Depressed home prices hurt municipal budgets

Comments

Welcome to our world

California assesses annually.  And as required by Prop 13, unless there is a sale or refinance, taxes can rise no more than 2% annually, regardless of property value or inflation.

 

Another provision of Prop 13 requires the assessor to revise taxes downward when there is a decline in property values, regardless of whether the property has sold.

 

So, for example, when I bought my house 10 years ago, the taxes were about 1$1500 and rose when I refinanced, eventually reaching about $1750.  When values crashed, the assessor based my house's value on the change in sales price on houses that were selling and the price at last sale.  I am currently paying just under $1000/year.  At a 2% increase--when increases start again--how long will it take for the state and city to recover to the $1750 I paid just three years ago?

 

Welcome to a taste of our world, folks.  Don't make the same mistakes that California did.

Re: welcome to our world

By my calculation, that would take 30 years or more, Cindy. If there is substantial inflation between now and then, it seems like the price you are paying in taxes could diverge significantly from the value of your property. That could create unfairness relative to what others are paying in taxes and unintended incentives. On other hand, as a homeowner in New York State, I only wish I had a multiple of your tax bill.

Property taxes

California is not really an example of what not to do. What is wrong with paying txes based on the real valuenof your property in a downward trending market? That puts more in the pocket ofnthe tax payer to help the overall economy and help raise tax revenue in non real estate categories. Sounds like a good thing to me. As far as the 2% cap on increased taxes goes, that is probably all that we will see in an upwardly trending market fornthe next several years anyway. Higher rates of value increases should not fall onto tax payees all in one year, thus the reason form that law in the first place. California's biggest problem is that they have no balanced budget requirement for thebstate government. You should get that fixed!

Prop 13 and the fate of California

Cwags submits his/her opinion that property taxes should retreat if values do ("That puts more in the pocket ofnthe [sic] tax payer to help the ...economy"), and that California has "no balanced budget requirement," implying that state spending has gotten out of control.

First, Prop 13, passed in 1978, reduced local tax revenues 57% (says Wikipedia), and ended the activist government that brought California schools to the peak of their recent performance. Kids coming from California to the midwest, where I grew up, were a grade level ahead of us. Post-Prop 13, California kids test 44th of 50 states.

The infrastructure and human capital Pat Brown built when California had the money (it had a surplus in 1978) was at the root of the Silicon Valley boom.  No such thing is on the horizon now. The state's budget deficit was roughly $24 billion, when last I checked. If it's any consolation, the bonuses alone (no salaries) on Wall Street would have filled this.

Seldom discussed: the gigantic loophole in Prop 13. Business properties are often owned by entities like corporations. You can sell the corporation over several years without triggering a revaluation, so Disneyland gets a free ride, no matter who owns it. More, and more details, <a href="http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=10apiigw8ebdw27&xid=ygguk7ppfx5xva">here.</a>

Meanwhile, our taxes on rentiers are at 60-year lows. Property should be taxed at *much* higher rates if we want to revive a productive economy, and not just make the one percent of coupon clippers wealthy.

 

 

Comments