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: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 11:10:15 AM
From: techanalyst1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

And one more thing....... If Buffet paid the same tax rate on his Laguna home as he does on his home in Nebraska, he'd be paying $116,000 per year. I'll bet that Laguna home is assessed for about 250K which means he has owned it for a very long time. Most people who have owned their homes in that neighborhood for that length of time surely are elderly now and don't have the income that Mr. Buffet has. I would bet that most of those people couldn't afford to pay $116,000 per year in property taxes all because they bought their house years ago and it went up in value. Wow.......... imagine getting a new property tax bill in the mail. "We're raising your property taxes from $2200 per year to $116,000 per year (don't be late in making your payments because there is a penalty). TA

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 11:13:03 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

RE:"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." After reading about the gross imbalances in property taxation in California (much worse than I'd imagined) and...if there is any chance of a repeal of prop 13...I'd put my house up for sale today and get the H out of Dodge to another State as soon as possible. The scary thing is that we have the same thing going on here in Florida with the "save our homes" law. As pointed out before...tax cuts are ultimately inflationary. With all the tax cuts RE gets now it's about 40-50% overvalued vs. the rate of increase in GNP. In California where prop 13 has had 26 years to work it's "magic", one has to shudder at the fall-out of eliminating such a prop-up mechanism. How they would ever get this passed in California remains to be seen. Jim

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 11:47:38 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I doubt a total repeal is in the cards, or that CA rates will rise to Nebraskas. One possibility would be to raise the allowable "increase" amount on taxes to 10% per year from 2%, for those properties that are taxed at less than 50% of fair value, or something like that, and make this apply to all absentee homeowners. All it will take is a few public service announcements from Buffett and Arnold that really illustrate the discrepancy, choose some high profile residents like celebrities.... and say "Barbara Streisand pays 2K in property taxes, what do you pay"?"... etc. The new residents to this state are blind to this inequity and there isn't a lot of press about it. Just get this right out there in the open, and raise taxes on people like my former absentee landlord who was paying 800$ per year and raking in 3K/mo in rent. I was a resident there, using all the services, no wonder the state is broke.

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 2:14:43 PM
From: J. P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

<<My property taxes would literally be 43% of our income. That doesn't include the mortgage.>> Now you begin to see the plight of first time buyers. I have to make about 2-3 times the salary of the person I'm buying the house from.

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 6:46:54 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Californians are extremely resistant to raising taxes and since it takes a 2/3 majority, I doubt the voters would repeal it. i just hope CA is not declared some sort of financial disaster area and made eligible for a federal bailout. the other states should not have to bear responsibility for the Crybaby State. i want them to bear the responsibility for their own profligacy and deal with the coming bankruptcy themselves.

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	8/16/2003 8:50:32 PM
From: David Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

....Californians are extremely resistant to raising taxes and since it takes a 2/3 majority, I doubt the voters would repeal it.... We passed 12 billion in bonds last November! Thanks to SV and it's liberal leanings we how only need 55% to pass any school related bonds. .....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..... That is correct. For some reason voters here treat bonds as it they were nothing more than issues with out consequences.

To: techanalyst1 who wrote (12437)	9/10/2003 6:50:09 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

ta, your house tripled since 1998? man, mine only doubled (well, up 90+%). what region do you live in? i like buffet, however, what is the average house sale in nebraska? $50k? 3% of that ain't much. i'm paying much more dollars than the average ne home owner even though i require no more services. prop 13 is great - it protects most folks from the total ignorati with "easy" money. let them burn up in the fire they started. i also own property in washington and the property tax up there just skyrockets. i think i'm up for a 15-20% increase this year - even though property values / rents are now dropping up there.