Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Taxes - Fed/State/Property/Sales >

Taxes - Fed/State/Property/Sales


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Taxes - Fed/State/Property/Sales

Old 01-14-2025 | 06:30 AM
  #101  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,120
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
The line is every year after prop 13 passed in the 70’s. This sounds more like your advocating hosing older folks that played by the rules and payed a highish pay roll tax for decades and now a high property tax in retirement. With zero thought on making whole. See the problem? The intent of Prop 13 was to keep people in thier homes in retirement. I agree like any other law there’s downsides.
Yeah prop 13 exists for a reason, and it's still a very good reason in 2025.

You play by all the rules, pay taxes and mortgage for decades and then the government seizes your home at age 75 because some arbirtary website like zillow posts a very large number associated your address?

I'm sure there are ways to rationalize taxes for local services without taking away retirees homes. But without prop 13 you literally could not plan for your financial future (other than planning to move to to Reno).

This is one of the reasons that I'm like "Eff Dave Ramsey" on paying off the house early... there's only two entities who can ever actually "own" your house, and you are not one them. They'll just let you live there as long as you keep paying your "rent" (mortgage & property tax).
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 07:26 AM
  #102  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2023
Posts: 232
Likes: 52
Default

The way to deal with prop 13 is when grandma sells her house or dies. The tax man collects all the latent property taxes that were never (under) paid upon sale or inheritance. This would help moderate the price of homes (surely), would enable grandma to not get kicked out of her house, but would also prevent the forever-arbitrage situation that we have now, wherein people are collecting massive premiums on a property tax bill that has not been paid. It's one of the main things slowing me down from moving there: I don't want to pay someone else's tax bill from 1985.

I get the original intent of prop 13, but it's now having crazy knock-on effects and unanticipated consequences. It has turned CA into a real-estate cartel, and it's become a modern feudal state.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 07:30 AM
  #103  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yeah prop 13 exists for a reason, and it's still a very good reason in 2025.

You play by all the rules, pay taxes and mortgage for decades and then the government seizes your home at age 75 because some arbirtary website like zillow posts a very large number associated your address?

I'm sure there are ways to rationalize taxes for local services without taking away retirees homes. But without prop 13 you literally could not plan for your financial future (other than planning to move to to Reno).

This is one of the reasons that I'm like "Eff Dave Ramsey" on paying off the house early... there's only two entities who can ever actually "own" your house, and you are not one them. They'll just let you live there as long as you keep paying your "rent" (mortgage & property tax).
sounds like a tough problem to pay taxes based on the size of your asset. i guess the “too bad, you should plan better” approach only applies to those born after existing homeowners.


instead, you take advantage of low tax rates on the backs of younger people while enjoying immense real estate wealth.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 07:31 AM
  #104  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
Default

Originally Posted by ohaiyo
The way to deal with prop 13 is when grandma sells her house or dies. The tax man collects all the latent property taxes that were never (under) paid upon sale or inheritance. This would help moderate the price of homes (surely), would enable grandma to not get kicked out of her house, but would also prevent the forever-arbitrage situation that we have now, wherein people are collecting massive premiums on a property tax bill that has not been paid. It's one of the main things slowing me down from moving there: I don't want to pay someone else's tax bill from 1985.

I get the original intent of prop 13, but it's now having crazy knock-on effects and unanticipated consequences. It has turned CA into a real-estate cartel, and it's become a modern feudal state.
at first glance, i could get behind this.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 07:58 AM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,769
Likes: 59
Default

Originally Posted by ohaiyo
The way to deal with prop 13 is when grandma sells her house or dies. The tax man collects all the latent property taxes that were never (under) paid upon sale or inheritance. This would help moderate the price of homes (surely), would enable grandma to not get kicked out of her house, but would also prevent the forever-arbitrage situation that we have now, wherein people are collecting massive premiums on a property tax bill that has not been paid. It's one of the main things slowing me down from moving there: I don't want to pay someone else's tax bill from 1985.

I get the original intent of prop 13, but it's now having crazy knock-on effects and unanticipated consequences. It has turned CA into a real-estate cartel, and it's become a modern feudal state.
I believe Oregon and I’m sure other states do this. Not bad but again there is downside. There would need to be some sort of transition phase. Not just make all houses equal tax burden based on value tomorrow. Removing the ability to pass along the tax burden to heirs would be a good place to start imo. That already happened with all but primary residence years ago.

Last edited by fcoolaiddrinker; 01-14-2025 at 08:21 AM.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 07:59 AM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,769
Likes: 59
Default

Originally Posted by OOfff
sounds like a tough problem to pay taxes based on the size of your asset. i guess the “too bad, you should plan better” approach only applies to those born after existing homeowners.


instead, you take advantage of low tax rates on the backs of younger people while enjoying immense real estate wealth.
It’s not based on age. At all. I thought the example I provided might help you understand this.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 08:04 AM
  #107  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
Default

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
It’s not based on age. At all. I thought the example I provided might help you understand this.
is this where we pretend that there is no correlation with age and home ownership, as if the natural cycle of a finite life doesn’t exist? there will always be exceptions, but in general, people born later will buy their first home later.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 08:09 AM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,769
Likes: 59
Default

Originally Posted by OOfff
is this where we pretend that there is no correlation with age and home ownership, as if the natural cycle of a finite life doesn’t exist? there will always be exceptions, but in general, people born later will buy their first home later.
and at the same time pretend people born later are making the same $. I get today’s current snapshot home values in ca have outpaced wage gains. But that was not true at all in 2008-2015ish.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 08:21 AM
  #109  
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
Default

Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
and at the same time pretend people born later are making the same $. I get today’s current snapshot home values in ca have outpaced wage gains. But that was not true at all in 2008-2015ish.
have you ever heard the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule?”

the fact that there was a short period in a down market in which wages weren’t outpaced by housing costs doesn’t negate the fact that since prop13, there’s been an insane divergence of wages and housing cost.
Reply
Old 01-14-2025 | 08:31 AM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,769
Likes: 59
Default

Originally Posted by OOfff
have you ever heard the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule?”

the fact that there was a short period in a down market in which wages weren’t outpaced by housing costs doesn’t negate the fact that since prop13, there’s been an insane divergence of wages and housing cost.
it sounds like you believe the high cost of housing in ca is solely due to prop 13? I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. It’s a factor for sure but there’s other factors such as finite land on the coast, higher paying tech, biomedical, defense, film, music, ect…
This is true in the northeast as well and they don’t have a prop 13. I’m fairly confident that if prop 13 went away tomorrow and we kicked all the retirees to Reno it wouldn’t lower prices much. Maybe initially but in a short time they would be right back to higher than most states.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jungle
Money Talk
52
04-13-2010 12:05 PM
IronWalt
Money Talk
6
08-25-2008 02:53 PM
wannabepilot
Hangar Talk
0
04-25-2008 09:19 PM
BrownGirls YUM
Cargo
2
07-28-2007 08:30 AM
jeff122670
Regional
2
12-20-2006 10:09 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices