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

[jstoesz]

Fact 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.

[bearishgurl]

Thank you, pokepud3. I assumed from your post that you were a direct recipient of Prop 13 benefits. In fact, you will be paying “market-rate” taxes on your purchase (1% of assessed value + applicable svcs).

Yes, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep seniors on a fixed income in their homes, as long as they could take care of themselves. HOWEVER, due to the later passing of Prop 58 and lesser-used Prop 193, this “senior benefit” has morphed into a “local-tax social safety net” for adults still of working age, some as young as in their 20’s. This is the part that is not fair about “Prop 13.”

[bearishgurl]

Thank you, pokepud3. I assumed from your post that you were a direct recipient of Prop 13 benefits. In fact, you will be paying “market-rate” taxes on your purchase (1% of assessed value + applicable svcs).

Yes, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep seniors on a fixed income in their homes, as long as they could take care of themselves. HOWEVER, due to the later passing of Prop 58 and lesser-used Prop 193, this “senior benefit” has morphed into a “local-tax social safety net” for adults still of working age, some as young as in their 20’s. This is the part that is not fair about “Prop 13.”

[bearishgurl]

Thank you, pokepud3. I assumed from your post that you were a direct recipient of Prop 13 benefits. In fact, you will be paying “market-rate” taxes on your purchase (1% of assessed value + applicable svcs).

Yes, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep seniors on a fixed income in their homes, as long as they could take care of themselves. HOWEVER, due to the later passing of Prop 58 and lesser-used Prop 193, this “senior benefit” has morphed into a “local-tax social safety net” for adults still of working age, some as young as in their 20’s. This is the part that is not fair about “Prop 13.”

[bearishgurl]

Thank you, pokepud3. I assumed from your post that you were a direct recipient of Prop 13 benefits. In fact, you will be paying “market-rate” taxes on your purchase (1% of assessed value + applicable svcs).

Yes, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep seniors on a fixed income in their homes, as long as they could take care of themselves. HOWEVER, due to the later passing of Prop 58 and lesser-used Prop 193, this “senior benefit” has morphed into a “local-tax social safety net” for adults still of working age, some as young as in their 20’s. This is the part that is not fair about “Prop 13.”

[bearishgurl]

Thank you, pokepud3. I assumed from your post that you were a direct recipient of Prop 13 benefits. In fact, you will be paying “market-rate” taxes on your purchase (1% of assessed value + applicable svcs).

Yes, the original intent of Prop 13 was to keep seniors on a fixed income in their homes, as long as they could take care of themselves. HOWEVER, due to the later passing of Prop 58 and lesser-used Prop 193, this “senior benefit” has morphed into a “local-tax social safety net” for adults still of working age, some as young as in their 20’s. This is the part that is not fair about “Prop 13.”

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]Fact 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.[/quote]

From what I understand from UCGal’s post, I guess the elderly can downsize and keep the Prop 13 on their next place, which I was not aware of, so they would be an intelligent steward of resources 😉

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]Fact 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.[/quote]

From what I understand from UCGal’s post, I guess the elderly can downsize and keep the Prop 13 on their next place, which I was not aware of, so they would be an intelligent steward of resources 😉

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]Fact 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.[/quote]

From what I understand from UCGal’s post, I guess the elderly can downsize and keep the Prop 13 on their next place, which I was not aware of, so they would be an intelligent steward of resources 😉

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]Fact 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.[/quote]

From what I understand from UCGal’s post, I guess the elderly can downsize and keep the Prop 13 on their next place, which I was not aware of, so they would be an intelligent steward of resources 😉

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]Fact 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.[/quote]

From what I understand from UCGal’s post, I guess the elderly can downsize and keep the Prop 13 on their next place, which I was not aware of, so they would be an intelligent steward of resources 😉

[pokepud3]

Nah I’m paying market rate which is fair since I’m buying at lower prices now. I like the stability since I may be making enough to pay now, but 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? who knows down the line I will probably not be making the same amount. So I like the idea that I’ll know what I have to pay + or – .3 percent due to all the prop’s that pass 😐

Also jstoesz, got any references for past taxes that were highered to lower other taxes, that actually caused taxes to be lowered in the last 10-15 years? Just because the potential to lower taxes is there after upping property taxes doesn’t mean taxes will actually go lower. In fact that would be the last thing they had in mind, we are a democratic state afterall.

[pokepud3]

Nah I’m paying market rate which is fair since I’m buying at lower prices now. I like the stability since I may be making enough to pay now, but 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? who knows down the line I will probably not be making the same amount. So I like the idea that I’ll know what I have to pay + or – .3 percent due to all the prop’s that pass 😐

Also jstoesz, got any references for past taxes that were highered to lower other taxes, that actually caused taxes to be lowered in the last 10-15 years? Just because the potential to lower taxes is there after upping property taxes doesn’t mean taxes will actually go lower. In fact that would be the last thing they had in mind, we are a democratic state afterall.

[pokepud3]

Nah I’m paying market rate which is fair since I’m buying at lower prices now. I like the stability since I may be making enough to pay now, but 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? who knows down the line I will probably not be making the same amount. So I like the idea that I’ll know what I have to pay + or – .3 percent due to all the prop’s that pass 😐

Also jstoesz, got any references for past taxes that were highered to lower other taxes, that actually caused taxes to be lowered in the last 10-15 years? Just because the potential to lower taxes is there after upping property taxes doesn’t mean taxes will actually go lower. In fact that would be the last thing they had in mind, we are a democratic state afterall.

[pokepud3]

Nah I’m paying market rate which is fair since I’m buying at lower prices now. I like the stability since I may be making enough to pay now, but 1 year? 3 years? 5 years? who knows down the line I will probably not be making the same amount. So I like the idea that I’ll know what I have to pay + or – .3 percent due to all the prop’s that pass 😐

Also jstoesz, got any references for past taxes that were highered to lower other taxes, that actually caused taxes to be lowered in the last 10-15 years? Just because the potential to lower taxes is there after upping property taxes doesn’t mean taxes will actually go lower. In fact that would be the last thing they had in mind, we are a democratic state afterall.

[Author]

Posts