Skip to main content

View Diary: Progressive Tax Reform: The Land Value Tax [w/poll] (74 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I should at the very least be limited... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klarfax

    to those who live in their homes.  Right now real estate investors pay a fraction of the tax of their neighbors who may want to buy their first home.

    So they rent it to them, and these poorer people never get any equity, while their landlord is silently subsidized by all who came later.

    All taxes hurt, and in individual circumstances are unfair. Even if Prop 13 were repealed or altered, retirees or low income people could be allowed to defer their taxes until they sell.

    This law helped you, and I certainly understand why you would like it.  I also like laws that I benefit from.

    It is reflected in this aphorism: "Where you stand depends on where you sit"

    •  highly recommended n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  As I understand prop 13 the tax benefits (0+ / 0-)

      dissappeared when the property was sold.

      If that isn't the case then that would be a legitimate change. Also I do agree that possibly it should only apply to owner occupied housing but if my first scenario is correct as I remember it then investors arn't making the killing you say as the taxes are adjusted to the assesed value upon purchase.

      "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

      by buddabelly on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 04:33:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People next to me paid 35K 30 yrs ago... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        klarfax

        they have paid a fraction of the tax rate of newer owners.  New owners pay 20X that price and pay 10X the taxes.  

        They have rented it all that time, and do not pass on the tax savings to those too poor to purchase.  And those who overreached to buy during the last few years with mortages allowed by the fed and state government are doubly screwed.  They will lose their homes and never become owners.

        The Investors who bought thirty years ago will do just fine.    

        This is a case of a law being unjustifiable, but absolutely politically sacrosanct.  It will never be changed.  Yet, it quietly, year after year, increases the breach between the richest and the poorest, having nothing to do with merit.

        And BTW, you won't find a Democrat in the state to take my position.

        •  I would like to see in real numbers the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wondering if

          investors like your neighbors. My guess they're fairly small.

          The majority of people who have benefitted throughout the years have been the lower middle class and the elderly on fixed incomes.

          I could see requiring owner occupancy for the tax break that would be a fair outcome but without the moderating effects of prop 13 how many elderly or middle class people would have been able to stay in California all these years, everyone in my family would have been taxed out of the state.

          "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

          by buddabelly on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:01:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Adjusting it rather than eliminating it... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly

            could be best.  There is nothing sacred about the 2% cap, especially when the value has been increasing at about 7-8% a year, or more. Perhaps 3 or 4% max would be a balance.

            I do understand the advantages of the law, but it doesn't make sense for a non occupied or commercial property, which is included.

            Property tax is a thorny issue everywhere. It could be adjusted so that elderly people would have their taxes deferred.  There are ways to make it fairer.

            •  I do agree that some changes could be made (0+ / 0-)

              but I see everything under the sun in the way of the state crying broke being blamed on prop 13. Iirc it passed in the 70s didn't it? if so how many properties are really still affected.

              I do agree that commercial property should be exempted and possibly even non owner occupied, but Cal's land values are going to dive as they have already started and it could get ugly before it's over.

              "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

              by buddabelly on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 05:21:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  deferral (0+ / 0-)

              I like the idea of deferral, at least for some subset of the population--it would make this more politically viable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site