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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12407)	8/15/2003 8:33:06 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

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. Lizzie, I have a bridge to sell you. Your view is wrong wrong wrong. Don't take my word for it. Go down to the assessor's office and look at the tax roll. Take your own neighborhood. Go see how many properties are paying $2,000 while you are paying 6-10 times that. Too lazy to do that? OK, try this. Take a piece of paper and write down the names of everyone you can think of. How many of them are paying $2,000 while you are paying 6-10 times that. You somehow believe that only you and your few friends are paying through the nose while everyone else is paying $2,000? 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. The wise people of California did figure out how to mitigate the damage of sticker shock years ago. It is called PROP 13.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12407)	8/15/2003 10:47:43 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Re your complaint about Warren Buffett's little tax bill on his CA property: "Uncle Warren" is legendary for his bone-picking acquisitions at below fair market value. I wonder whether he scarfed up that asset in distress, or otherwise below market, perhaps undervalued and therefore undertaxed, and maybe the tax assessor didn't do a comprehensive update at the time of the transaction (wink, wink, or not). Other scenarios could be envisioned, too. Uncle Warren ALWAYS buys at a big discount, to my understanding. It seems to be his style. It would be ironic that he's complaining about the little tax bill, except that he probably carries that much cash in his pocket. He can afford to be liberal.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12407)	8/16/2003 1:08:39 AM
From: onewaypockets	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

...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... Lizzie...people were blindsided by property tax increases in the mid 70's in California. That is why, out of desperation they passed Prop 13. Prop 13 was the peoples way of taking back an out of control government after they could not "deal with it" like you say in any other way. Other more conservative states did not have freaks like governor "moonbeam" Jerry Brown and Lt Gov Mervyn Dymally at the helm during this time. California has a long wacked liberal history of tax and spend, well...sorta like electing Gray Davis. Davis has the same history as Brown, spend money you don't have to repay the interests that got you elected, and then worry about the problem later. The unresponsive politicians did not listen then and property taxes were going up something like 25% a year. I grew up in So. California and I remember my parents ashen faces around the kitchen table looking at their tax bills that had gone up some huge amount AGAIN. I am not exactly sure (teenager haze) but I seem to recall that their taxes doubled in three years. They really had to scramble to make ends meet. Honestly there was talk of selling the family home and that is with both my parents working. Widow and orphan stories were in the papers. Lizzie, you are "sorry" about people that might get blindsided by property taxes, like they just should sigh and write the check. Transfer a little more money out of savings....no prob. For many many people it is not there. My father had a civil service job and my mother was a switchboard operator on the swingshift. The “little more money” meant cut something else. Lizzie, where you are missing the point is Prop 13 protects ALL of us regardless of how long we have owned our homes. With Prop 13 you always know where you stand. It is true that people that stay put and live in their homes for, say, 10 or more years have a sweeter deal. More recent homeowners see imbalances and want equality at all costs. They don’t realize that out of control types like Gov Davis would love to see the Prop 13 firewall go down and have another way to pay for all those programs, Workmans Comp benefits, power contracts, and probably even more spending they could dream up overnight. Lizzie your property taxes might only double who knows. But you know that older retired couple that lives a few doors down might go up about 600%. But damn it, that would be the fair thing. P.S. The school system sucked before Prop 13 and it sucked after. No diff.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12407)	8/16/2003 10:41:26 AM
From: techanalyst1	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 306849

Warren Buffet pays nearly 3% on his Omaha home in property taxes. I doubt that you pay that here (and don't include any extra bonds that you might be paying like Mello Roos and Landscaping District bonds because surely those won't go away). Add in the appreciation that you've had (unless you just bought) and I can just about guarantee you that if your taxes were to suddenly move to the rate that Mr. Buffet is paying that they would go up not down. In my own case, I bought a house in 1998 and it's tripled in value without doing anything to it but landscaping and adding a few upgrades when we bought it. I pay considerably more (30 times what my mom pays for a house that is worth 4 times as much). Is that fair? No, but what would happen if we suddenly moved rates up to what Mr. Buffet is paying? My mom's taxes would go up 32 TIMES!!!! and mine would go up nearly 5 times (assuming the same tax rate plus the bonds that I have on the house). So....... both my mom and I would have the same tax rate (plus I would have the bonds that I agreed to pay 5 years ago). Yes, that is more "fair", but both of us would be under a financial burden. My property taxes would literally be 43% of our income. That doesn't include the mortgage. I think housing prices would collapse under a sudden increase of that magnitude with owners who are sitting on equity having to sell because they can't afford the taxes. And then we would see prop. taxes come down all right because property values would plummet with the supply being way over demand. Course............ I'd pay alot less in federal and state income tax. LOL! I think that prop 13 isn't "fair" and I didn't vote for it but repealling it and deciding that we should pay what they pay in Nebraska would be a disaster. Property tax revenues should be rising anyway since there has been so many people moving up. That resets the assessments with the new owners. Californians are extremely resistant to raising taxes and since it takes a 2/3 majority, I doubt the voters would repeal it. I notice Mr. Buffet isn't complaining that Nebraska's top income tax rate is 6.84% compared to California's 9.3% (only Montana is higher) or the sales tax rate of 5.5% compared to California's 7.25% (highest state rate). The problem in California is that we spent too much and we sold too many bonds that we owe interest on. Put a bond on the ballot and the voters think it's free money and pass a good number of them. It's time to pay the piper, but I think trying to do it by raising property taxes suddenly is a recipe for disaster and raising the rate to what Buffet pays in Nebraska would ensure all of us would pay even more. If I thought that would pass, I'd sell my house because I'm sure I could buy it back for what I paid and maybe even less and then we'd get a repeal of the repeal. LOL! TA