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

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]Exactly. We’re talking all the new construction in Chula Vista w/MR. They basically built a new city w/in Chula Vista called Eastlake. And they got plenty of revenue, I’m sure, from the development of that new town.

Now if the city wants to squander it, that’s fine, but don’t come back to the trough wanting more money from hard-working people.

I oppose this. I just have a problem w/it. Not that I don’t want to pay for services. For instance, the City of San Diego does not charge for trash pick up. That’s crazy. Charge for it. I’m willing to pay to have my trash picked up. I can’t think of any city I’ve ever lived in that does not charge for it.

I’m not looking for free services. But if you can’t manage finances, I have a problem w/it. I don’t want to fund people’s bad finances, whether it is someone who buys a home they can’t afford or a city that thinks money grows on trees.[/quote]

jp, Eastlake Shores is mostly in 91913, an earlier annexation. It began sales in 1987. In one development there, the 20-yr MR bonds are already paid off.

The 91914 zip encompasses the new communities of Rolling Hills Ranch, Salt Creek, San Miguel Ranch, and Eastlake Greens. The 91915 zip encompasses all of Otay Ranch and two newer Eastlake subdivisions.

The “People’s Ordinance” in the City of San Diego, I believe, provides that the fees for trash pickup be added to SFR owners’ property tax bills.

Any Piggs, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you for this clarification, UCGal, but HOW did you fill out the Assessor COO form (used to be yellow, don’t know about now). Did you claim on it that the transaction was a intra-family transfer?

Did your parents sign a form of a familial transfer deed or quitclaim deed when you signed your trust deed? And even though you took out a mortgage loan, did you indicate tax stamps on your deed in excess of the property’s current assessed value at the time??

If these questions are too personal, I understand.[/quote]
As I mentioned before we had a regular sale. I signed what seemed like thousands of pages of documents at the escrow office. I presume most were for the mortgage. I assume the deed was one of them. We had a sales agreement drawn up before we opened escrow. We put our downpayment money in and financed the balance. My dad walked away with the market value of the house. It was NOT a quitclaim deed. I assume it was a transfer deed. Under the grant deed search it shows as a deed, not a quitclaim.

The current version of the form we used to claim the tax exemption under prop 58 is available online for you to see. (The one I filled out is pretty much the same to the best of my recollection… but it was 8 years ago.) My dad filled out a portion, and my husband and I filled out a portion

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/ParentChild.pdf

I hope this clarifies things.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you for this clarification, UCGal, but HOW did you fill out the Assessor COO form (used to be yellow, don’t know about now). Did you claim on it that the transaction was a intra-family transfer?

Did your parents sign a form of a familial transfer deed or quitclaim deed when you signed your trust deed? And even though you took out a mortgage loan, did you indicate tax stamps on your deed in excess of the property’s current assessed value at the time??

If these questions are too personal, I understand.[/quote]
As I mentioned before we had a regular sale. I signed what seemed like thousands of pages of documents at the escrow office. I presume most were for the mortgage. I assume the deed was one of them. We had a sales agreement drawn up before we opened escrow. We put our downpayment money in and financed the balance. My dad walked away with the market value of the house. It was NOT a quitclaim deed. I assume it was a transfer deed. Under the grant deed search it shows as a deed, not a quitclaim.

The current version of the form we used to claim the tax exemption under prop 58 is available online for you to see. (The one I filled out is pretty much the same to the best of my recollection… but it was 8 years ago.) My dad filled out a portion, and my husband and I filled out a portion

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/ParentChild.pdf

I hope this clarifies things.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you for this clarification, UCGal, but HOW did you fill out the Assessor COO form (used to be yellow, don’t know about now). Did you claim on it that the transaction was a intra-family transfer?

Did your parents sign a form of a familial transfer deed or quitclaim deed when you signed your trust deed? And even though you took out a mortgage loan, did you indicate tax stamps on your deed in excess of the property’s current assessed value at the time??

If these questions are too personal, I understand.[/quote]
As I mentioned before we had a regular sale. I signed what seemed like thousands of pages of documents at the escrow office. I presume most were for the mortgage. I assume the deed was one of them. We had a sales agreement drawn up before we opened escrow. We put our downpayment money in and financed the balance. My dad walked away with the market value of the house. It was NOT a quitclaim deed. I assume it was a transfer deed. Under the grant deed search it shows as a deed, not a quitclaim.

The current version of the form we used to claim the tax exemption under prop 58 is available online for you to see. (The one I filled out is pretty much the same to the best of my recollection… but it was 8 years ago.) My dad filled out a portion, and my husband and I filled out a portion

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/ParentChild.pdf

I hope this clarifies things.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you for this clarification, UCGal, but HOW did you fill out the Assessor COO form (used to be yellow, don’t know about now). Did you claim on it that the transaction was a intra-family transfer?

Did your parents sign a form of a familial transfer deed or quitclaim deed when you signed your trust deed? And even though you took out a mortgage loan, did you indicate tax stamps on your deed in excess of the property’s current assessed value at the time??

If these questions are too personal, I understand.[/quote]
As I mentioned before we had a regular sale. I signed what seemed like thousands of pages of documents at the escrow office. I presume most were for the mortgage. I assume the deed was one of them. We had a sales agreement drawn up before we opened escrow. We put our downpayment money in and financed the balance. My dad walked away with the market value of the house. It was NOT a quitclaim deed. I assume it was a transfer deed. Under the grant deed search it shows as a deed, not a quitclaim.

The current version of the form we used to claim the tax exemption under prop 58 is available online for you to see. (The one I filled out is pretty much the same to the best of my recollection… but it was 8 years ago.) My dad filled out a portion, and my husband and I filled out a portion

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/ParentChild.pdf

I hope this clarifies things.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]Thank you for this clarification, UCGal, but HOW did you fill out the Assessor COO form (used to be yellow, don’t know about now). Did you claim on it that the transaction was a intra-family transfer?

Did your parents sign a form of a familial transfer deed or quitclaim deed when you signed your trust deed? And even though you took out a mortgage loan, did you indicate tax stamps on your deed in excess of the property’s current assessed value at the time??

If these questions are too personal, I understand.[/quote]
As I mentioned before we had a regular sale. I signed what seemed like thousands of pages of documents at the escrow office. I presume most were for the mortgage. I assume the deed was one of them. We had a sales agreement drawn up before we opened escrow. We put our downpayment money in and financed the balance. My dad walked away with the market value of the house. It was NOT a quitclaim deed. I assume it was a transfer deed. Under the grant deed search it shows as a deed, not a quitclaim.

The current version of the form we used to claim the tax exemption under prop 58 is available online for you to see. (The one I filled out is pretty much the same to the best of my recollection… but it was 8 years ago.) My dad filled out a portion, and my husband and I filled out a portion

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/docs/ParentChild.pdf

I hope this clarifies things.

[Coronita]

[quote=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[/quote]

I respect your opinion. But until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…

Unless the state is serious about going on a statewide austerity measure, every special interest tax a specific area is just meaningless…It’s like trying to put a bandage on a missing limb..

And folks that champion taxing one particular piece without addressing the other parts are just pretending to be generous with other people’s money, since it doesn’t directly impact themselves. Hence why I think picking one of the three without dealing with the others is purely subjective “fair”.

Again no matter. Prop 13 won’t get repealed. Because in CA, I’m sure if even it was overturned, a lawsuit would ensure to reverse the decision anyway by a judge.

So we’ll just wait until the state runs out of money…

[Coronita]

[quote=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[/quote]

I respect your opinion. But until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…

Unless the state is serious about going on a statewide austerity measure, every special interest tax a specific area is just meaningless…It’s like trying to put a bandage on a missing limb..

And folks that champion taxing one particular piece without addressing the other parts are just pretending to be generous with other people’s money, since it doesn’t directly impact themselves. Hence why I think picking one of the three without dealing with the others is purely subjective “fair”.

Again no matter. Prop 13 won’t get repealed. Because in CA, I’m sure if even it was overturned, a lawsuit would ensure to reverse the decision anyway by a judge.

So we’ll just wait until the state runs out of money…

[Coronita]

[quote=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[/quote]

I respect your opinion. But until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…

Unless the state is serious about going on a statewide austerity measure, every special interest tax a specific area is just meaningless…It’s like trying to put a bandage on a missing limb..

And folks that champion taxing one particular piece without addressing the other parts are just pretending to be generous with other people’s money, since it doesn’t directly impact themselves. Hence why I think picking one of the three without dealing with the others is purely subjective “fair”.

Again no matter. Prop 13 won’t get repealed. Because in CA, I’m sure if even it was overturned, a lawsuit would ensure to reverse the decision anyway by a judge.

So we’ll just wait until the state runs out of money…

[Coronita]

[quote=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[/quote]

I respect your opinion. But until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…

Unless the state is serious about going on a statewide austerity measure, every special interest tax a specific area is just meaningless…It’s like trying to put a bandage on a missing limb..

And folks that champion taxing one particular piece without addressing the other parts are just pretending to be generous with other people’s money, since it doesn’t directly impact themselves. Hence why I think picking one of the three without dealing with the others is purely subjective “fair”.

Again no matter. Prop 13 won’t get repealed. Because in CA, I’m sure if even it was overturned, a lawsuit would ensure to reverse the decision anyway by a judge.

So we’ll just wait until the state runs out of money…

[Coronita]

[quote=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[/quote]

I respect your opinion. But until I’, consider support repealing prop 13 IF

1) those people enjoy those nice pensions consider giving those up

2) we stop giving social services/benefits to people who are not legal residence.

3) we stop giving in-state “tuitions” discounts to people who live in CA but are not here legally (versus someone here legally from another state)…

Unless the state is serious about going on a statewide austerity measure, every special interest tax a specific area is just meaningless…It’s like trying to put a bandage on a missing limb..

And folks that champion taxing one particular piece without addressing the other parts are just pretending to be generous with other people’s money, since it doesn’t directly impact themselves. Hence why I think picking one of the three without dealing with the others is purely subjective “fair”.

Again no matter. Prop 13 won’t get repealed. Because in CA, I’m sure if even it was overturned, a lawsuit would ensure to reverse the decision anyway by a judge.

So we’ll just wait until the state runs out of money…

[UCGal]

I had to figure out what you guys were talking about with the step-up basis.

(I’m an engineer, not an investor… and I don’t sell houses a lot so I don’t think about capital gains on a daily basis.)

I’m trying to figure out what you guys are suggesting.
– If a person inherits a house (free and clear) the cost basis is that of the time of inheritance. This is done for establishing whether estate taxes need to be paid. In fact this can happen several times on a home if the estate is large – estate taxes may kick in on half the house if half the estate is above the threshold when the first spouse dies and they don’t have a trust.

– In my case I paid full market for the house. My dad was still alive. I’m not an only child. The proceeds were his and eventually I got some back as my portion of his estate. But he could have gone to Vegas and bet it all on Red. Prop 58 does not address the form of transfer – sale, inheritance, gift. All are allowed in a prop 58 transfer. Prop 58 does not address estate taxes. The feds and CA still require estate taxes if the value of the estate (including the market value of a home if there is one) are above a threshold.

I guess I’m not too worried about capital gains when I sell, since I plan on living here till I die… But to suggest that the cost basis should be different than what I paid (full market value), I don’t get it.

Or am I misinterpreting what you guys mean about the step up cost basis. Speak slowly when you explain… I’m not an accountant or investor. 😉

[UCGal]

I had to figure out what you guys were talking about with the step-up basis.

(I’m an engineer, not an investor… and I don’t sell houses a lot so I don’t think about capital gains on a daily basis.)

I’m trying to figure out what you guys are suggesting.
– If a person inherits a house (free and clear) the cost basis is that of the time of inheritance. This is done for establishing whether estate taxes need to be paid. In fact this can happen several times on a home if the estate is large – estate taxes may kick in on half the house if half the estate is above the threshold when the first spouse dies and they don’t have a trust.

– In my case I paid full market for the house. My dad was still alive. I’m not an only child. The proceeds were his and eventually I got some back as my portion of his estate. But he could have gone to Vegas and bet it all on Red. Prop 58 does not address the form of transfer – sale, inheritance, gift. All are allowed in a prop 58 transfer. Prop 58 does not address estate taxes. The feds and CA still require estate taxes if the value of the estate (including the market value of a home if there is one) are above a threshold.

I guess I’m not too worried about capital gains when I sell, since I plan on living here till I die… But to suggest that the cost basis should be different than what I paid (full market value), I don’t get it.

Or am I misinterpreting what you guys mean about the step up cost basis. Speak slowly when you explain… I’m not an accountant or investor. 😉

[UCGal]

I had to figure out what you guys were talking about with the step-up basis.

(I’m an engineer, not an investor… and I don’t sell houses a lot so I don’t think about capital gains on a daily basis.)

I’m trying to figure out what you guys are suggesting.
– If a person inherits a house (free and clear) the cost basis is that of the time of inheritance. This is done for establishing whether estate taxes need to be paid. In fact this can happen several times on a home if the estate is large – estate taxes may kick in on half the house if half the estate is above the threshold when the first spouse dies and they don’t have a trust.

– In my case I paid full market for the house. My dad was still alive. I’m not an only child. The proceeds were his and eventually I got some back as my portion of his estate. But he could have gone to Vegas and bet it all on Red. Prop 58 does not address the form of transfer – sale, inheritance, gift. All are allowed in a prop 58 transfer. Prop 58 does not address estate taxes. The feds and CA still require estate taxes if the value of the estate (including the market value of a home if there is one) are above a threshold.

I guess I’m not too worried about capital gains when I sell, since I plan on living here till I die… But to suggest that the cost basis should be different than what I paid (full market value), I don’t get it.

Or am I misinterpreting what you guys mean about the step up cost basis. Speak slowly when you explain… I’m not an accountant or investor. 😉

[UCGal]

I had to figure out what you guys were talking about with the step-up basis.

(I’m an engineer, not an investor… and I don’t sell houses a lot so I don’t think about capital gains on a daily basis.)

I’m trying to figure out what you guys are suggesting.
– If a person inherits a house (free and clear) the cost basis is that of the time of inheritance. This is done for establishing whether estate taxes need to be paid. In fact this can happen several times on a home if the estate is large – estate taxes may kick in on half the house if half the estate is above the threshold when the first spouse dies and they don’t have a trust.

– In my case I paid full market for the house. My dad was still alive. I’m not an only child. The proceeds were his and eventually I got some back as my portion of his estate. But he could have gone to Vegas and bet it all on Red. Prop 58 does not address the form of transfer – sale, inheritance, gift. All are allowed in a prop 58 transfer. Prop 58 does not address estate taxes. The feds and CA still require estate taxes if the value of the estate (including the market value of a home if there is one) are above a threshold.

I guess I’m not too worried about capital gains when I sell, since I plan on living here till I die… But to suggest that the cost basis should be different than what I paid (full market value), I don’t get it.

Or am I misinterpreting what you guys mean about the step up cost basis. Speak slowly when you explain… I’m not an accountant or investor. 😉

[Author]

Posts