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 (141413)	8/16/2008 3:56:58 AM
From: XoFruitCake	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

"In order to be fair, they need to lift that 2% number and let very old assessments catch up to market reality. That will also either drop house prices or stop them from increasing." I lived in Kalifornia for the last 23 years. I bought a house in 1988, another house in 1994. Sold both of them in 2003, 2004 and bought a house in 2004. So now I am paying property tax based on my 2004 purchased price. And I think prop 13 is a fair tax system. I don't understand the argument that everyone should pay the same tax rate. Costco and Walmart sell the same items as other retailers, and I don't call it unfair that they can sell the same merchandise at a lower price. I bought a stock 10 years ago and it appreciated form 10 to 1000 a share. I don't think it is unfair for someone to pay 1000 a share of the same stock that I own today which I only paid 10 many moon ago. Prop 13 is a system that everyone know how it work. So people are making an informed choice to buy a house in Kalifornia. Property tax is part of the cost of owning a house. And it is factored into the buy vs rent decision. With a higher property tax, housing price will go lower to compensate for it. So the seller is paying for the property tax they saved over years by lower selling price when they sell the house. How is it unfair?