Save Prop. 13? (California campaign sign) Huh?

Using a 40-year-old pejorative that no one even thinks of anymore only shows your orientation. The most recent polling shows him with a 60% approval rating, and 77% among Democrats. Looks pretty good to me.

The simple fact is that the voters don’t want it ended. The only measure that has ever passed regarding Prop. 13 was one that actually strengthened it (Prop. 218). Attempting to repeal it is tantamount to political suicide. The only way California would turn red is if legislators followed your suggestion.

Her house has gone up in value, but her *income *hasn’t increased at all. How will she pay off that loan on her fixed income? You seem to forget that loans have to be paid back.

It’s just possible that a bill that reduces Prop 13’s effect on business property ONLY could pass.

Yep, came back here to post just that. Not s sure thing, but decent odds.

If she bought her house for 100K and it’s now worth 1M (not at all uncommon numbers). She opens a home equity line of credit. She pays the taxes from that line of credit (let’s say it’s now 10K per year and grandma lives another 10 years).

She dies, (or to be optimistic decides to move after ten years). The house gets sold for 1.1 M (it’s still appreciating in the ten years since the loan). She, or her estate, pays back the 100K plus interest they’ve withdrawn from the home with the proceeds of the sale, and walks away with a huge chunk of cash. Grandma kept her house, and everyone is rich.

Plus, grandmas who can’t pay their property taxes make up 100% of the message board discussions about prop 13, but compared to the Disneylands and others making a killing off of it, are rarer than unicorn teeth.

But it does not cost 5 times the amount to fix a pothole as it did ten years ago. As has been mentioned, since these people are still living in their homes, they have not seen a dime of this supposed gain. They are not planning on selling today. Maybe the real estate market will tank again, or increase 50 fold. Why does either of those scenarios mean that people should pay more just because they could sell?

ETA: Does a pothole on a road cost more to fix because I have a mansion adjoining it or a double wide trailer?

If the real estate market tanks, then they get their taxes reassessed down to the original levels they were when they bought the house, and the problem solves itself. If the real estate market increases 50 fold, they use the home equity line of credit to pay the taxes and get even richer when they finally sell the place. Either way, problem is solved and grandma didn’t have to move before she was ready.

That’s not an argument against prop 13, that’s an argument against property taxes based on value at all eg for some kind of flat tax. I would point out that it’s not all potholes and a mansion probably needs more water, waste and electrical service than a double wide.

Grandma has to take out a loan just to be able to stay in the house that she and her husband built? What if her credit is poor?

I’m not sure how it works in California, but here everyone pays their own water, waste, and electrical bills. If I use more of those, I pay more. If I use less, I pay less.

In any event, I was responding to the contention that new home owners were somehow “subsidizing” older home owners. It’s just that they are getting ripped off more than the older owners. There is no reason to jack up their property taxes five-fold when the cost of repairing the road in the last ten years has not even increased two-fold.

Talk about moving goalposts. Before the problem was that all fixed income grandmas will be homeless after they are forced from their homes. Now, the problem is apparently that fixed income grandmas whose husbands built their houses will have to fill out paperwork. If her credit is poor, she will have to pay more for the loan, just like everyone else. This is a much better solution than having her neighbors who have never even met her pay her share. I’m sure she’s lovely, but that’s not a good reason for me to have to pay her way.

I didn’t mean how much water you use. A street with 5 mansions is going to need more water/waste/electrical infrastructure than 5 trailers need.

You’re actually suggesting that taking a mortgage out to pay property taxes is a good idea?

In these increasingly rare scenarios we’re down to discussing at this point, a home equity line of credit is a good idea.

Are you suggesting that having unrelated neighbors pay subsidize someone else’s property taxes is a good idea?

Look, I’d be in favor of a government program to allow these vanishingly rare fixed income grandma beneficiaries of prop 13 defer some of the taxes until the house is sold. Or a program to issue government loans at very low interest rates secured against the equity of the home. But, that’s not what prop 13 is. It was sold to the public on the narrative of fixed income grandma, but is benefiting Disneyland and landlords.

Lurker, I think your misunderstanding (clearly you were not here at the time) is that it wasn’t a rare occurrence, it was a groundswell. My mother was liberal as anything, and disagreed with Jarvis about literally everything else, but the tax had become so regressive for us that we felt we had to vote for 13. We were clearly far from alone in that.

And still are. Anyone who’s owned their home for any length of time is protected from property tax increases by Prop. 13. Good luck changing people’s minds about that unless the economy is far worse than it is now.

Whatever the original intent was what percentage of the current prop 13 beneficiaries do you REALLY think fall into this category of fixed income grandmothers who can’t afford the taxes? Would a program to allow seniors to offset the taxes until such time that the house is sold not be a better, more targeted solution, than requiring young families to subsidize older house rich neighbors?

And, I think you’re misunderstanding (clearly you aren’t in this situation right now) that the flip side is an even more common occurrence. I have three kids and live in San Francisco. I’m very fortunate to make a good living. But, to buy a house anywhere near where my oldest was assigned to go to school (I 90% fault the school lottery system, and only 10% blame prop 13) would cost enough money that the extra 1000+ a month that I’d be paying for property taxes that includes the portion of my neighbor’s tax bill is enough that I’m having to uproot my family, pull my kid out of his school, and move elsewhere. And, I’m not sitting on that 1M dollar house that I have all the financial options that grandma has. This is not hypothetical. I’m surrounded by moving boxes! I’m sorry I didn’t buy real estate when I was three, but I was busy with other things.

Lurker, I’m sorry for your situation. And I agree completely that in some alternative universe a much better solution for the crisis that Prop 13 addressed would be possible. OTOH, it has been in place here since 1978, so you’ve had almost 40 years to consider the effects of the Proposition on your personal situation and plan accordingly.

I’ve happened to see those signs as well which only strengthened my opposition to the candidate in question. Who are you supporting for Congress btw?

When the media is completely on the Democrat’s side, it’s easy to get those numbers. We’ve had a toxic disaster here in California called Porter Ranch which is is worse than Flint Michigan and Governor Brown stood idly by. And the media has covered it up. This summer we are predicted to have blackouts because there won’t be enough gas to run power plants. Let’s see if its 60% when that happens. Cowardly Liberals should grow some testicles and repeal Prop 13 to give their union buddies and illegal aliens more like they really want to.

No, they should grow some testicles and repeal Prop 13 so they can put in place tax increases that the people want so they can afford to clean up messes and buy electricity.