Comments on: A doomsday scenario, for sure — but how likely?

By: Catherine

Catherine — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:24:12 +0000

Hills Parent: If seniors downsize in the same county or several other counties they may take their Prop 13 taxes with them. It’s part of the prop 13 package.

By: len raphael

len raphael — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:36:36 +0000

Alice S, if voters like myself who though not ousd policy wonks, follow the issues to some extent, hear/read contradictory info about the ousd “consultant” expenditures, then there’s no hope for ordinary residents who either side with the faction that tells them the consultants are part of a broad-gates conspiracy or are all state mandated special needs instructors.

something wrong when residents don’t look first to their own elected board members for accurate info.

-len raphael, temescal

By: Hills Parent

Hills Parent — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:47:53 +0000

Len, I didn’t actually realize that you can transfer the prop 13 value in some cases. I bet a lot of people, including seniors in a position to benefit, don’t know about that either. Thanks for letting me know.

Hope for some tax equity soon as Prop 13 is UNFAIR and it’s doing tremendous damage to our state (especially education!)

By: len raphael

len raphael — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:13:11 +0000

Hp, don’t worry about seniors. http://www.acgov.org/assessor/assrinfo.htm#exclusions

if over age 55 and you replace old home with one of same or lower value in the same county, you transfer the prop 13 value. some counties might have reciprocity.

as for income tax on houses currently worth more than 500k/250k above orginal cost plus cost of improvements, yes there could be a capital gains tax on the difference of 25% max. But heck, there’s no tax help at all for someone who loses their downpayment when they sell or lose their home at a loss.

-len raphael, temescal

By: Hills Parent

Hills Parent — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:44:03 +0000

One of the things that Prop 13 has done is to limit mobility. Generally speaking, seniors may opt to downsize once their kids have been raised and are out of the house. Prop 13 discourages this from happening. So, older adults, just couples or even singles, live in homes that might be more suitable for families. But they aren’t moving because they have such a good deal on the tax side. And, I don’t feel too sorry for them because if they bought decades ago, they are sitting on huge gains – hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps there could be some arrangement where deferred property taxes could be paid upon their passing (but this would require the heirs to either pony up or the house to be sold).

And on the flip side, what about young families or young adults who struggle to buy into this market? Why should they pay the lion’s share? They will be saddled with a huge purchase price and steep taxation while the senior has a low purchase price and neglible taxation (while often sitting on massive gains).

We can’t begin to close this budget hole without addressing Prop 13. Which politicians will have the courage to tackle this issue? C’mon Jerry!

By: livegreen

livegreen — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:59:56 +0000

Prop 13 does need to be reformed. All or nothing won’t work, has canceling it outright has been rejected. + poor Seniors have a case that they can’t pay the increased property taxes. But then of course neither can poorer or even many middle class young or middle income families.

The question then becomes, can reforms allow for property taxes on wealthy seniors who’ve owned their homes since before the Prop-13 d-day?

In the meantime we have the current round of taxes to get renewed or k-12 will take another ? billion in cuts? The question is: Will high voter-turnout Seniors vote for their youth and support an extension? Or vote with their wallets and save more money at the expense of youth?

The Greatest Generation through to the Baby Boomers are in danger of becoming the “Apres Moi le Deluge” generation(s).

By: J.R.

J.R. — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:55:14 +0000

An interesting Stanford study related to this subject:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CDEQFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stanford.edu%2F~sloeb%2Fpapers%2FLoeb_Grissom.pdf&rct=j&q=california%20school%20districts%20%2B%20differences%20in%20pay%20between%20new%20and%20senior%20teachers&ei=YAFbTf-gL4yasAO04LGbCg&usg=AFQjCNGspi2_Z_v2WylcGdY8xc0yqkHzFA&cad=rja

By: J.R.

J.R. — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:46:43 +0000

Another good article on school funding inequities within districts.

http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogposts/2008/loophole_makes_school_finance_inequity_within_districts_possible-19069

By: J.R.

J.R. — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:42:06 +0000

School funding, and collective bargaining have to be done differently if we want public education to survive.

http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2402

By: J.R.

J.R. — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:25:28 +0000

ASK,
I agree, prop 13 as it stands should be gone. Businesses like wineries have been able to keep their prop 13 tax rate by dividing up the inheritance(or some such nonsense)I pay 10X in property taxes what my neighbor pays, and it is just not right. Its no way to fund the true needs of this state.