- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2011 at 1:30 PM #651726January 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM #650622
pokepud3
Participant1. Did you personally purchase your principal residence which has Prop 13 protection, or did your or your spouse’s parent deed it to you in life or leave it to you in death?
I’m buying my own property, and have bought in the last year, and again this year.
2. Are you planning on deeding/leaving your principal residence to your child(ren), thus availing yourself of Prop 58 (the later “progeny of Prop 13” allowing your Prop 13 benefits to be passed onto your child(ren)?
I may, don’t have children yet.
3. If you are planning on leaving it to your children, would your plans be different if Prop 13 (and Prop 58) were not in place (i.e. you would instead sell and retire/move to the river, Lake Tahoe, Guatemala, out of county/state to be near grandchildren, etc)?
Most likely yes, I definitely wouldn’t stay in California that much is for sure. San Diego is a nice place to live, but it’s in no way a dream land that would keep me from moving if taxes keep going up.
January 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM #650691Participant1. Did you personally purchase your principal residence which has Prop 13 protection, or did your or your spouse’s parent deed it to you in life or leave it to you in death?
I’m buying my own property, and have bought in the last year, and again this year.
2. Are you planning on deeding/leaving your principal residence to your child(ren), thus availing yourself of Prop 58 (the later “progeny of Prop 13” allowing your Prop 13 benefits to be passed onto your child(ren)?
I may, don’t have children yet.
3. If you are planning on leaving it to your children, would your plans be different if Prop 13 (and Prop 58) were not in place (i.e. you would instead sell and retire/move to the river, Lake Tahoe, Guatemala, out of county/state to be near grandchildren, etc)?
Most likely yes, I definitely wouldn’t stay in California that much is for sure. San Diego is a nice place to live, but it’s in no way a dream land that would keep me from moving if taxes keep going up.
January 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM #651274Participant1. Did you personally purchase your principal residence which has Prop 13 protection, or did your or your spouse’s parent deed it to you in life or leave it to you in death?
I’m buying my own property, and have bought in the last year, and again this year.
2. Are you planning on deeding/leaving your principal residence to your child(ren), thus availing yourself of Prop 58 (the later “progeny of Prop 13” allowing your Prop 13 benefits to be passed onto your child(ren)?
I may, don’t have children yet.
3. If you are planning on leaving it to your children, would your plans be different if Prop 13 (and Prop 58) were not in place (i.e. you would instead sell and retire/move to the river, Lake Tahoe, Guatemala, out of county/state to be near grandchildren, etc)?
Most likely yes, I definitely wouldn’t stay in California that much is for sure. San Diego is a nice place to live, but it’s in no way a dream land that would keep me from moving if taxes keep going up.
January 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM #651408Participant1. Did you personally purchase your principal residence which has Prop 13 protection, or did your or your spouse’s parent deed it to you in life or leave it to you in death?
I’m buying my own property, and have bought in the last year, and again this year.
2. Are you planning on deeding/leaving your principal residence to your child(ren), thus availing yourself of Prop 58 (the later “progeny of Prop 13” allowing your Prop 13 benefits to be passed onto your child(ren)?
I may, don’t have children yet.
3. If you are planning on leaving it to your children, would your plans be different if Prop 13 (and Prop 58) were not in place (i.e. you would instead sell and retire/move to the river, Lake Tahoe, Guatemala, out of county/state to be near grandchildren, etc)?
Most likely yes, I definitely wouldn’t stay in California that much is for sure. San Diego is a nice place to live, but it’s in no way a dream land that would keep me from moving if taxes keep going up.
January 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM #651731Participant1. Did you personally purchase your principal residence which has Prop 13 protection, or did your or your spouse’s parent deed it to you in life or leave it to you in death?
I’m buying my own property, and have bought in the last year, and again this year.
2. Are you planning on deeding/leaving your principal residence to your child(ren), thus availing yourself of Prop 58 (the later “progeny of Prop 13” allowing your Prop 13 benefits to be passed onto your child(ren)?
I may, don’t have children yet.
3. If you are planning on leaving it to your children, would your plans be different if Prop 13 (and Prop 58) were not in place (i.e. you would instead sell and retire/move to the river, Lake Tahoe, Guatemala, out of county/state to be near grandchildren, etc)?
Most likely yes, I definitely wouldn’t stay in California that much is for sure. San Diego is a nice place to live, but it’s in no way a dream land that would keep me from moving if taxes keep going up.
January 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM #650627jpinpb
Participant[quote=pokepud3]How is it not fair that older people who used their mind and invested in someplace that was cheaper and took risks to do that, pay less taxes then the newer people who bought knowing their prices will be high.
Can’t believe how many of you guys are totally jealous of the old farts next door and can’t hold it in. Totally sickens me, when a law that is meant to bring some stability into everyone’s life, and is only doing good to people who use it correctly, can actually be said to be a bad thing.
When your on a fixed income with your wife, can’t find a job due to high unemployment, and you already paid off your loan after 30-40 years of hard work, in California we’re the type of people who voted and said that those type of people deserve to live in their homes without having to feel threatened by higher property taxes.
Why? Because one day when we’re at that stage we would want that for ourselves.
Wish upon others what you wish for yourselves, not to mention taxes almost NEVER will go down in california no matter what.[/quote]
Agreed. What I’ve been trying to say. When you are older, you will appreciate that your taxes are fixed, just like your income.
BG – I did not purchase any residence pre 1978 and I have no kids of my own. And I still think Prop 13 is a good thing.
January 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM #650696Participant[quote=pokepud3]How is it not fair that older people who used their mind and invested in someplace that was cheaper and took risks to do that, pay less taxes then the newer people who bought knowing their prices will be high.
Can’t believe how many of you guys are totally jealous of the old farts next door and can’t hold it in. Totally sickens me, when a law that is meant to bring some stability into everyone’s life, and is only doing good to people who use it correctly, can actually be said to be a bad thing.
When your on a fixed income with your wife, can’t find a job due to high unemployment, and you already paid off your loan after 30-40 years of hard work, in California we’re the type of people who voted and said that those type of people deserve to live in their homes without having to feel threatened by higher property taxes.
Why? Because one day when we’re at that stage we would want that for ourselves.
Wish upon others what you wish for yourselves, not to mention taxes almost NEVER will go down in california no matter what.[/quote]
Agreed. What I’ve been trying to say. When you are older, you will appreciate that your taxes are fixed, just like your income.
BG – I did not purchase any residence pre 1978 and I have no kids of my own. And I still think Prop 13 is a good thing.
January 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM #651279Participant[quote=pokepud3]How is it not fair that older people who used their mind and invested in someplace that was cheaper and took risks to do that, pay less taxes then the newer people who bought knowing their prices will be high.
Can’t believe how many of you guys are totally jealous of the old farts next door and can’t hold it in. Totally sickens me, when a law that is meant to bring some stability into everyone’s life, and is only doing good to people who use it correctly, can actually be said to be a bad thing.
When your on a fixed income with your wife, can’t find a job due to high unemployment, and you already paid off your loan after 30-40 years of hard work, in California we’re the type of people who voted and said that those type of people deserve to live in their homes without having to feel threatened by higher property taxes.
Why? Because one day when we’re at that stage we would want that for ourselves.
Wish upon others what you wish for yourselves, not to mention taxes almost NEVER will go down in california no matter what.[/quote]
Agreed. What I’ve been trying to say. When you are older, you will appreciate that your taxes are fixed, just like your income.
BG – I did not purchase any residence pre 1978 and I have no kids of my own. And I still think Prop 13 is a good thing.
January 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM #651413Participant[quote=pokepud3]How is it not fair that older people who used their mind and invested in someplace that was cheaper and took risks to do that, pay less taxes then the newer people who bought knowing their prices will be high.
Can’t believe how many of you guys are totally jealous of the old farts next door and can’t hold it in. Totally sickens me, when a law that is meant to bring some stability into everyone’s life, and is only doing good to people who use it correctly, can actually be said to be a bad thing.
When your on a fixed income with your wife, can’t find a job due to high unemployment, and you already paid off your loan after 30-40 years of hard work, in California we’re the type of people who voted and said that those type of people deserve to live in their homes without having to feel threatened by higher property taxes.
Why? Because one day when we’re at that stage we would want that for ourselves.
Wish upon others what you wish for yourselves, not to mention taxes almost NEVER will go down in california no matter what.[/quote]
Agreed. What I’ve been trying to say. When you are older, you will appreciate that your taxes are fixed, just like your income.
BG – I did not purchase any residence pre 1978 and I have no kids of my own. And I still think Prop 13 is a good thing.
January 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM #651736Participant[quote=pokepud3]How is it not fair that older people who used their mind and invested in someplace that was cheaper and took risks to do that, pay less taxes then the newer people who bought knowing their prices will be high.
Can’t believe how many of you guys are totally jealous of the old farts next door and can’t hold it in. Totally sickens me, when a law that is meant to bring some stability into everyone’s life, and is only doing good to people who use it correctly, can actually be said to be a bad thing.
When your on a fixed income with your wife, can’t find a job due to high unemployment, and you already paid off your loan after 30-40 years of hard work, in California we’re the type of people who voted and said that those type of people deserve to live in their homes without having to feel threatened by higher property taxes.
Why? Because one day when we’re at that stage we would want that for ourselves.
Wish upon others what you wish for yourselves, not to mention taxes almost NEVER will go down in california no matter what.[/quote]
Agreed. What I’ve been trying to say. When you are older, you will appreciate that your taxes are fixed, just like your income.
BG – I did not purchase any residence pre 1978 and I have no kids of my own. And I still think Prop 13 is a good thing.
January 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM #650632jstoesz
ParticipantFact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.
January 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM #650701ParticipantFact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.
January 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM #651284ParticipantFact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.
January 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM #651418ParticipantFact is, prop 13 incites perverse incentives. It would be far preferable to simplify (ie reduce loopholes and stipulations). Across the board reduce taxes, and stop allowing people to game the system. Why is it beneficial for an old person to stay in their home of 30 years. Why should they get a reduced rate because they are sedentary? Because they have a fixed income? Why should they be better off than the old person who scales their housing needs to the size of their family as it changes through the years. (Seems to me the retiree who downsizes is being a more intelligent steward of resources). We should not tax people based on ability to pay and subsidize based on need (inability to pay). That is the fastest way to an irresponsible society, and it incites perverse outcomes that are not easily identified.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.