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: Live2Sail who wrote (43417)	10/20/2005 11:36:16 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Respond to of 306849

You could take that article and replace "California" with "Michigan". It would be pretty accurate because we have the same law. We bought a house from a couple who have owned it for 50 years. The taxes more than doubled. This is common and many retired people can't afford to sell their homes because they couldn't afford to pay the property taxes on the replacement home, even though it would be a smaller house. In my neighborhood most of the older people have lived here for over 30 years. In Michigan it is definitely a smarter decision tax wise to add a bedroom than it is to buy a house with an extra bedroom. The rules favor renovation over buying.

To: Live2Sail who wrote (43417)	10/20/2005 11:39:46 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Dr. Varian's description of Prop 13 is correct: Proposition 13, passed in 1978, limited property tax increases to 2 percent a year for owner-occupied homes. But when the house is sold, the property tax assessment is based on the sale price. This means the new owner typically faces a significantly higher property tax bill than the old owner. Do you disagree with his analysis?

To: Live2Sail who wrote (43417)	10/20/2005 7:12:30 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

So how much lower is existing housing turnover in CA compared to the rest of the country?

To: Live2Sail who wrote (43417)	10/22/2005 8:38:30 PM
From: David Jones	Respond to of 306849

.....empty-nesters have strong tax incentives to keep their houses, regardless of whether they need all that space. The result is that fewer houses come on the market than would otherwise be the case, pushing prices up even more for the limited stock of housing that is available.<<<<< That makes no sense. Are these supposed empty nesters going to evaporate? Any who there's provisions in 13 that allows the over fifty five to keep their tax base when exchanging their principal residence.