What will the repeal of Prop 13 do to the market?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. And I absoltuely agree that the double-dipping (inheriting Prop 13 protection AND also being able to step-up the cost basis) is very, very wrong. One, or the other, the heir should have to choose.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. And I absoltuely agree that the double-dipping (inheriting Prop 13 protection AND also being able to step-up the cost basis) is very, very wrong. One, or the other, the heir should have to choose.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. And I absoltuely agree that the double-dipping (inheriting Prop 13 protection AND also being able to step-up the cost basis) is very, very wrong. One, or the other, the heir should have to choose.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. And I absoltuely agree that the double-dipping (inheriting Prop 13 protection AND also being able to step-up the cost basis) is very, very wrong. One, or the other, the heir should have to choose.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]OTOH, while I support Prop 13, it should not be inherited UNLESS the heirs choose Prop 13 protection over stepping-up the cost basis on the house. If the cost basis is stepped up, then the property taxes should be stepped up as well.[/quote]

Actually, CAR, I kind of like this idea. As it stands, these “heirs” are having their cake and eating it, too.[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. And I absoltuely agree that the double-dipping (inheriting Prop 13 protection AND also being able to step-up the cost basis) is very, very wrong. One, or the other, the heir should have to choose.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=flu]
Fair???? Fair is subjective….From people that aren’t existing home owners, the “fair” thing to do perhaps do everything possible to crater home prices (though personally, I don’t think it will). Once a homeowner, the “fair” thing to do is to keep prop 13.

I’m pretty confident that

1)People who are against prop 13 aren’t currently owners.

2)Once people who use to be against prop 13 own a home, they will more or less sing a completely different tune….

So again, I think any “fairness” argument is subjective

[/quote]

Sorry flu, but I gotta strongly disagree on several points. First as an example, I am a homeowner and I’m against prop 13. I was against it from when I first heard about it (and was a renter) and I’m still against it now that I’m a homeowner.

I don’t think “fairness” is that subjective. Fairness would mean that everyone contributes to the greater good to a similar degree. We could argue about how we measure the amount people contribute, ie, we could argue if we measure based on ability to contribute or on dollar amount, but what we have now with prop 13 is neither. This may not be visible in newer neighborhoods, but in places like La Jolla, it is amazingly out of whack whatever method you use to compare contribution.

I do think jp has a point that if we repeal prop 13 then property taxes will just go up, and that’s worse. I don’t know if that’s true, but at least it’s a sensible argument. But to argue that prop 13 is not unfair, well, sorry, that’s just too much nonsense.

XboxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=flu]
Fair???? Fair is subjective….From people that aren’t existing home owners, the “fair” thing to do perhaps do everything possible to crater home prices (though personally, I don’t think it will). Once a homeowner, the “fair” thing to do is to keep prop 13.

I’m pretty confident that

1)People who are against prop 13 aren’t currently owners.

2)Once people who use to be against prop 13 own a home, they will more or less sing a completely different tune….

So again, I think any “fairness” argument is subjective

[/quote]

Sorry flu, but I gotta strongly disagree on several points. First as an example, I am a homeowner and I’m against prop 13. I was against it from when I first heard about it (and was a renter) and I’m still against it now that I’m a homeowner.

I don’t think “fairness” is that subjective. Fairness would mean that everyone contributes to the greater good to a similar degree. We could argue about how we measure the amount people contribute, ie, we could argue if we measure based on ability to contribute or on dollar amount, but what we have now with prop 13 is neither. This may not be visible in newer neighborhoods, but in places like La Jolla, it is amazingly out of whack whatever method you use to compare contribution.

I do think jp has a point that if we repeal prop 13 then property taxes will just go up, and that’s worse. I don’t know if that’s true, but at least it’s a sensible argument. But to argue that prop 13 is not unfair, well, sorry, that’s just too much nonsense.

XboxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=flu]
Fair???? Fair is subjective….From people that aren’t existing home owners, the “fair” thing to do perhaps do everything possible to crater home prices (though personally, I don’t think it will). Once a homeowner, the “fair” thing to do is to keep prop 13.

I’m pretty confident that

1)People who are against prop 13 aren’t currently owners.

2)Once people who use to be against prop 13 own a home, they will more or less sing a completely different tune….

So again, I think any “fairness” argument is subjective

[/quote]

Sorry flu, but I gotta strongly disagree on several points. First as an example, I am a homeowner and I’m against prop 13. I was against it from when I first heard about it (and was a renter) and I’m still against it now that I’m a homeowner.

I don’t think “fairness” is that subjective. Fairness would mean that everyone contributes to the greater good to a similar degree. We could argue about how we measure the amount people contribute, ie, we could argue if we measure based on ability to contribute or on dollar amount, but what we have now with prop 13 is neither. This may not be visible in newer neighborhoods, but in places like La Jolla, it is amazingly out of whack whatever method you use to compare contribution.

I do think jp has a point that if we repeal prop 13 then property taxes will just go up, and that’s worse. I don’t know if that’s true, but at least it’s a sensible argument. But to argue that prop 13 is not unfair, well, sorry, that’s just too much nonsense.

XboxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=flu]
Fair???? Fair is subjective….From people that aren’t existing home owners, the “fair” thing to do perhaps do everything possible to crater home prices (though personally, I don’t think it will). Once a homeowner, the “fair” thing to do is to keep prop 13.

I’m pretty confident that

1)People who are against prop 13 aren’t currently owners.

2)Once people who use to be against prop 13 own a home, they will more or less sing a completely different tune….

So again, I think any “fairness” argument is subjective

[/quote]

Sorry flu, but I gotta strongly disagree on several points. First as an example, I am a homeowner and I’m against prop 13. I was against it from when I first heard about it (and was a renter) and I’m still against it now that I’m a homeowner.

I don’t think “fairness” is that subjective. Fairness would mean that everyone contributes to the greater good to a similar degree. We could argue about how we measure the amount people contribute, ie, we could argue if we measure based on ability to contribute or on dollar amount, but what we have now with prop 13 is neither. This may not be visible in newer neighborhoods, but in places like La Jolla, it is amazingly out of whack whatever method you use to compare contribution.

I do think jp has a point that if we repeal prop 13 then property taxes will just go up, and that’s worse. I don’t know if that’s true, but at least it’s a sensible argument. But to argue that prop 13 is not unfair, well, sorry, that’s just too much nonsense.

XboxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=flu]
Fair???? Fair is subjective….From people that aren’t existing home owners, the “fair” thing to do perhaps do everything possible to crater home prices (though personally, I don’t think it will). Once a homeowner, the “fair” thing to do is to keep prop 13.

I’m pretty confident that

1)People who are against prop 13 aren’t currently owners.

2)Once people who use to be against prop 13 own a home, they will more or less sing a completely different tune….

So again, I think any “fairness” argument is subjective

[/quote]

Sorry flu, but I gotta strongly disagree on several points. First as an example, I am a homeowner and I’m against prop 13. I was against it from when I first heard about it (and was a renter) and I’m still against it now that I’m a homeowner.

I don’t think “fairness” is that subjective. Fairness would mean that everyone contributes to the greater good to a similar degree. We could argue about how we measure the amount people contribute, ie, we could argue if we measure based on ability to contribute or on dollar amount, but what we have now with prop 13 is neither. This may not be visible in newer neighborhoods, but in places like La Jolla, it is amazingly out of whack whatever method you use to compare contribution.

I do think jp has a point that if we repeal prop 13 then property taxes will just go up, and that’s worse. I don’t know if that’s true, but at least it’s a sensible argument. But to argue that prop 13 is not unfair, well, sorry, that’s just too much nonsense.

XboxBoy

[UCGal]

I want to correct something since I know something about this.

[quote=bearishgurl]In addition, I believe the familial transfer deed should indicate -$0- in tax stamps (no money exchanged hands) or an amt in tax stamps <=to the current assessed value of the property. The Assessor Change of Ownership form should indicate that the transaction was a familial transfer. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this post should not be construed as legal advice.[/quote]
Wrong. Ours was a traditional purchase with escrow and title company, mortgage, etc. It did NOT affect the transfer of the tax rate. We submitted all paperwork required to the county tax assessor – and if I recall correctly it included our (large) purchase price.

This is confirmed by the state website.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

6.To qualify for the exclusion, must the transfer be only a result of a gift?
No. Transfers may be result of a sale, gift, or inheritance.

It should be noted that you are not required to apply the family transfer rate. If your parents bought at peak, then you inherit and the property is worth less – you can claim the current rate. And you’d be foolish not to claim the current rate.

[UCGal]

I want to correct something since I know something about this.

[quote=bearishgurl]In addition, I believe the familial transfer deed should indicate -$0- in tax stamps (no money exchanged hands) or an amt in tax stamps <=to the current assessed value of the property. The Assessor Change of Ownership form should indicate that the transaction was a familial transfer. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this post should not be construed as legal advice.[/quote]
Wrong. Ours was a traditional purchase with escrow and title company, mortgage, etc. It did NOT affect the transfer of the tax rate. We submitted all paperwork required to the county tax assessor – and if I recall correctly it included our (large) purchase price.

This is confirmed by the state website.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

6.To qualify for the exclusion, must the transfer be only a result of a gift?
No. Transfers may be result of a sale, gift, or inheritance.

It should be noted that you are not required to apply the family transfer rate. If your parents bought at peak, then you inherit and the property is worth less – you can claim the current rate. And you’d be foolish not to claim the current rate.

[UCGal]

I want to correct something since I know something about this.

[quote=bearishgurl]In addition, I believe the familial transfer deed should indicate -$0- in tax stamps (no money exchanged hands) or an amt in tax stamps <=to the current assessed value of the property. The Assessor Change of Ownership form should indicate that the transaction was a familial transfer. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this post should not be construed as legal advice.[/quote]
Wrong. Ours was a traditional purchase with escrow and title company, mortgage, etc. It did NOT affect the transfer of the tax rate. We submitted all paperwork required to the county tax assessor – and if I recall correctly it included our (large) purchase price.

This is confirmed by the state website.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

6.To qualify for the exclusion, must the transfer be only a result of a gift?
No. Transfers may be result of a sale, gift, or inheritance.

It should be noted that you are not required to apply the family transfer rate. If your parents bought at peak, then you inherit and the property is worth less – you can claim the current rate. And you’d be foolish not to claim the current rate.

[UCGal]

I want to correct something since I know something about this.

[quote=bearishgurl]In addition, I believe the familial transfer deed should indicate -$0- in tax stamps (no money exchanged hands) or an amt in tax stamps <=to the current assessed value of the property. The Assessor Change of Ownership form should indicate that the transaction was a familial transfer. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this post should not be construed as legal advice.[/quote]
Wrong. Ours was a traditional purchase with escrow and title company, mortgage, etc. It did NOT affect the transfer of the tax rate. We submitted all paperwork required to the county tax assessor – and if I recall correctly it included our (large) purchase price.

This is confirmed by the state website.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

6.To qualify for the exclusion, must the transfer be only a result of a gift?
No. Transfers may be result of a sale, gift, or inheritance.

It should be noted that you are not required to apply the family transfer rate. If your parents bought at peak, then you inherit and the property is worth less – you can claim the current rate. And you’d be foolish not to claim the current rate.

[Author]

Posts