Property tax is primarily for schools. Old people have already paid their dues for schools. Let high income people pay for schools not low income seniors.
1 Like
Itās nonsense to discuss the prop 13, and make the young and the old a pair of enemy.
People live a full life cycle.
When you are young and a new homeowner, you pay more property tax and your grandpa pay less.
When you become a grandpa, you pay less property tax and your grandson pays more.
Itās a cycle. In your whole life, you pay the same as both your grandpa and your grandson.
Is it obviously fair and square?
No.
1 Like
Should be obvious to the people who has a brain and is willing to use it 
Even if itās not obvious, itās still solidly fair and square!
There are tons of assumptions, since you have a brain, I wouldnāt spell out those reasons 
You have no argument. Truth wins
They have paid their fair share already. The freeloaders are newcomers hoping for discounted property taxes. Let them pay high now at a cap of 2% per yer. In 30 years they can enjoy prop 5 too
Manch seems to be brain washed By the media.
ā a concerned citizen
3 Likes
As a person who is from other country, prop13 seems unfair rule. We should remove it and decrease property tax rate to make total property tax revenue same. Furthermore, we should adjust property tax rate to limit the total property tax revenue increase to inflation rate. That seems much more fair.
Why should i pay 10x more tax than my neighbors when we get exactly same public service? If one canāt afford to pay property tax, then he/she should move to cheaper place. That would be more effective way to increase supply in housing market than prop5.
1 Like
That is impossible to achieve in California. California is a one party state and thereās an insatiable appetite for more and more tax revenue. Currently California has a very high tax rate and they are still always spending more than received. Thereās a huge public pension liability which the taxpayers are on the hook to pay the public employees and the retirees.
If what you suggested was possible, there would be no need for Prop 13 in 1978. Remember that in 1978 California had 2 parties with good balance. Now itās a one party political system so total property tax revenue could easily triple if Prop 13 is repealed. Property tax rate was 2.67% in 1977, now itās only 1% with a 2% annual increase limit.
If you can get rid of public pension first, we can talk about tax reform afterwards.
2 Likes
This allows newcomers to force out current residents. This was the reason for the passing of Prop 13, when tax inflation forced people out of their homes. Just because newcomers are willing to pay ten times what oldsters paid, it isnāt fair to force out old timers. When you bought your home you knew what you were getting. People that bought 20-30years ago had no idea how much prices would rise. Besides the main service provided for these inflated taxes is education. Something the old timers do not need and paid for years ago for there kids.
To add insult to injury. When these old timers sell they are taxed on any gain over $500k. They canāt afford to move into their own home. Most BA people have a much larger gain than $500k. The tax includes 13% State and 3.6% Obamacare tax.
1 Like
Then, they can just stay where they live without prop5.
Why demand special treatment only because they are old?
Younger generations are already fed up with pension/deficit burden from older generations.
As you said, they already know that property tax will go up from the cost they lock 30 years ago if they move.
People canāt just demand everything at the expense of others only because they are old.
1 Like
Because the young and silly wants Prop 10, I support Prop 5 as a trade. 
Too much demand from many sides.
1 Like
I donāt care that young people are fed up. They should get into the trades and start building houses. They should force nimbyies out of office. House prices are high because of limited supply not Prop 13.
Millienials should be building houses. That is the solution, not forcing out old folks. Besides prop 5 will lose.
If millennials want to control their destiny get out and vote. Get rid of the Democratic machine that keeps raising taxes.
1 Like
Have you recently visited SV?
There are lots of new construction in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose.
All of them are midrise apartment building. As a result, market is slowing down.
You describe as if long time homeowners are not taking advantage of their asset increase with housing price. I donāt think so. I was so surprised to see many old home owners who bought their house 20years ago has less net asset % than me who just bought due to thier high home equity loan while i was reviewing tenants applications. I guess most of people who bought their home 30 years ago already cashed our their capital gain quite a bit although they still live there and claim that we havenāt materialized the gain yet.
1 Like
A drop in the bucketā¦ and if anything, these are market priced places not cheap affordable places.
1 Like
The new construction is 1 new home per 8 new office spaces.
1 Like
That seems greedy as well. Iām living in 5 BR house now. Once the kids are out and married, I really should hand on the house to someone who needs the space and downsize. It seems to me that Prop 5 enables me to make that move with more flexibility.
1 Like
Yes, which is why it is puzzling why our Fearless Leader would not want the flexibility for himself when he is an old man with a big house. In life, it is all about optionsā¦
Tenants are very greedy beasts 
Tenants are way more greedy than landlord in rent controlled cities.
1 Like