| ▲ | vineyardmike 4 hours ago |
| > the idea of being displaced at the end of your life out of the home I would argue that this is unpopular not only amongst retirees but everyone. And it would have tons of negative side effects. Why would I fix up my house to look nice, if I’ll be displaced? Why would I invest in my child’s local school system, if we could be displaced? Why would I do any community outreach or support, or get involved in local politics? How can banks underwrite loans if the affordability can fluctuate wildly? Look at the life of people who live in mobile homes and trailer parks - they essentially rent the land, and it’s oppressive because they can’t afford to move (actually moving or repurposing land is hard) but their cost to stay is unpredictable. The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity of the people living there and renters hoping to finally do the displacing for their own affordability. |
|
| ▲ | kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > The only people this is appealing for are people who fancy themselves analytically minded economists with no interest in the practical humanity Most states in the US do not have Prop-13-like laws and get by just fine. For the few states that do, they are less restrictive taxation-wise than California's. Prop 13 has completely distorted the housing market; it is, perhaps unintuitively, a co-cause of CA's housing unaffordability issues. (Prop 13 discourages new development, and is an enabler of housing NIMBYism.) We of course shouldn't just abolish Prop 13 overnight, or lots of people will get displaced, also overnight. But we should absolutely reform it and phase it out over time, while building more housing, as fast as we can (something that will be a little bit easier to do as all the NIMBYs realize that if they keep shooting down housing projects, their property taxes are gonna go up a ton). |
| |
| ▲ | zdragnar 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most states also rely on sales taxes and various fees, and assign limited property taxes. A Georgist land value tax would have much greater effects than the current tax regimes. | |
| ▲ | asdff 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Prop 13 is a bit of a nothingburger anyhow when you consider median homeownership period in CA is only like 2 years longer than national average, rather than the myth that seems to be perpetuated of every home being a 40+ year hold paying a couple dollars in property taxes. And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue. | | |
| ▲ | vlovich123 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And when that home is sold the tax assessment of course goes right back to market rate, and boy that is substantial when you have what would be a 450k home outside of Boston go for 2.1m with a 1% tax. 21 thousand a year off a single 50ft wide lot is no slouch in terms of tax revenue. The problem is all the tax revenue being lost at the municipality level for decades. National tenure average is ~12 years. Los Angeles is 20 years, SF is 16.5 and SJC is in between. It clearly has a meaningful effect, it's just harder to buy into the market and keep the home over a long period of time. | | |
| ▲ | wahern 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | San Francisco receives over $3,000 per capita in property tax revenue alone. Dallas receives about $1,200 per capita. NYC is less than $1,000, though I gather NYC has their own property tax issues. And California has an income tax, whereas Texas doesn't. Prop 13 has it's problems, but I don't think they're as significant as the rhetoric claims. It makes for a great excuse, though. Politicians can blame Prop 13 for why they can't spend as much on services as people demand, and now it's become the common wisdom--but for Prop 13 California could afford to spend much more than it does, and the housing affordability crisis would end, too. It's just wishful thinking. | | |
| ▲ | vlovich123 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think the housing affordability crisis ends and I don’t think that’s the right way to model it. SF has one of, if not the highest, $/sq ft in the US. And prop 13 is suppressing it - estimates indicate that property taxes revenues would double meaning that 2.5k/person would become 5k. And remember that that 2.5k/person is only for residential properties. commercial properties still fall under prop 13 and that’s about 50-60 of the other tax. So a full repeal would make it closer to 10k/person instead of the current 5k. I agree the story on rents and home prices would be unclear because ultimately the people might move and just rent out their homes with property taxes baling into the new rental price. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | coryrc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not reset of you inherit, or a bunch of other bullshit exemptions. We live in a gerontacracy. Every advantage and tax break and handout is given to the elderly and the ladder has fully been pulled up for the new generations. | | |
| ▲ | asdff 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They patched that with a recentish assembly bill, but they really need to patch the LLC loophole too. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ehfeng 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You shouldn't strawman the other side. Us "people who fancy" actually understand that there are real negative side effects. But the money has to come from somewhere. If not from land taxes, where? Would you like to double sales tax? Or increase income taxes? Every solution costs something, what does yours cost? |
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
