CA Property Taxes

92122

Michael Peterson status
Jul 29, 2015
2,598
1,024
113
Prop 13 defender here. What benefit does my mother get for moving to an area early on before it blew up? Say what you will, she should have lower taxes than the johnny come latelys.

I say this while paying $8,000/yr. in property taxes myself in the same area I grew up in, and hell yes the plan is to inherit the parents house and keep the low taxes.
 

2surf

Duke status
Apr 12, 2004
15,284
2,053
113
California USA
www.allcare.com
Let’s not forget that when Trump gave a giant tax break to corporations and the 1% he also eliminated the mortgage interest deduction, a measure specifically meant to screw California. But remember, since California is a blue state, it’s the Democrats fault, not Trumps. Am I right Magats?
Reading this as a homeowner in California. If I own that million-dollar home, and can't write off $2,000 of the $12,000 I pay a year in property tax? Damn that sucks, orange man bad. You would think the logical answer would be,' why the fuck are my property taxes so high? Could that be the fault of the state of California?
 

Bob Dobbalina

Miki Dora status
Feb 23, 2016
4,261
4,656
113
Reading this as a homeowner in California. If I own that million-dollar home, and can't write off $2,000 of the $12,000 I pay a year in property tax? Damn that sucks, orange man bad. You would think the logical answer would be,' why the fook are my property taxes so high? Could that be the fault of the state of California?

Yes, your 1.2% tax is criminal.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sharkbiscuit

Driftcoast

Michael Peterson status
Aug 5, 2002
3,463
953
113
Reading this as a homeowner in California. If I own that million-dollar home, and can't write off $2,000 of the $12,000 I pay a year in property tax? Damn that sucks, orange man bad. You would think the logical answer would be,' why the fook are my property taxes so high? Could that be the fault of the state of California?
Why do you hate the free market so much? You know, the free market that lets the price be determined by the market and your wallet.
 

waxhead

Legend (inyourownmind)
Mar 31, 2009
441
336
63
Possibly. But that depends on how much the lease/rental price is tied to expenses vs how much it is tied to a market of comps. In other words, are commercial landlords offering leases based on their bills or what they can get away with charging?

A lease is a lease-if the lease calls for the increase, then the rent goes up unless the owner decides otherwise. Most people charge the market rate. If the tax is higher the market rate will likely increase across the board, subject to supply and demand.The owner took the risk to buy the place. Commercial tenants can take a long time to find. In my experience it can take over a year.

The older, larger competitors that benefit from the Prop 13 loophole are already operating with this competitive edge. Business large enough to incur a higher tax rate that aren't already paying one will have to make those decisions.

I'm not going to say I don't have a personal interest. I own a commercial property and run a small business out of it. Total of six employees. The property tax is 30k. Obscene in my view but manageable. The value of the building has tripled over the last 12 years. I never would, or could, buy my building at today's price. I could sell and cash out, but that would mean closing a 40 year old business, and losing future income, not to mention the tax bill unless I buy something else, which I wouldn't at this stage of the game.

Or, if 15 passes by 2025 the tax will be 90k. I still wouldn't want to sell but my tenant, and my clients, and by extension, everybody who interacts with my clients and my tenant's clients will pay part of the increase. So I'm one man running a small business and paying 30k just in PT, not to mention all the other fees and taxes, but apparantley some people think that's that's not enough. Fu%k them.


Currently. yes. Tax the working class a little and they are incapacitated. Tax em enough and you get real social change. We'll see what happens.

Another option is for many companies to grow slower and make less profit, yet continue to survive rather than pass their expenses on to consumers. Usually this formula is reserved for actual workers.
Given the risk involved in running a small business, I don't think you'll find many folks willing to make less than they are used to making in order to pay more taxes while working just as hard. As I wrote I expect 15 to pass, and if so my clients are going to pay for it. Since I do a lot of government work, that means you too.
 

the janitor

Tom Curren status
Mar 28, 2003
12,340
1,737
113
north of the bridge
According to this, California is 20th in per-capita spending?

looks legit, but that's a separate issue

Jerry Brown was the rare politician here to be fiscally prudent. Now we're in the midst of a pandemic/economic disaster and layering on a new tax onto an industry that has fiscal ebola seems a bit misguided
 
  • Like
Reactions: rts265

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,270
19,097
113
Jacksonville Beach
looks legit, but that's a separate issue
I don't follow how this is a separate issue at all? You asked about the spending problem; if it's legit that you're 20th in per-capita spending, you really don't have that much of a problem relative to your peers, the other laboratories of democracy.

Jerry Brown was the rare politician here to be fiscally prudent. Now we're in the midst of a pandemic/economic disaster and layering on a new tax onto an industry that has fiscal ebola seems a bit misguided
The comment about hitting that industry at this specific time being misguided makes sense to me. Regarding Moonbeam, it's easy to be fiscally prudent if your citizenry is willing to pay up; the will to put your hand in your pocket when the check rocks up, and the hard work isn't on the politicians - that's all you. You Californians walked the f--k out of that walk, no doubt.

I honestly feel bad for you all getting vibed by deadbeats like Louisiana and Illinois. Katrina steamrolls the andouille sausage, the Fed bails them out, Governor Jindal cuts taxes acting like the Fed cheese is infinite, state winds up with revenue shortfall.

Guess who is paying most of that if push comes to shove, whether you're bailing out PR, Louisiana, Illinois, what have you?

California.
Followed very, very closely by New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

I find it hilarious people think California wouldn't come out on top in the event of Calexit, looking what they already pay for in-state, and the fat grip they throw down into the Fed coffers relative to money coming back from D.C.

Those people are certifiably looney tunes.
 

the janitor

Tom Curren status
Mar 28, 2003
12,340
1,737
113
north of the bridge
I don't follow how this is a separate issue at all? You asked about the spending problem; if it's legit that you're 20th in per-capita spending, you really don't have that much of a problem relative to your peers, the other laboratories of democracy.
I think relative to our peers is a poor metric for gauging fiscal health.

Our former Governor at least talked about fiscal prudence and got in the legislature's grill about minding the gap on spending. That doesn't appear to be part of the current conversation. Now we get the following:

"Legislators persuaded Newsom to largely replace the cuts he proposed last month to some of the state’s core programs with an assortment of other budget-balancing solutions: delayed payment plans, borrowing from various internal funds and more optimistic tax revenue estimates. The final agreement also relies heavily on cash reserves, withdrawing almost half the money in California’s $16-billion “rainy day” fund."

 

Bob Dobbalina

Miki Dora status
Feb 23, 2016
4,261
4,656
113
I think relative to our peers is a poor metric for gauging fiscal health.

Our former Governor at least talked about fiscal prudence and got in the legislature's grill about minding the gap on spending. That doesn't appear to be part of the current conversation. Now we get the following:

"Legislators persuaded Newsom to largely replace the cuts he proposed last month to some of the state’s core programs with an assortment of other budget-balancing solutions: delayed payment plans, borrowing from various internal funds and more optimistic tax revenue estimates. The final agreement also relies heavily on cash reserves, withdrawing almost half the money in California’s $16-billion “rainy day” fund."


It's fucking pouring.....
 

Bob Dobbalina

Miki Dora status
Feb 23, 2016
4,261
4,656
113
Isn't the commercial real estate business already getting throttled right now by the economic impacts of Corona?
Yeah. Many people that bet big on commercial real estate markets are going to lose their ass.

Companies that own medium-large commercial real estate holdings may or may not be, depending on what the property is and what business they are in. Legacy owners will be forced to compete with other, new business that have been paying more realistic and current tax rates on the value of their property.


At what point do we start to address the spending problem in this state?
Which problem, and how does it rate among other states?
 

the janitor

Tom Curren status
Mar 28, 2003
12,340
1,737
113
north of the bridge
Which problem, and how does it rate among other states?
I don't care how it rates among other states, I care how it matches up to fiscal prudence.

Here is the problem, in bold, from my perspective:

"Legislators persuaded Newsom to largely replace the cuts he proposed last month to some of the state’s core programs with an assortment of other budget-balancing solutions: delayed payment plans, borrowing from various internal funds and more optimistic tax revenue estimates. The final agreement also relies heavily on cash reserves, withdrawing almost half the money in California’s $16-billion “rainy day” fund."


Agree we should be using the rainy day fund now. The rest of the plan is accounting fuckery, which is a long standing tradition here.
 

Bob Dobbalina

Miki Dora status
Feb 23, 2016
4,261
4,656
113
I don't care how it rates among other states, I care how it matches up to fiscal prudence.

Here is the problem, in bold, from my perspective:

"Legislators persuaded Newsom to largely replace the cuts he proposed last month to some of the state’s core programs with an assortment of other budget-balancing solutions: delayed payment plans, borrowing from various internal funds and more optimistic tax revenue estimates. The final agreement also relies heavily on cash reserves, withdrawing almost half the money in California’s $16-billion “rainy day” fund."


Agree we should be using the rainy day fund now. The rest of the plan is accounting fuckery, which is a long standing tradition here.
Seems like kind of a shitty alternative in the short run, right? Basically starve out more industries and more jobs.

In the long run, I don't think anyone would argue against solvency and increased efficiency.
 

hammies

Duke status
Apr 8, 2006
15,587
14,215
113
Reading this as a homeowner in California. If I own that million-dollar home, and can't write off $2,000 of the $12,000 I pay a year in property tax? Damn that sucks, orange man bad. You would think the logical answer would be,' why the fook are my property taxes so high? Could that be the fault of the state of California?
Nobody in Bakersfield is paying $12K in property taxes.
 
Apr 18, 2022
8
4
3
It seems to me that appraisers deliberately increase the value of your home by 2% every year. Naturally, the reason is obvious. So that you end up paying more taxes to the budget. I'm not sure if you can do anything in this situation, but you can definitely consult a lawyer. I think that a lawyer will understand the legality of such an increase and will be able to help you with something. Even if you have to sue. Whenever it comes to real estate, rent, or mortgage, I always consult with Mortgage Advisor Newcastle. This gives me confidence that no one will deceive me.
 
Last edited: