Remix.run Logo
▲ vlovich123 2 hours ago

> 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 an hour 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.

▲ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]