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: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (10986)	6/3/2003 1:36:05 PM
From: Paul Viapiano	Respond to of 306849

The new buyer of a $2M home in CA pays over $25,000 in prop taxes the new buyer of such a home in TX pays 50K...as does the old owner. this is a way of benefitting the greedy and self-centered in CA. if you add up all the property tax collected from all the 2M homeowners in CA, the average payment will probably be around 5-10K, which is pathetic. no wonder the school systems suck. Although many older homeowners have seen their properties appreciate sky-high, you'd be surprised by how many current sales at $1M and over are closing. Those folks ARE paying the current tax. my prediction is that 20-30 years from now, when it costs more than $50 per barrel for the oil which is so necessary to keep the Los Angeles Basin from turning into the desert wasteland which is its natural state, people will marvel that California was once considered a desirable place to live. with gas costing $10 a gallon, who will be driving 2 hours to work in a 11 mpg Tahoe, living in a 625K starter home way out in the valley? (OTOH, since nobody will be able to afford to drive anymore, finally the LA traffic problem will be solved :) i predict it will be America's Brazil. i expect properties in Southern California will lose at least 80% of their value in real terms. You're a real cheery guy.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (10986)	6/3/2003 5:24:22 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

I'm still confused why if something goes up in value the owner should be taxed. It's different than income tax, where if you go broke, you don't pay. The argument about community services doesn't hold water, for the same house that sits there for 40 years. Even more so that the elderly owners no longer have kids or a high impact on the neighborhood. By that logic gov't should start looking into everything of value one has and begin taxing anything you can get find out about. If it's worthless let 'em have it, if it's valuable on the open market, tax 'em, if they can't pay the tax, confiscate it. Greed appears to be in the eye of the bureaucrat as well. Here's an extreme example of how gov't tax authority begins to work when given enough rope. The DEA in Calif has been caught checking property values before making pot busts. That's what happens when gov't starts getting too much power. The idea in gov't is that ALL property is for the purpose of gov't, not vice versa.