Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
That is how it works all over America with the exception of California. It has its drawbacks, but it is better than the alternative. And the truth of the matter is in most cases even in California the 70 year old still downgrades, but rather than selling the home he rents it out or transfers it to a family member (to avoid reassessment) who rents it out . This dynamic lead to the rapid escalation or real estate prices as people had to pay a large premium to get someone to give up their basis in a home.
Furthermore conservatives broke the system for good as most property owners are voters and having been given a free ride for numerous years they don’t want to start suddenly paying taxes on the current market value of their homes or real estate investments. That’s why you hear so much propaganda being put out blaming it on other things because the property owners simply don’t want to pay the piper. Honestly, to fix the system the state will probably have to file bankruptcy and write a new constitution. If the Feds bail them out it will only prolong the structural problem as the state still won’t be able to raise adequate revenues to cover their expenses no matter how much they cut those expenses.
|
Gotcha. I don't know, maybe I'm just bias cause I live in California and am also a property owner but I like the property tax the way it is.
In your scenario about buying a 100K home that is being rented at the new 10 mill price you're leaving out the fact the owner still pays income tax. Seems like in other states the taxes will just be that much higher. Basically your cost of doing business (property tax) keeps increasing to the point you may one day have to sell.
While I do think lots needs to be fixed here, I personally like the property tax part .