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

[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.

[jstoesz]

Nice, I was misinformed. Glad to see some of this law is not as bad as I thought.

Poke, I do not favor repeal unless repeal is tied into a lower tax structure across the board with some sort of limits on increasing taxes elsewhere (which is unlikely/impossible). Prop 13 strikes me as unfair none the less, but certainly less unfair than many of our confiscatory state tax policies.

So the stand alone repeal I would not support, because it would just send more money down the rat hole.

[jstoesz]

Nice, I was misinformed. Glad to see some of this law is not as bad as I thought.

Poke, I do not favor repeal unless repeal is tied into a lower tax structure across the board with some sort of limits on increasing taxes elsewhere (which is unlikely/impossible). Prop 13 strikes me as unfair none the less, but certainly less unfair than many of our confiscatory state tax policies.

So the stand alone repeal I would not support, because it would just send more money down the rat hole.

[jstoesz]

Nice, I was misinformed. Glad to see some of this law is not as bad as I thought.

Poke, I do not favor repeal unless repeal is tied into a lower tax structure across the board with some sort of limits on increasing taxes elsewhere (which is unlikely/impossible). Prop 13 strikes me as unfair none the less, but certainly less unfair than many of our confiscatory state tax policies.

So the stand alone repeal I would not support, because it would just send more money down the rat hole.

[jstoesz]

Nice, I was misinformed. Glad to see some of this law is not as bad as I thought.

Poke, I do not favor repeal unless repeal is tied into a lower tax structure across the board with some sort of limits on increasing taxes elsewhere (which is unlikely/impossible). Prop 13 strikes me as unfair none the less, but certainly less unfair than many of our confiscatory state tax policies.

So the stand alone repeal I would not support, because it would just send more money down the rat hole.

[jstoesz]

Nice, I was misinformed. Glad to see some of this law is not as bad as I thought.

Poke, I do not favor repeal unless repeal is tied into a lower tax structure across the board with some sort of limits on increasing taxes elsewhere (which is unlikely/impossible). Prop 13 strikes me as unfair none the less, but certainly less unfair than many of our confiscatory state tax policies.

So the stand alone repeal I would not support, because it would just send more money down the rat hole.

[sdrealtor]

[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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.

[sdrealtor]

[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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.

[sdrealtor]

[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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.

[sdrealtor]

[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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.

[sdrealtor]

[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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]

No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]

No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]

No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).

[jstoesz]

[quote=sdrealtor][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]

The reason is simple. Because we are a society of kind caring people who care about others not the least of which are the often frail elderly. Have some empathy for your elders. With some luck you will be among them someday.[/quote]

No disrespect for old people. I just don’t like tax breaks (it just screams inequality). Taxes should not be used to dole out favors for preferred groups of people. The simpler, the more equitable, and the lower, the better (to a point obviously, any principle can be taken too far).

[Author]

Posts