MarkDaSpark wrote:Why is it inequitable? If I've owned my property longer, why should I have to pay more?

After all, this isn't Canada ... err, Communist Russia.



Why should you make more as an engineer? Why should anyone make more? Slippery path there.


Edit: Or do you want homeless Senior Citizens, dependent on the cold, heartless Gov't for housing?

That would be an epic reality show. I would totally watch that.

The thought that somehow because you've owned something longer gives you certain protections in regards to property tax is stupid. You saved your money by BUYING the f'n house at a significantly lower price than Klez paid for the same home (even in this depressed market, which is rebounding, if we use the 20 year term. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to say that housing values are still more today than they were 20 years ago). So now Klez has to pay 50-100k more for the property AND higher property taxes? feast that.

Edit: YOU!

Further Editing: Also, the free market principle is still in effect since the cost of the house fluctuates on the market. The property taxes should also. FIXING the property tax is the Socialist thing, not the other way around.

ERMD wrote:So the same goes for income.. Why should I pay more, we use the same services.

You lost me. What does that have to do with income? If your tax is too high, move to a cheaper neighborhood. It was a definite factor in my purchase of this home. Smaller than I could have afforded, but I didn't feel like paying an extra 3k in property taxes for extra room I didn't really need (until I had kids and all hte attendant giblet that you accumulate while the little leeches infest your home).

bhodilee wrote:That would be an epic reality show. I would totally watch that.

The thought that somehow because you've owned something longer gives you certain protections in regards to property tax is stupid. You saved your money by BUYING the f'n house at a significantly lower price than Klez paid for the same home (even in this depressed market, which is rebounding, if we use the 20 year term. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to say that housing values are still more today than they were 20 years ago). So now Klez has to pay 50-100k more for the property AND higher property taxes? feast that.

Edit: YOU!

Further Editing: Also, the free market principle is still in effect since the cost of the house fluctuates on the market. The property taxes should also. FIXING the property tax is the Socialist thing, not the other way around.

Eh.... I don't know that this would be a big deal either way *if* California government was functional. But given how incredibly dysfunctional it is (it is difficult for those who don't live here to really appreciate how incredibly bad things are here, and how incredibly free Sacramento is with money - even money it *doesn't have*), having a control on how quickly a tax can increase is fine with me. Let's keep in mind that, adjusted for inflation, California receives a significantly *larger* amount of tax revenue than it did in the 50s and 60s when it was a model for how a state government could provide a number of really very high-quality services (infrastructure, education, etc). Had RPM not abandoned this thread, I imagine he could provide many historical anecdotes that bear this out. Suffice it to say, at the heart of the matter, California's problems are not revenue based; they are social and policy based. (And given California's love of debt, I don't know that its problems can be solved by simply starving the beast, but then I am quite pessimistic about politics in general at the moment.)


That said, I do not think it is equitable to have different property tax rates based on when a property was bought, though I would stop short of saying that it is *unfair*, for reasons already stated by Mark.

bhodilee wrote:You lost me. What does that have to do with income? If your tax is too high, move to a cheaper neighborhood. It was a definite factor in my purchase of this home. Smaller than I could have afforded, but I didn't feel like paying an extra 3k in property taxes for extra room I didn't really need (until I had kids and all hte attendant giblet that you accumulate while the little leeches infest your home).

I'm guessing this is a complaint about progressive income tax? If so, we all actually pay the same rate on the same portion of our income. For example, I pay the same rate on my first $25k that anybody else does.

bhodilee wrote:You lost me. What does that have to do with income? If your tax is too high, move to a cheaper neighborhood. It was a definite factor in my purchase of this home. Smaller than I could have afforded, but I didn't feel like paying an extra 3k in property taxes for extra room I didn't really need (until I had kids and all hte attendant giblet that you accumulate while the little leeches infest your home).

He was replying to a post that said, in part:

We get the same services from the city. Unless they let your sidewalk crumble and repair mine because I pay more tax.

Nothing short of an absolutely flat tax/fee for services (ie each person who receives XYZ service pays $ABC for it, regardless of who they are) would really address this, but I don't know that anybody here is actually sincerely advocating this.

chemvictim wrote:I'm guessing this is a complaint about progressive income tax? If so, we all actually pay the same rate on the same portion of our income. For example, I pay the same rate on my first $25k that anybody else does.

So why should you have a higher rate for the next 25, 100 what ever... Remember we use the same services, that is what was said.

jawlz wrote:Nothing short of an absolutely flat tax/fee for services (ie each person who receives XYZ service pays $ABC for it, regardless of who they are) would really address this, but I don't know that anybody here is actually sincerely advocating this.

Why not flat tax rate?

ERMD wrote:Why not flat tax rate?

I ddin't mean a flat percentage of income paid as a tax (many advocate this), but rather a fixed amount that is paid for a service.

After much thought, maybe the liberals are correct. I think I will go to half time so I am not in a higher tax bracket, not put away for retirement and let the socialist govt. take care of me when I get older.
Where's Rob ( RPM) when you need him.

jawlz wrote:I ddin't mean a flat percentage of income paid as a tax (many advocate this), but rather a fixed amount that is paid for a service.

I would go for that.
Isn't that what a toll road is?

Why not a flat tax? I don't know. It's been discussed here before. What I do know is that the progressive income tax has been around for a long time and cannot properly be blamed solely on liberals.

I'm not that fond of toll roads. They're inconvenient. How about toll sidewalks? Toll parks? Would we only pay for police and firefighters if they actually have to save us? It sounds complicated, fee-for-service government.

bhodilee wrote:That would be an epic reality show. I would totally watch that.

The thought that somehow because you've owned something longer gives you certain protections in regards to property tax is stupid. You saved your money by BUYING the f'n house at a significantly lower price than Klez paid for the same home (even in this depressed market, which is rebounding, if we use the 20 year term. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to say that housing values are still more today than they were 20 years ago). So now Klez has to pay 50-100k more for the property AND higher property taxes? feast that.

Edit: YOU!

Further Editing: Also, the free market principle is still in effect since the cost of the house fluctuates on the market. The property taxes should also. FIXING the property tax is the Socialist thing, not the other way around.

Jealousy is not a good color on you.


The reason why Prop 13 passed in the first place was because they (the state legislature and local gov't Assessors) were increasing property taxes by 100%, more or less, almost every year. The State Legislature has been controlled by Democrats since 1959, with 2 exceptions in the Assembly (1969/1970 and 1995/1996) when Republicans had more. Tax and Spend except those four years.


The problem is that the poli-ticks saw property taxes as a quick way to raise funds, and that was cut off by Prop 13. It still allowed Property Taxes to be raised, but required a 2/3's super-majority to do so.

So if you can guarantee (which you can't) that the poli-ticks won't keep raising the tax rate every year (which they were doing before Prop 13), then I'm fine with doing away with Prop 13. However, you can't, and they won't.


Life isn't fair, and neither is it a bowl of cherries.


Edit: There was another reason as well for passing Prop 13, which was that senior citizens were actually losing their homes due to the burden of their ever-increasing property taxes. They were on fixed income, and had been living in their homes for decades, and were losing them to the Taxman.

Or eating Dog or Cat food to save money to pay for their property taxes. I'm not joking about that either.

ERMD wrote:I would go for that.
Isn't that what a toll road is?

YES!!! Privatize the roads and get the inept gov't hands out of something else they shouldn't/can't manage.

As to the CA argument with taxes and schools and such, our schools were FAR better off with larger student/teacher ratios and when taxes were lower per capita. The problem isn't taxes (at least this problem isn't. Taxes in general are a huge problem). The issue is policy/gov't control. Privatize schools along with the roads! Give me my tax dollars back and I GUARANTEE that I will find my daughter far better education than she would get currently.

Hopefully one day, the American people will realize that gov't run stuff SUCKS and the gov't (in this case, mostly the dems) will realize that you can't tax us out of a financial problem.

chemvictim wrote:Why not a flat tax? I don't know. It's been discussed here before. What I do know is that the progressive income tax has been around for a long time and cannot properly be blamed solely on liberals.

I'm not that fond of toll roads. They're inconvenient. How about toll sidewalks? Toll parks? Would we only pay for police and firefighters if they actually have to save us? It sounds complicated, fee-for-service government.

We pay fee for service food, water, electricity to name a few. Taxes should pay for what they were originally for, the common good, not all the entitlements.

ERMD wrote:We pay fee for service food, water, electricity to name a few. Taxes should pay for what they were originally for, the common good, not all the entitlements.

But they don't so kill 'em. My water comes in every day. My trash is picked up every week. Privatization works pretty ok for those things...

chemvictim wrote:I'm not that fond of toll roads. They're inconvenient. How about toll sidewalks? Toll parks? Would we only pay for police and firefighters if they actually have to save us? It sounds complicated, fee-for-service government.

Yes, yes, and yes. All of those things, we would pay for. And if they failed, we could end the contract the company had with the city. We are already supposedly paying for the roads and sidewalks. The problem is, when a machine gets too large to handle, some gears get rusty. If too many gears get rusty...

MarkDaSpark wrote:Jealousy is not a good color on you.


The reason why Prop 13 passed in the first place was because they (the state legislature and local gov't Assessors) were increasing property taxes by 100%, more or less, almost every year. The State Legislature has been controlled by Democrats since 1959, with 2 exceptions in the Assembly (1969/1970 and 1995/1996) when Republicans had more. Tax and Spend except those four years.


The problem is that the poli-ticks saw property taxes as a quick way to raise funds, and that was cut off by Prop 13. It still allowed Property Taxes to be raised, but required a 2/3's super-majority to do so.

So if you can guarantee (which you can't) that the poli-ticks won't keep raising the tax rate every year (which they were doing before Prop 13), then I'm fine with doing away with Prop 13. However, you can't, and they won't.


Life isn't fair, and neither is it a bowl of cherries.


Edit: There was another reason as well for passing Prop 13, which was that senior citizens were actually losing their homes due to the burden of their ever-increasing property taxes. They were on fixed income, and had been living in their homes for decades, and were losing them to the Taxman.

Or eating Dog or Cat food to save money to pay for their property taxes. I'm not joking about that either.

The only thing I'm jealous of is the wine and the weather, otherwise California is an absolute joke. I'm still not sure why length of ownership has giblet to do with anything. Freeze the tax rate for everyone or break it into tax districts and average it. Here, tax rates are squarely tied to the average cost of the homes in the neighborhood. If I add footage to my house or make improvements my rates go up, but so does the rest of the hood. This makes sense to me, the model of your state makes me angry (though I'd happily take advantage of it if I lived there ).

bhodilee wrote:The only thing I'm jealous of is the wine and the weather, otherwise California is an absolute joke. I'm still not sure why length of ownership has giblet to do with anything. Freeze the tax rate for everyone or break it into tax districts and average it. Here, tax rates are squarely tied to the average cost of the homes in the neighborhood. If I add footage to my house or make improvements my rates go up, but so does the rest of the hood. This makes sense to me, the model of your state makes me angry (though I'd happily take advantage of it if I lived there ).

Length of ownership has no ~direct~ bearing on taxes, other thatn those that purchased years ago paid less, unless of course you purchased at the height of the bubble. Prop 13 did freeze the rates, 1%, of the purchase price, with annual adjustments that can go up or down. You make improvements, your assessed value goes up, your tax goes up.
It's your decision on how much you want to pay for your house, and therefore your taxes, when you purchase. The insidious thing we still have to deal with are additional assessed fees, and there are plenty over and above the basic 1%. For some reason folks here can't grok a bond they vote to pass requires a TAX to repay it. Ahh, another line item on my property tax bill...

As Sparky mentioned, those on fixed incomes were being taxed out of their PAID houses. That's just plain wrong. They didn't sign up for that governmental abuse when they purchased. Like businesses, we need stability and predictability to forecast our financial futures.

kylemittskus wrote:YES!!! Privatize the roads and get the inept gov't hands out of something else they shouldn't/can't manage.

As to the CA argument with taxes and schools and such, our schools were FAR better off with larger student/teacher ratios and when taxes were lower per capita. The problem isn't taxes (at least this problem isn't. Taxes in general are a huge problem). The issue is policy/gov't control. Privatize schools along with the roads! Give me my tax dollars back and I GUARANTEE that I will find my daughter far better education than she would get currently.

Hopefully one day, the American people will realize that gov't run stuff SUCKS and the gov't (in this case, mostly the dems) will realize that you can't tax us out of a financial problem.

As a citizen of California I approve this message.

ERMD wrote:So the same goes for income.. Why should I pay more, we use the same services.

Not sure how my kvetch turned into saying "some should pay more than others". I'm saying that's inherently inequitable for comparable properties. I'm simply saying that if we live next door to each other and have identical houses worth the same $ value, we ought to be paying the same in property taxes. Compared to today some would pay more and some less, sure, but I'm advocating that we don't favour people who purchased their houses a long time ago.

jawlz wrote:Suffice it to say, at the heart of the matter, California's problems are not revenue based; they are social and policy based. (And given California's love of debt, I don't know that its problems can be solved by simply starving the beast, but then I am quite pessimistic about politics in general at the moment.)

This, I agree with. I've only been here 8 years and it's pretty clear how dysfunctional it all is. But I also see part of that problem being Prop 13 and the dozens of other citizen-legislated "fixes" that tie the hands of the legislators. If we want real direct democracy then let's have it, but this system we have now seems to be strangling everything in the state.

ERMD wrote:So why should you have a higher rate for the next 25, 100 what ever... Remember we use the same services, that is what was said.

I said that wrt the things that are funded via property taxes, not income taxes. Didn't mean to add confusion. It's strongly anti-correlated wrt income taxes and state/federal spending (at least of the direct sort...there's still the tax expenditures).

Obviously Prop 13 was instituted to try to fix a serious problem. However, that doesn't make it good policy for the long term.

Enough for me now...two glasses of wine and some Scotch. Time to go to bed.

rjquillin wrote:Length of ownership has no ~direct~ bearing on taxes, other thatn those that purchased years ago paid less, unless of course you purchased at the height of the bubble. Prop 13 did freeze the rates, 1%, of the purchase price, with annual adjustments that can go up or down. You make improvements, your assessed value goes up, your tax goes up.
It's your decision on how much you want to pay for your house, and therefore your taxes, when you purchase. The insidious thing we still have to deal with are additional assessed fees, and there are plenty over and above the basic 1%. For some reason folks here can't grok a bond they vote to pass requires a TAX to repay it. Ahh, another line item on my property tax bill...

As Sparky mentioned, those on fixed incomes were being taxed out of their PAID houses. That's just plain wrong. They didn't sign up for that governmental abuse when they purchased. Like businesses, we need stability and predictability to forecast our financial futures.

Okay this makes sense. Head wrapped around I think.

Edit: So how is valuation determined? Is the Valuation and the real cost of homes in Cali that far apart? I know that my home is assessed at slightly less (like 5k) than what my house would likely sell for at this moment in time. Is the valuation there just strictly 1% of the purchase price? If so, when you make improvements, why does your property tax increase? Or is that part of the insidious "other" taxes you pay on the home. Here, that would be various levies for Natural Resource Districts, Public Power (yay commie power), and Public Utilities.

bhodilee wrote:Okay this makes sense. Head wrapped around I think.

Edit: So how is valuation determined? Is the Valuation and the real cost of homes in Cali that far apart? I know that my home is assessed at slightly less (like 5k) than what my house would likely sell for at this moment in time. Is the valuation there just strictly 1% of the purchase price? If so, when you make improvements, why does your property tax increase? Or is that part of the insidious "other" taxes you pay on the home. Here, that would be various levies for Natural Resource Districts, Public Power (yay commie power), and Public Utilities.

Valuation is set by purchase price and adjusted by, iirc, the 2% annual cap Sparky mentioned; but it ~can~ go down.

There are two components to the tax bill, land and improvements. During the various housing collapses we've had, your house, the "improvements" can and has seen a decrease. If you disagree, you can file an appeal for re-assessment. I've done this, twice. When home prices recover, to some point, unknown by me, the assessment will revert to the prior higher value.
If you make "improvements", add a room for instance, something that requires a permit, a reassessment is triggered. Here we're ~supposed~ to get a permit to frigging replace a water heater, but that's another bureaucracy gone totally amok for another discussion.
I'll pull my statement this evening and go over some of the other assessments so I can speak with less a wag.

Have you ever heard of a 'capital appreciation bond'? We have. It's where, for example, a bond is issued for some amount that is sold to the taxpayer, say ~$100 mil or so, for schools. Goes on your property tax statement. perhaps not all that hard a sell. What's it gonna cost to pay back?
You're not gonna believe this.
Just under ONE BILLION. From that property tax bill...
Details of this deal that was sold here.

It's 07:24, I need a double Scotch now to calm down.

[edit] And just this week I got another "tax" bill. A $150 assessment for fire fighting. Yeah, our property taxes are supposed to pay for that. Pay the bill please...

klezman wrote:Not sure how my kvetch turned into saying "some should pay more than others". I'm saying that's inherently inequitable for comparable properties. I'm simply saying that if we live next door to each other and have identical houses worth the same $ value, we ought to be paying the same in property taxes. Compared to today some would pay more and some less, sure, but I'm advocating that we don't favour people who purchased their houses a long time ago.

.... (another post)

This, I agree with. I've only been here 8 years and it's pretty clear how dysfunctional it all is. But I also see part of that problem being Prop 13 and the dozens of other citizen-legislated "fixes" that tie the hands of the legislators. If we want real direct democracy then let's have it, but this system we have now seems to be strangling everything in the state.

But those identical homes aren't going to be identical, except in floor plan (and maybe not even then, depending on how old the houses are). There are going to be improvements done over the years. So they won't be "worth" the same.

You also seem to forget that CA has higher home prices than almost anywhere else in the country. So much that if you sell a small home here in SoCal, you can buy an estate almost anywhere else in the USA.

Plus, the longer you live there, the more you have to put in to "fix" things. Like the roof, plumbing, etc. which cost major $$$ to repair/replace.

My parents lived in the same house for 61+ years, why should they have to pay more and more in property taxes, especially when they've been retired for the past 20+ years? We just had to fix a broken main and replace ALL the old cast iron plumbing under the house (been there since it was built), which cost a very pretty penny. Which they couldn't have afforded to do (without taking out a hefty loan) if they had to pay the ridiculous "value" assessed in your world.

And their home is in no way "identical" to anyone else's in the neighborhood.


And as to your second post ... Really? Why the feast do you think we TIED their hands in the first feasting place? Because they have no sense of keeping their hands off our money.

Plus, if you have no sense of it costing you anything (as in you pay no taxes), then what do you care if they raise the taxes on others? If you are renting, most times you don't realize that raising the property tax will raise your rent.

Without Prop 13, you wouldn't be able to have Rent Control, because no landlord could afford to keep rents low while property taxes continue to rise. You have to pass it on to the tenant.


And as RPM used to say (or mean), "This isn't a Democracy, but a Democratic REPUBLIC." They aren't the same thing!


Edit: In the next post, I have an even better point. You are complaining about the homes having the same "Value", but someone might be paying less in Property Taxes since they've owned their home longer.

But that "Value" isn't worth anything unless they sell their home. There's not $$$ that you get from having a higher "value". But I do have more expenses, the longer I live there.

klezman wrote:Obviously Prop 13 was instituted to try to fix a serious problem. However, that doesn't make it good policy for the long term.

Enough for me now...two glasses of wine and some Scotch. Time to go to bed.

Correct, if you assume that people are smart and won't keep returning the same wishbones to the legislature. Except that's what they've been doing for the past 50+ years.

Again, the problem isn't Prop 13 (which wouldn't be needed if we didn't have wishbones), but the wishbones that have controlled the state legislature for the past 50+ years.



Let's take your example to the extreme. Why should I pay more in Property Taxes than Bowtie in Nebraska, if I have an "identical" house? It's got the same number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. Same amount of square footage (we don't, but let's assume I have his palatial manor).

The difference is that I'm here in SoCal, 4 miles from the beach, 40 miles from the mountains or desert; and he's in beautiful Nebraska. Putting that aside, how equitable is it that I have to pay more in Property Taxes if we have identical homes?? (We don't, but in this example, we do. )


Let's look at one more issue. Yes, I bought my home almost 20 years ago. But even if my home has increased in "value", that doesn't translate $$$ to me UNLESS I sell it. I don't make any more money off my home. I don't receive any financial benefit or gain from being here longer. In fact, I have to spend more because there's more to fix.

I pay the same for city services as you (utilities, water, gas, sewer, etc.), but yes, I might pay less in Property Taxes than you. Except I've been paying them longer than you. Isn't that an inequality?



Edit: In a Perfect World, we'd all pay the same amount of Property Tax for the same property size (land, sq. footage in home, etc.). So the more land and Sq. Ft. you have, the more you'd pay in taxes, but it would be the same for everyone.

And then we wouldn't need Prop 13. But this isn't a Perfect World.

kylemittskus wrote:Yes, yes, and yes. All of those things, we would pay for. And if they failed, we could end the contract the company had with the city. We are already supposedly paying for the roads and sidewalks. The problem is, when a machine gets too large to handle, some gears get rusty. If too many gears get rusty...

I am generally libertarian minded, but I would not go this far. Most (in number if not in acreage) parks are paid for through local revenue in the first place, and I don't have an issue with a city deciding that having a park would be a nice thing that would benefit its community and then working through a democratic process to set up a system to pay for that park with public funds (ie tax dollars). You are right that the larger a machine gets the more difficult it is to handle: the farther abstracted things get from the local level, the more likely it becomes for cruft and corruption to creep in, and the more problematic these things become.

I am also generally not a fan of the concept of stimulus government spending, though some things even on a large level (the interstate system, for example) have ended up being enormous boons economically and have benefited everyone greatly, so I can't say that I would support moving to an entirely fee/toll based system.

A pay-for-exactly-what-you-use society is really more anarcho-capitalist than anything else, and while there are elements of such a society that seem appealing, going full-bore to it would, I think, be problematic (not to mention entirely unrealistic).

I like this argument, that life isn't fair so suck it up. It's the answer to most of the stuff we talk about here.

I'm going to let this one go...I think we're talking past each other. You're talking about the known and expected costs of homeownership (which are high, although far less so in CA than in places with, um, weather) and I'm talking about the (to me) inherent inequality of basing property taxes on purchase price instead of current value.

chemvictim wrote:I like this argument, that life isn't fair so suck it up. It's the answer to most of the stuff we talk about here.

Hahaha...true.

Although equal != equitable, and fair != equal. Fairness is generally in the eye of the beholder.

klezman wrote:I'm going to let this one go...I think we're talking past each other. You're talking about the known and expected costs of homeownership (which are high, although far less so in CA than in places with, um, weather) and I'm talking about the (to me) inherent inequality of basing property taxes on purchase price instead of current value.

Except in my last posts, I tried to get into why it was wrong to use current value for PT.

Yes, my home has more "value" than yours, but the only time I gain $$$ is if I sell it. There is no monetary gain to me unless I sell my home. So basing PT on purchase value is completely equitable.

You are trying to charge me more for something I have no control over, and don't get anything back from. How is that equitable?

I'm bringing up the expenses to show that there is a trade-off in long-term home ownership with regards to PT.


But basically, even though my home has more "Value" than when I purchased it, I won't see any $$$ unless I sell my home. So why should I pay more in PT when I don't see any $$$ in my bank account?


Edit: And I still don't see where it's a "favor" to use purchase price vs. current value. Nor the "inherent inequality".

If I'm not gaining $$ currently in my bank account, why should I pay more? Yes, my home has gained in "value", but I don't see any money from it. And when I sell my home, I have to pay taxes on any "gain" I make.

It would seem more inequitable to make me pay more in PT when I'm not getting anything more.

klezman wrote:Hahaha...true.

Although equal != equitable, and fair != equal. Fairness is generally in the eye of the beholder.

Everyone buried in a cemetery is equal. And it's all fair there.

But this is Life. And Life doesn't mean it all has to be fair and equal. We should strive for it, but if everything was fair and equal, you'd have stagnation.

Or be living in a cemetery.

rjquillin wrote:Valuation is set by purchase price and adjusted by, iirc, the 2% annual cap Sparky mentioned; but it ~can~ go down.

There are two components to the tax bill, land and improvements. During the various housing collapses we've had, your house, the "improvements" can and has seen a decrease. If you disagree, you can file an appeal for re-assessment. I've done this, twice. When home prices recover, to some point, unknown by me, the assessment will revert to the prior higher value.
If you make "improvements", add a room for instance, something that requires a permit, a reassessment is triggered. Here we're ~supposed~ to get a permit to frigging replace a water heater, but that's another bureaucracy gone totally amok for another discussion.
I'll pull my statement this evening and go over some of the other assessments so I can speak with less a wag.

Have you ever heard of a 'capital appreciation bond'? We have. It's where, for example, a bond is issued for some amount that is sold to the taxpayer, say ~$100 mil or so, for schools. Goes on your property tax statement. perhaps not all that hard a sell. What's it gonna cost to pay back?
You're not gonna believe this.
Just under ONE BILLION. From that property tax bill...
Details of this deal that was sold here.

It's 07:24, I need a double Scotch now to calm down.

[edit] And just this week I got another "tax" bill. A $150 assessment for fire fighting. Yeah, our property taxes are supposed to pay for that. Pay the bill please...

Got it, your valuation fluctuates for "improvements" but never by more than 2%, until they backdoor you for other crap and call it anything other than what it is. I cannot fathom being a taxpayer in your state.

We have permits for Water Heaters and Electrical and Decks and Fences and all that crap also. I understand some of them, not others. Water Heaters used to be a pretty big hazard if installed incorrectly, now they have built in relief valves so they're really not a hazard. Electricity and plumbing, I'm not allowed to do myself, AT ALL. I gotta hire someone (yeah right). So I'm familiar with that style of bureaucracy. Drives me crazy.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Except in my last posts, I tried to get into why it was wrong to use current value for PT.

Yes, my home has more "value" than yours, but the only time I gain $$$ is if I sell it. There is no monetary gain to me unless I sell my home. So basing PT on purchase value is completely equitable.

You are trying to charge me more for something I have no control over, and don't get anything back from. How is that equitable?

I'm bringing up the expenses to show that there is a trade-off in long-term home ownership with regards to PT.


But basically, even though my home has more "Value" than when I purchased it, I won't see any $$$ unless I sell my home. So why should I pay more in PT when I don't see any $$$ in my bank account?


Edit: And I still don't see where it's a "favor" to use purchase price vs. current value. Nor the "inherent inequality".

If I'm not gaining $$ currently in my bank account, why should I pay more? Yes, my home has gained in "value", but I don't see any money from it. And when I sell my home, I have to pay taxes on any "gain" I make.

It would seem more inequitable to make me pay more in PT when I'm not getting anything more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, property owners (outside of crazy CA), but isn't it common to pay property taxes based on the value of your property every year? Makes no difference whether you're going to sell it or not, you're paying taxes on the property itself. I know lots of people get cranky that they have to pay taxes on something they already paid for, but...

life ain't fair casserolees, suck it up! lol

MarkDaSpark wrote:Correct, if you assume that people are smart and won't keep returning the same wishbones to the legislature. Except that's what they've been doing for the past 50+ years.

Again, the problem isn't Prop 13 (which wouldn't be needed if we didn't have wishbones), but the wishbones that have controlled the state legislature for the past 50+ years.



Let's take your example to the extreme. Why should I pay more in Property Taxes than Bowtie in Nebraska, if I have an "identical" house? It's got the same number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. Same amount of square footage (we don't, but let's assume I have his palatial manor).

The difference is that I'm here in SoCal, 4 miles from the beach, 40 miles from the mountains or desert; and he's in beautiful Nebraska. Putting that aside, how equitable is it that I have to pay more in Property Taxes if we have identical homes?? (We don't, but in this example, we do. )


Let's look at one more issue. Yes, I bought my home almost 20 years ago. But even if my home has increased in "value", that doesn't translate $$$ to me UNLESS I sell it. I don't make any more money off my home. I don't receive any financial benefit or gain from being here longer. In fact, I have to spend more because there's more to fix.

I pay the same for city services as you (utilities, water, gas, sewer, etc.), but yes, I might pay less in Property Taxes than you. Except I've been paying them longer than you. Isn't that an inequality?



Edit: In a Perfect World, we'd all pay the same amount of Property Tax for the same property size (land, sq. footage in home, etc.). So the more land and Sq. Ft. you have, the more you'd pay in taxes, but it would be the same for everyone.

And then we wouldn't need Prop 13. But this isn't a Perfect World.

Palatial 2000sqft is not palatial by any stretch Nebraska is awesome though!

chemvictim wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, property owners (outside of crazy CA), but isn't it common to pay property taxes based on the value of your property every year? Makes no difference whether you're going to sell it or not, you're paying taxes on the property itself. I know lots of people get cranky that they have to pay taxes on something they already paid for, but...

life ain't fair casserolees, suck it up! lol

Yes, my tax valuation has been known to fluctuate wildly. It's maddening. My home has increased in value about 15k in the time I've lived there according to the assessor. they must not have got the note on the housing bust.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Except in my last posts, I tried to get into why it was wrong to use current value for PT.

Yes, my home has more "value" than yours, but the only time I gain $$$ is if I sell it. There is no monetary gain to me unless I sell my home. So basing PT on purchase value is completely equitable.

You are trying to charge me more for something I have no control over, and don't get anything back from. How is that equitable?

I'm bringing up the expenses to show that there is a trade-off in long-term home ownership with regards to PT.


But basically, even though my home has more "Value" than when I purchased it, I won't see any $$$ unless I sell my home. So why should I pay more in PT when I don't see any $$$ in my bank account?


Edit: And I still don't see where it's a "favor" to use purchase price vs. current value. Nor the "inherent inequality".

If I'm not gaining $$ currently in my bank account, why should I pay more? Yes, my home has gained in "value", but I don't see any money from it. And when I sell my home, I have to pay taxes on any "gain" I make.

It would seem more inequitable to make me pay more in PT when I'm not getting anything more.

Sometimes when I decide to jump into a conversation that has raged for a while without me, I miss some details. Forgive me if I do so in this case. I’m quite confident I have, in fact.

Living in South Dakota, I’m no expert in California property taxes, and I’m not going to delve into Proposition 13. I’ll ignore California-specific issues and just talk about property taxes in general. Property taxes being fairly similar everywhere, here goes.

When you realize any gain from increased valuation is irrelevant. Property taxes are based on valuation, not cash flow. If you don’t like it, try to get the law changed. I’m sure there are people in this country who live in houses that have been passed down through several generations – would it make sense that one person pay taxes based on a sale in 1936 at $3,000, while someone in a similar home next door be taxed on a recent sale at $200,000? Why? And a house 4 miles from the beach in Southern California can never be “identical” to a house in Nebraska, unless you ignore the mantra of real estate agents everywhere – “location, location, location”. A house is not just the boards and bricks.

Using purchase prices as the basis for fixing valuation is, for at least some period of time, very sensible. Sales price is a direct measure of value, after all. Over time, though, that sales price no longer measures value, as overall prices change, land use changes, and the condition of the property changes.

Eventually, absent another sale, indirect measures of value must be used. This can start with the sale price and then add or subtract a general valuation factor, but changes to the house also have an impact on value. Additions presumably add value to the house, and so they should factor into the valuation process. Any indirect measurement of value is inherently imperfect, though, and there comes a point at which adding “perfection” isn’t worth the cost.

When it comes to the usage of government services (referenced in a previous post), you have to ask again whether measuring usage is worth the cost, and whether a reasonable substitute can be found. In a company I used to work for, they decided to charge for copier use based on the number of copies made; everyone had to punch in a department code to get the copier to work. Eventually, it was decided that charging based on head count was close enough and much easier to calculate. In many ways, the size of a house can be a reasonable proxy for usage of services, because the number of people in a household is the most significant variable in measuring that usage, and smaller houses usually have fewer people living in them. Not for every house or for every type of service, of course, but for a lot of them.

All that said, politicians do enact favors for current residents on occasion () by altering the valuation principle in those residents’ favor, such as by using outdated sales transactions as the basis for valuation calculations. This is a political ploy, though, not an effort to make taxes more equitable.

It was also suggested that property taxes be based on other variables, such as acreage or square footage. One problem with this is the unintended consequence of people building houses with the tax consequences in mind. There would have to be a set of rules defining what is considered square footage – does the garage count? How about outbuildings? Does a basement count, but not a crawlspace? It seems that we could run into situations such as there was in the U.K., when they had a window tax instead of a valuation-based property tax (you actually were assessed taxes based on how many windows your house had). Houses were built with windows that could be easily removed and replaced with wood sections for when the assessor came around. The other problem, again, is that houses with identical square footage and land are not really identical if, say, one is in central Detroit and the other is waterfront property on Mackinac Island.

By the way, when you sell your home, you do not pay taxes on the increase in value. If you flip houses and never lived in it you will pay income taxes on the gain, but those provisions are for people who buy houses solely as investments for income generation, not to live in. I presume you do not fall into this category of homeowners.

bhodilee wrote:Palatial 2000sqft is not palatial by any stretch Nebraska is awesome though!

It is to less than 900sqft!!!

bhodilee wrote:Got it, your valuation fluctuates for "improvements" but never by more than 2%, until they backdoor you for other crap and call it anything other than what it is. I cannot fathom being a taxpayer in your state.

Not exactly. Without improvements, increases are capped at 2%. Were you to say double your ft2, upon reassessment you'd find a much greater increase. Likely, but as I've not done this, based on the cost of the improvements. Spend 100k on improvements, expect your assessed value to go up by 100k and pay 1% of that in increased taxes, yearly, increasing capped at 2% for future years.

We have permits for Water Heaters and Electrical and Decks and Fences and all that crap also. I understand some of them, not others. Water Heaters used to be a pretty big hazard if installed incorrectly, now they have built in relief valves so they're really not a hazard. Electricity and plumbing, I'm not allowed to do myself, AT ALL. I gotta hire someone (yeah right). So I'm familiar with that style of bureaucracy. Drives me crazy.

Yeah, a water heater ~could~ be an issue, but to replace it. ^&%$, I can buy it at HD or Lowes, but need a permit to put it in..?!