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: Ramsey Su who wrote (12404)	8/15/2003 6:55:21 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 306849

I hope Arnold listens to Warren and does something about proposition 13. Now that I'm NOT a homeowner, I'm all for it. Haven't we (California) fallen to 49th in education or something? Isn't Mississippi ahead of us? I DON'T think local pols should be given the power to tax homeowners without controls, but a heavier tax burden should be dialed in.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (12404)	8/15/2003 8:01:50 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 306849

It just happened to be a by product. I agree it is a by product, unintended, but there it is, nonetheless. And I'm sorry that people would be blindsided with what their property taxes might be from one year to the next without prop 13- although as far as I know every other state has this issue and deals with it- however maybe there is a way to mitigate the damage of sticker shock for a property tax increase in some way. However, there is not much in my mind that can justify Warren Buffet's 2K tax bill on a FOUR MILLION dollar house, when myself and every friend I have is paying 6-10 times that, to live in fairly humble arrangements in CA. No doubt there will be folks, some of whom have made the case on this thread before, that this system is somehow fair and just. I doubt it flys this time though, hooray! My view is that the repeal of prop 13 means LOWER property taxes for me and most I know, LOWER property prices overall and better services.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (12404)	8/16/2003 10:52:22 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Hi Ramsey, two of Lizzie's main point don't appear to be in conflict with your point. She basically said two things: the person should live there (rather than be real estate investors pumping up prices by reducing supply) and she also said people with $4M homes shouldn't pay less than those in $500k homes - i.e. adjust the proposition so those beyond a certain threshold should pay up (like in the Ellison range.) Not even a soul in Woodside would want to subsidize his taxes. That doesn't conflict with your point at all. Regards, Amy J