it’s not a non-answer. my 1.something rate will also get better over time, because we shift the burden to a younger person who wishes to buy. my answer is that two identical houses should have an identical tax burden.

so no credit to existing residents similar to homestead in other states? Can we then reduce the payroll tax with all that extra revenue?

any credit to existing homeowners is just a subsidy from those with the misfortune to be born later. i don’t feel any younger people owe me that.


but yeah, seems like you could change the total tax balance with such a change. either lower overall property tax or lower income tax or lower sales tax or any combination.

Its a subsidy because the existing homeowner payed more based on a favorable tax law that’s going away so your making them whole. Make it a one time deal potentially. Agree on the rest. Now we’re getting somewhere.

the existing homeowner only paid more because you’re drawing a line in a specific year. over the same number of years of ownership, a person with the misfortune of being born after the existing homeowner will always pay more (both nominally and as a proportion of their wealth from the home). there’s no debt that a younger person needs to pay to make an older homeowner whole.

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.

The problem with getting rid of prop 13 or any homestead exemption in other states amid that regular people at one time bought homes for regular prices. Then the market went bonkers several times over the years and essentially priced out the homes for generally everyone but the wealthy. It does screw younger people, but it also screws the original owners of those homes in the sense that they can’t afford to move as they could no longer afford the tax on their same home if it were re-appraised at market value. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Particularly in CA where they will raise your taxes no matter what the policy is. Those smelt need to be protected somehow.

There's a one time exemption to move within the state and keep the same property tax burden. With caveats. Yeah removing red tape and building seems to be the way forward currently. Home values in ca should start normalizing as the boomers pass along medium term.
I’m actually wanting my property value to come down a bit more.There’s been a slow 10-15% correction already which is good. Don’t want a tank or more appreciation.

Identical means same sales price, in which case they would pay the same.

It’s not fair to repo paid off property because taxes spike due to comps.

If most buy a house at the same % of their income then the taxes stay commiserate with their salary.

If young people can’t afford the tax then they don’t buy and that corrects the home value.

Assessing and taxing unrealized equity is sounds ridiculous and a cap gains tax at sale should be favored over taxing equity.

But this is also why you get such expensive govt in CA, most of the population doesn't see any additional property tax burden, just those who have come lately. If my neighbor still had the 1990 police/fire station services, then it'd be more fair, but everyone gets the same service, but just for ridiculously different prices. Prices go up, property tax revenues roll in whenever property actually changes hands.