his annual property tax is $167!! Comparably, his house (1850 sq ft on 1/2 acre) out here would be $500,000 at least. So the state would be raking in $5,000! I’m conservatively basing his house value in an area outside of the city, as he lives about 20 miles outside of a city of 350,000.
What are we really paying this high of tax rate for? Not only do we have way more people, the median home prices are also much higher, the state is raking in much more from these taxes.
The sunshine tax, beach tax, mountain tax? These are things that can’t be taxed, they will be here regardless of how much or little we pay in taxes. If the state crumbles to the ground and falls into the ocean, those things will still be here.
Sure, it’s not fair the guys kids next door aren’t paying as much as I am, but then again it’s not fair I’m paying as much as I am. The kids next door aren’t the bad guys, the people collected and overspending the money are.
January 8, 2011 at 12:55 PM #650350ParticipantEven at 1% the property tax in this state in ridiculous. I was just talking with my brother in Alabama last night. He bought a home about a year ago and he doesn’t even notice his property taxes they are so low. This is on a brand new house. He pays 0.62% of 20% value of the house. So, on his new $135,000 house, his annual property tax is $167!! Comparably, his house (1850 sq ft on 1/2 acre) out here would be $500,000 at least. So the state would be raking in $5,000! I’m conservatively basing his house value in an area outside of the city, as he lives about 20 miles outside of a city of 350,000.
What are we really paying this high of tax rate for? Not only do we have way more people, the median home prices are also much higher, the state is raking in much more from these taxes.
The sunshine tax, beach tax, mountain tax? These are things that can’t be taxed, they will be here regardless of how much or little we pay in taxes. If the state crumbles to the ground and falls into the ocean, those things will still be here.
Sure, it’s not fair the guys kids next door aren’t paying as much as I am, but then again it’s not fair I’m paying as much as I am. The kids next door aren’t the bad guys, the people collected and overspending the money are.
January 8, 2011 at 12:56 PM #649237bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]BG the thing is that a line can be drawn anywhere with regards to prop 13. You seem to have a stick in your craw about elderly people who have barely any taxes. What about those homebuyers who bought in Scripps or 4S or Carlsbad or Encinitas in the late 90s before the bubble? Compared to all of the neighbors they have who bought in subsequent years, they are bandits.[/quote]
SDR, you didn’t read my posts correctly. I have NO PROBLEM with original owners living out their lives in their original homes and tax basis (+2% yr). These owners will eventually die and many already have.
What I am AGAINST is the passing down of this artificially-low tax basis in perpetuity.
As far as your owners in North County that bought more than 10 years ago, if any Pigg feels their own (more recently purchased) property there has recently fallen in value as to warrant an assessment of its value =>10 years ago, then they are free to file and assessment appeal and duke it out with the powers-that-be to obtain a reassessment.
I don’t take issue with those purchasers who purchased in ’92 and are paying $4500 annual tax in comparison to their neighbor who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 in annual tax.
However, I AM taking issue with those purchasers who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 tax who are living next door to a 40 yo “owner-heir” who inherited a property from parents who bought it in ’64 and is paying $800 tax.
Big difference here.
January 8, 2011 at 12:56 PM #649308Participant[quote=SD Realtor]BG the thing is that a line can be drawn anywhere with regards to prop 13. You seem to have a stick in your craw about elderly people who have barely any taxes. What about those homebuyers who bought in Scripps or 4S or Carlsbad or Encinitas in the late 90s before the bubble? Compared to all of the neighbors they have who bought in subsequent years, they are bandits.[/quote]
SDR, you didn’t read my posts correctly. I have NO PROBLEM with original owners living out their lives in their original homes and tax basis (+2% yr). These owners will eventually die and many already have.
What I am AGAINST is the passing down of this artificially-low tax basis in perpetuity.
As far as your owners in North County that bought more than 10 years ago, if any Pigg feels their own (more recently purchased) property there has recently fallen in value as to warrant an assessment of its value =>10 years ago, then they are free to file and assessment appeal and duke it out with the powers-that-be to obtain a reassessment.
I don’t take issue with those purchasers who purchased in ’92 and are paying $4500 annual tax in comparison to their neighbor who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 in annual tax.
However, I AM taking issue with those purchasers who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 tax who are living next door to a 40 yo “owner-heir” who inherited a property from parents who bought it in ’64 and is paying $800 tax.
Big difference here.
January 8, 2011 at 12:56 PM #649894Participant[quote=SD Realtor]BG the thing is that a line can be drawn anywhere with regards to prop 13. You seem to have a stick in your craw about elderly people who have barely any taxes. What about those homebuyers who bought in Scripps or 4S or Carlsbad or Encinitas in the late 90s before the bubble? Compared to all of the neighbors they have who bought in subsequent years, they are bandits.[/quote]
SDR, you didn’t read my posts correctly. I have NO PROBLEM with original owners living out their lives in their original homes and tax basis (+2% yr). These owners will eventually die and many already have.
What I am AGAINST is the passing down of this artificially-low tax basis in perpetuity.
As far as your owners in North County that bought more than 10 years ago, if any Pigg feels their own (more recently purchased) property there has recently fallen in value as to warrant an assessment of its value =>10 years ago, then they are free to file and assessment appeal and duke it out with the powers-that-be to obtain a reassessment.
I don’t take issue with those purchasers who purchased in ’92 and are paying $4500 annual tax in comparison to their neighbor who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 in annual tax.
However, I AM taking issue with those purchasers who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 tax who are living next door to a 40 yo “owner-heir” who inherited a property from parents who bought it in ’64 and is paying $800 tax.
Big difference here.
January 8, 2011 at 12:56 PM #650030Participant[quote=SD Realtor]BG the thing is that a line can be drawn anywhere with regards to prop 13. You seem to have a stick in your craw about elderly people who have barely any taxes. What about those homebuyers who bought in Scripps or 4S or Carlsbad or Encinitas in the late 90s before the bubble? Compared to all of the neighbors they have who bought in subsequent years, they are bandits.[/quote]
SDR, you didn’t read my posts correctly. I have NO PROBLEM with original owners living out their lives in their original homes and tax basis (+2% yr). These owners will eventually die and many already have.
What I am AGAINST is the passing down of this artificially-low tax basis in perpetuity.
As far as your owners in North County that bought more than 10 years ago, if any Pigg feels their own (more recently purchased) property there has recently fallen in value as to warrant an assessment of its value =>10 years ago, then they are free to file and assessment appeal and duke it out with the powers-that-be to obtain a reassessment.
I don’t take issue with those purchasers who purchased in ’92 and are paying $4500 annual tax in comparison to their neighbor who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 in annual tax.
However, I AM taking issue with those purchasers who bought in 2002 and are paying $8000 tax who are living next door to a 40 yo “owner-heir” who inherited a property from parents who bought it in ’64 and is paying $800 tax.
Big difference here.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.