Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (7675)	12/30/2002 11:15:53 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Arizona boom fades azcentral.com SEC proposes "Investing 101" for high school students azcentral.com

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (7675)	12/30/2002 11:38:13 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

ummm, not really... I think that article is deceiving. It says commercial property is taxed at half appraised value, but that is not unilateral- it depends on how long you are in the property. Under Proposition 13, residential and nonresidential properties alike can see their annual tax appraisal increase no more than 2 percent -- unless the properties are sold. When the properties change hands, they're reappraised and assessed at current market value. But there are exemptions in state law for nonresidential properties that Goldberg and others argue have kept business property taxes artificially low. If the sale is part of a corporate reorganization, for instance, or when less than 50 percent of the ownership interest is transferred, the 2-percent-a-year cap still applies. "You might have five limited partners in a shopping center sell over time to five new partners, but because it's still the same mall, no single change generates a change in ownership for tax purposes," This is unfair to new businesses, the situation in california is you have businesses that have been in one location since the 70s paying nothing vs. the new businesses in silicon valley subsidizing them. It is completely unfair and has caused havoc in the retail environment where 2 tenants in the same mall can't really compete because the tax structure is so unfair. Macy's tried to sue on this 10 years ago but the public outcry (from the over-50 heavy voting crowd who are the recipients of this scam) was so intense they backed off. It sounds like the only thing they are proposing is closing the business loopholes so that any sale causes a reasses. Thats only fair it should have been that way since day one. Same thing with residential, you can grandfather in relatives and the like and end up paying taxes at 78 levels for 2 generations, it sucks. The technology workforce HATES this law. I'll bet tech lobbies for this tax "increase". What would kill commerce in california.. what I am really worried about... is them starting to tax internet sales.