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

[LuckyInOC]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Why should the taxes of property owners be limited while the taxes on income earners are unlimited? Young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in La Jolla.[/quote]

ILR…

I guess you are also against Social Security then. All those young, productive workers are subsidizing the lifestyles of all those retired old fogeys in the United States.

Lucky in OC

[peterb]

I think that as fewer people enjoy the prop 13 payments, the more likely it could be changed. But I doubt it will effect the housing market too much.

But I’ve noticed that the media in CA seem to frame the discussion about taxes being something that must be changed to get more money rather than how to spend less. This I find annoying.

[peterb]

I think that as fewer people enjoy the prop 13 payments, the more likely it could be changed. But I doubt it will effect the housing market too much.

But I’ve noticed that the media in CA seem to frame the discussion about taxes being something that must be changed to get more money rather than how to spend less. This I find annoying.

[peterb]

I think that as fewer people enjoy the prop 13 payments, the more likely it could be changed. But I doubt it will effect the housing market too much.

But I’ve noticed that the media in CA seem to frame the discussion about taxes being something that must be changed to get more money rather than how to spend less. This I find annoying.

[peterb]

I think that as fewer people enjoy the prop 13 payments, the more likely it could be changed. But I doubt it will effect the housing market too much.

But I’ve noticed that the media in CA seem to frame the discussion about taxes being something that must be changed to get more money rather than how to spend less. This I find annoying.

[peterb]

I think that as fewer people enjoy the prop 13 payments, the more likely it could be changed. But I doubt it will effect the housing market too much.

But I’ve noticed that the media in CA seem to frame the discussion about taxes being something that must be changed to get more money rather than how to spend less. This I find annoying.

[Doooh]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]

Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]

Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:

“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”

Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”

That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.

If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4

If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?

If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.

If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.

Rich[/quote]

Bravo, carry on.

[Doooh]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]

Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]

Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:

“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”

Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”

That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.

If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4

If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?

If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.

If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.

Rich[/quote]

Bravo, carry on.

[Doooh]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]

Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]

Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:

“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”

Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”

That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.

If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4

If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?

If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.

If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.

Rich[/quote]

Bravo, carry on.

[Doooh]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]

Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]

Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:

“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”

Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”

That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.

If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4

If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?

If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.

If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.

Rich[/quote]

Bravo, carry on.

[Doooh]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ILoveRegulation]

Just quoting this so you can’t change it. I’ve emailed Rich to see if he will ban you.[/quote]

Yes ILoveRegulation, I got your message, in which you asked:

“Is this worthy of a banishment or is flu one of the privileged posters who is above the rules?”

Those with reading comprehension skills will notice that you implicitly accused me of allowing “privileged users” to operate “above the rules.”

That is pretty funny coming from a user whose handle is 16 hours old.

If you are truly a new user, what is it that makes you think that you can lecture me about the site rules? You clearly have no idea what they are. I have never made rules on profanity or insults — the sole “rule” applies to political threadjacking as outlined here:

http://piggington.com/threadjackers_will_be_persecuted_maybe_even_prosecuted?page=4

If you are not as new to the forum as your 16-hour-old handle would imply, then are you one of these serial threadjackers who occasionally creates a new account with a vaguely provocative username just to start flame wars?

If it’s the latter, I would read above linked post very carefully.

If it’s the former, then welcome… but in the future, please don’t waste my time with semi-insulting requests to intervene just because someone offended your delicate sensibilities.

Rich[/quote]

Bravo, carry on.

[Doooh]

I think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.

A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.

Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.

I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.

[Doooh]

I think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.

A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.

Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.

I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.

[Doooh]

I think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.

A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.

Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.

I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.

[Doooh]

I think housing prices would plummet if prop 13 were repealed. It’s interesting that Texas and Temecula were brought up. They’re on my top 5 list of place to bail out to.

A house in San Antonio would run me $78k, the same house in Santee would run me $500k and the reasonably same home in Temecula would run $200-300k. I think the neighborhoods were somewhat comparable when I was out there scouting.

Prop 13 is a major reason for the difference. My Property taxes would be $2340 a year in Texas and $7500 on the equivalent property in Santee. A 300% difference is obnoxious. Most folk couldn’t stay in their Santee home if they had to pay market value taxes, and would need to move out.

I was on the edge of saying to hell with prop 13 kill it, it will bring housing prices down with it. But, after taking in this discussion, I think it would be right thing to keep it around. There’s no way that Gov’t is sending services back to the Santee home owner in the way of $7500 a year. Gov’t spending needs to be squashed, and if prop 13 helps that end, then I’d say I have to vote to keep it around… Even if it keeps me out of buying a home in CA.

[Author]

Posts