Check Out Our Shop
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 271

Thread: Attitudes of the uber-rich

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    I live in Truckee.

    Appreciation is not income, which the proposals address.
    How long have you lived there?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    How long have you lived there?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Since 2016. Lived in CA since 2010. My wife lived here her whole life except for college.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Since 2016. Lived in CA since 2010. My wife lived here her whole life except for college.
    This explains your opinion, you’ve lived in your home 8 years and you’re upset your neighbors pay that have lived there longer pay lower property tax.

    Why shouldn’t people be able to buy a home and live out their life without being forced out of their home.

    My neighbor in CA bought his home in 1960 and paid far less in property tax than I did buying in 2001. I had no ill will, seemed fair to me.

    Elaborate why you think it’s not fair. In your world they’d be taxed out of the neighborhood and then they’d be crushed by the capital gains.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    This explains your opinion, you’ve lived in your home 8 years and you’re upset your neighbors pay that have lived there longer pay lower property tax.

    Why shouldn’t people be able to buy a home and live out their life without being forced out of their home.

    My neighbor in CA bought his home in 1960 and paid far less in property tax than I did buying in 2001. I had no ill will, seemed fair to me.

    Elaborate why you think it’s not fair. In your world they’d be taxed out of the neighborhood and then they’d be crushed by the capital gains.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Nope. Live in a relatively new neighborhood, so no big effects from Prop 13 here yet. I actually just think Prop 13 sucks, for the reasons I’ve stated, and ‘forced out’ can be avoided in many different ways, some of which have been stated as well.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Like, is it good that in the state with the worst housing affordability, we have a policy that de-incentivizes building new housing:

    https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...g_crisis_0.pdf

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ogden
    Posts
    9,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained View Post
    Annual tax bill where I live for past few years:

    2024 - 22,000
    2023 - 20k
    2022 - 16k
    2021 - 10k
    2020 - 6900
    2019 - 7200
    2018 - 3300
    2017 - 4100
    2016 - 4000
    2015 - 3700
    2014 - 3300
    2013 - 2750

    How ya like them apples?
    Holy fucking shit. What exactly is the town of Jackson doing with that money?

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874

    Attitudes of the uber-rich

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Like, is it good that in the state with the worst housing affordability, we have a policy that de-incentivizes building new housing:

    https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...g_crisis_0.pdf
    This sounds like a plea from developers, realtors and investors to do away with a tax incentive so that they can make more money.

    Break it down for us dummies, what is the process that allows you to live in your home that you’ve lived in for decades and want to die in without being forced to sell because you can’t afford the taxes on a fair market value assessment?

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    Holy fucking shit. What exactly is the town of Jackson doing with that money?
    Also, how has the appraised value changed?

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    This sounds like a plea from developers, realtors and investors to do away with a tax incentive so that they can make more money.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Alternatively: building more houses where people want to live is good, it would make housing more affordable, and it would reduce homelessness.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874

    Attitudes of the uber-rich

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Alternatively: building more houses where people want to live is good, it would make housing more affordable, and it would reduce homelessness.
    So we just keep growing without limits? Sounds like cancer.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    So we just keep growing without limits? Sounds like cancer.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    So what are you proposing instead? Chemical castration?

    California’s population density is about half that of Italy’s.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    So what are you proposing instead? Chemical castration?

    California’s population density is about half that of Italy’s.
    Are we trying to catch up? Should the whole planet have the same density? Should we encourage accelerating growth?

    You live in Truckee and not LA or the Bay Area, why? Do you want more people living in the Tahoe Basin and Truckee Valley?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    16,763
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    So what are you proposing instead? Chemical castration?
    Is that actually off the table?

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained View Post
    Annual tax bill where I live for past few years:

    2024 - 22,000
    2023 - 20k
    2022 - 16k
    2021 - 10k
    2020 - 6900
    2019 - 7200
    2018 - 3300
    2017 - 4100
    2016 - 4000
    2015 - 3700
    2014 - 3300
    2013 - 2750

    How ya like them apples?
    Congratulations?
    "We don't beat the reaper by living longer, we beat the reaper by living well and living fully." - Randy Pausch

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    Are we trying to catch up? Should the whole planet have the same density? Should we encourage accelerating growth?

    You live in Truckee and not LA or the Bay Area, why? Do you want more people living in the Tahoe Basin and Truckee Valley?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I think there should be much less restrictive zoning so that cities can be more dense and walkable with efficient public transport so that people who want to live in a city can.

    That’s a lot of people.

    I also think ski towns should allow some more density so employees of the businesses in town can afford to live near by.

    If you want more open spaces, then you need to allow housing density. Not forced housing density, but allowed.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874

    Attitudes of the uber-rich

    So get rid of people’s homes for more multiple dwelling units? I’m all for density in urban areas but not at the expense of current home owners.

    We have lots of new high density housing here but it’s not displacing current homeowners, it’s on land that was once agricultural and commercial property within current urban and suburban areas. It has nothing to do with our lack of a proposition 13 type initiative.

    These things will happen in the long run, it might take longer than you like but it will happen.

    You’ve yet to elaborate how working class retired people can stay in their homes without being forced out due to increased property tax if prop 13 were eliminated. They want to continue living there why shouldn’t they be able to? Do you live in high density housing in Truckee?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    So get rid of people’s homes for more multiple dwelling units? I’m all for density in urban areas but not at the expense of current home owners.

    We have lots of new high density housing here but it’s not displacing current homeowners, it’s on land that was once agricultural and commercial property within current urban and suburban areas. It has nothing to do with our lack of a proposition 13 type initiative.

    These things will happen in the long run, it might take longer than you like but it will happen



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I’m not saying get rid of peoples homes. But if people are willing to sell in a downtown core where it would make sense to have a high rise, then a developer should be allowed to try and make that happen.

    The issue right now is that much of it won’t happen over the long term, because zoning legally precludes it.

    Like, look at Paulo Alto and tell me that it wouldn’t be much, much denser if it were allowed. And allowing that density reduces sprawl and all the shit that comes with it.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    I’m not saying get rid of peoples homes. But if people are willing to sell in a downtown core where it would make sense to have a high rise, then a developer should be allowed to try and make that happen.

    The issue right now is that much of it won’t happen over the long term, because zoning legally precludes it.

    Like, look at Paulo Alto and tell me that it wouldn’t be much, much denser if it were allowed. And allowing that density reduces sprawl and all the shit that comes with it.
    Okay, I’m in agreement with most of the that but what does that have to do with Prop 13?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    Okay, I’m in agreement with most of the that but what does that have to do with Prop 13?


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Well, we’ve gotten away from Prop 13 specifically, but my point about Prop 13 is that it acts to reduce housing supply (on top of all the other impediments to housing supply) when CA needs more.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    15,874
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Well, we’ve gotten away from Prop 13 specifically, but my point about Prop 13 is that it acts to reduce housing supply (on top of all the other impediments to housing supply) when CA needs more.
    How does it reduce housing supply if people stay in their homes? If they sold their home they’d need new housing. Is it because you think they should sell so their homes can be razed and high density housing could be built?

    The article you linked said Prop 13 stifled development and reduced housing supply, that’s how we got here in this conversation.

    The answer isn’t eliminating Prop 13, it’s actively trying to change zoning to allow high density housing.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    24,869
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    That’s one bad thing, but not the only one.

    Like you could have two basically identical older couples, but one had the fortune to stay in one house their whole adult lives whereas the other had to move due to jobs/family/health etc. They could end up living next door to one another in similar houses but pay vastly different property tax bills.

    It’s a bad, and very unfair system.
    Prop 19 allows people 55 and older to keep there valuation if they buy and live in a house the same or lesser price than the sale price of their old house and to pay an adjusted rate if the new house costs more. So as of 2021 your example is not valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Like, is it good that in the state with the worst housing affordability, we have a policy that de-incentivizes building new housing:

    https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...g_crisis_0.pdf
    Prop 13 does allow people to sit on vacant land with less loss due to taxes in order to develop it or sell it when the financial stars align.. That can easily be dealt with by excluding vacant land. The voters have amended Prop 13 multiple times.

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    I think there should be much less restrictive zoning so that cities can be more dense and walkable with efficient public transport so that people who want to live in a city can.

    That’s a lot of people.

    I also think ski towns should allow some more density so employees of the businesses in town can afford to live near by.

    If you want more open spaces, then you need to allow housing density. Not forced housing density, but allowed.
    SB9 is a start--it allows owners of single family house (R1) lots to subdivide the lots and build up to 4 units total, but they have to live in one of them for 3 years. Eliminating R1 and R2 zoning altogether would be better. (Restrictive zoning was invented in Berkeley CA BTW, when the courts threw out racial covenants.)

    It seems like most of the building in Truckee the last few years has been multifamily and more dense single family but I have no data to back that up, just my impression driving around. (I'm sure there's still building going on in Lahontan and Martis Camp but I'm not allowed in.)

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    8,128
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Prop 19 allows people 55 and older to keep there valuation if they buy and live in a house the same or lesser price than the sale price of their old house and to pay an adjusted rate if the new house costs more. So as of 2021 your example is not valid.


    Prop 13 does allow people to sit on vacant land with less loss due to taxes in order to develop it or sell it when the financial stars align.. That can easily be dealt with by excluding vacant land. The voters have amended Prop 13 multiple times.


    SB9 is a start--it allows owners of single family house (R1) lots to subdivide the lots and build up to 4 units total, but they have to live in one of them for 3 years. Eliminating R1 and R2 zoning altogether would be better. (Restrictive zoning was invented in Berkeley CA BTW, when the courts threw out racial covenants.)

    It seems like most of the building in Truckee the last few years has been multifamily and more dense single family but I have no data to back that up, just my impression driving around. (I'm sure there's still building going on in Lahontan and Martis Camp but I'm not allowed in.)
    Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but doesn’t this suggest that the people who have benefited most from Prop 13 get to carry those benefits over to a new house now?:


    • Allows homeowners who are over 55 years of age (without regard to wealth), disabled, or victims of natural disasters to transfer their existing property tax assessed value under 1978 California Proposition 13 to a replacement home, including a more expensive home.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020...Proposition_19
    That sounds like it makes Prop 13 worse, not better.

    And like you, no one’s letting me into Martis Camp or Lahontan either.

    (And to clarify: in my original example of older couples I was picturing one that never had the luxury of staying in the same home for much time, so they wouldn’t have ever built up much of a tax advantage under Prop 13. So they wouldn’t have much tax advantage to carry over to a new home even if they were eligible under Prop 19.

    Which leads to another downside of Prop 13: Lock In, where people don’t move to a community they’d enjoy more, or a better career, because they‘d lose their tax advantage if they did.)

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Was UT, AK, now MT
    Posts
    14,581
    Quote Originally Posted by zion zig zag View Post
    Holy fucking shit. What exactly is the town of Jackson doing with that money?
    What any government does with it, mostly administrative inefficiencies.

    Looks like real efforts are being made:

    “House Bill 45 places a 4% cap on assessed valuation increases on single-family residences. This new law on will be implemented in 2025. The 4% cap does not apply to new owners, new construction or remodels.”

    https://buckrail.com/teton-county-sh...opportunities/

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    24,869
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but doesn’t this suggest that the people who have benefited most from Prop 13 get to carry those benefits over to a new house now?:


    • Allows homeowners who are over 55 years of age (without regard to wealth), disabled, or victims of natural disasters to transfer their existing property tax assessed value under 1978 California Proposition 13 to a replacement home, including a more expensive home.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020...Proposition_19
    That sounds like it makes Prop 13 worse, not better.

    And like you, no one’s letting me into Martis Camp or Lahontan either.

    (And to clarify: in my original example of older couples I was picturing one that never had the luxury of staying in the same home for much time, so they wouldn’t have ever built up much of a tax advantage under Prop 13. So they wouldn’t have much tax advantage to carry over to a new home even if they were eligible under Prop 19.

    Which leads to another downside of Prop 13: Lock In, where people don’t move to a community they’d enjoy more, or a better career, because they‘d lose their tax advantage if they did.)
    Whether that makes it worse rather than better is in the eye of the beholder. If you're an empty nester with a big house and yard and want to downsize you sell the big house and invest the proceeds in a condo that costs the same or less but more than the assessed valuation of the old house. Without Prop 19 you would face a much higher tax rate and might have to stay in the old house--with all those unused bedrooms a family with kids could use. So Prop 19 does free up housing. One alternative that has been imposed would be to calculate property tax based on market value but defer the increase until the house is sold--but this would also lock old people into big houses on big lots they can't maintain. And for some that lost equity would have been what people were counting on to go into senior living.

    Like every tax bill there are winners and losers. Yes, you might have people living next to each other paying different tax rates, just like we have people sitting next to each other on airplanes paying different fares (and the person in the middle seat is probably the one paying more.) When it comes to tax inequity this one seems like small potatoes and seems like a reasonable tradeoff for the benefit of keeping people by being forced to move from their homes by unaffordable taxes. Prop 13 could have been better, which is why it's been amended by the people. It originally passed because the legislature couldn't pass a better bill in the face of a widely recognized problem. No surprise there.

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    24,869
    When you talk about people who benefit the most from Prop 13 now benefitting the most from Prop 19, it sounds like you're thinking about well off folks for whom these laws are a windfall. But most of the folks benefitting are those on limited or fixed income who cannot otherwise stay in their homes or afford to downsize. Props 13 and 19 are imperfect solutions to inflation in the CA housing market greatly exceeding the growth of income, especially for retirees. There are lots of folks like that, even in Truckee.

    You say there are better ways. I'm listening.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •