Stuart A. Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

It's not better, but it is rational, is an overall lower tax
and is no less fair. Given that in California we have high
levels of state income tax, state sales tax, and various
city income, transfer, and utility taxes, it is reasonable
that property taxes be lower than they could be.

- quote -

You have to die to pay it so that's different.

Steve

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

spope33[at]speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
- quote -

And that's better? Bush is doing all he can to kill the
estate tax on the basis that it's an asset tax.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Dick Weaver <rweaver[at]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
- quote -

There's an even easier answer, which is that Prop 13
converted property taxes into a trasfer tax rather than an
asset tax. It's just that this particular transfer tax is
paid in annual installments, in perpetuity.

(This interpretation is inexact in a few respects -- special
assessment rates can fluctuate, and conceivably the property
could get reassessed for less than you paid for it, but to a
first order it's accurate.)

So, Prop 13 taxation is no more or less fair than any other
real property tranfer tax, such as those imposed by many
California cities.

Steve

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

On the third hand, high income folks pay vastly greater
taxes (income, for one) for likely fewer services than many
others.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

If someone bought a California property 20 years ago, his
taxes may be ten to fifteen percent of what they would be if
he purchased the house today.

From one standpoint, it's not faire to ask him to pay seven
or ten times more tax just because the number of purchasers
has driven values up so high. On the other hand, he's only
paying a fraction of what his neighbors are but receiving
the same services.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

If taxes are set to a fraction of market value, the fact
that someone was willing to pay a lot for a house just like
yours implies yours has a similar market value to the amount
he just paid.

(Sometimes the transaction will make you pay _less_ in
taxes. That just happened with me.)

Seth

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

It's not that curious. You stated that you think you ought
to be "forced out". Who is to accomplish that and how
exactly is it to be acomplished other than by taking your
property away?

Please explain to me why what someone else is willing to pay
for a property down the street suddenly makes *me*
responsible for subsidizing *their* taxes. That's what you
think should happen if you believe that their transaction
should make me pay more in taxes.

--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon[at]floorboard.com
jon[at]biggar.org

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I too have ideas that conflict with current tax laws. It
has always amazed me that so few people agree with me. My
ideas are supported by logic as equally as sound as yours.
For instance, "people should pay taxes on their income in
the jurisdiction where they generated that income as opposed
to the jurisdiction where they live." Entertainers & sport
players have to do it. Why should I pay my county taxes to
Howard County when my income was generated in Baltimore
City?

But alas I have found the reason so few people agree with
me. You can not apply logic to taxation. Whenever logic and
taxation coincide, it means the legislature was asleep at
the switch.

As Mister Spock once said: "It is not logical, but it is
often true."

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << Just tell the IRS auditor you read it on the Internet. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Jonathan Biggar wrote:
- quote -

Lets see: other taxpayers are subsidizing me so that I can
continue to live in Silicon Valley and I think that subsidy
is wrong, I gave reasons why it is wrong. From that you
derive that I think "personal property doesn't exist". A
curious enough derivation to end posts to this thread.

dick w

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Dick Weaver wrote:

- quote -

Apparently we have another believer in the idea that
personal property doesn't exist--it is all really owned by
the state.

If you think you aren't paying your fair share, you can just
send a check to the state and or county. Don't force your
views on others who don't agree.

--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon[at]floorboard.com
jon[at]biggar.org

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Nan, EA in LA wrote:

- quote -

Florida law limits annual increases in same owner property
assessments to the lesser of 3% or the prior year's
percentage increase in the CPI (1.9% in 2004).

With the current 20%+ annual increase in South Florida
median home prices - 74% in the past three years - home
buyers are in for a shock when they receive their first tax
bill reflecting the new assessment based on the sale price.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

spinoza wrote:

- quote -


from http://www.ccnmag.com/story.php?id=347;

"According to information released by the Federal Reserve on
March 10, 2005, rising real estate prices and a resurgent
U.S. stock market helped push the net wealth of American
households to a record $48.53 trillion in the fourth quarter
of 2004. In its quarterly "Flow of Funds" report, America's
central bank revealed that U.S. household net worth, in
fact, set a new record in each of 2004's four quarters.
Higher values for real estate, equities, and mutual funds
were the chief factors in this rise in net worth, as were
noticeable improvements in the values of pension fund
reserves and Treasury securities."

seems clear it includes everything.
JOE

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

In my oppinion, both income tax and worth tax is unfair.

However, the latter if more fair.

Think it this way, say you and your neighbor are equally
wealthy. You build factory, your neighbor build mansions.
You pay more tax because you make more income. This doesn't
serve the capitalist agenda of rewarding workers based on
productivity. When you turn your capital into a factory,
your worker side is more productive. So you deserve more
money. Income tax penalize that. It doesn't serve the poor
either. Often, the poor workers have to pay income tax,
whose money are used to subsidize land owning farmers.
Ouch..

I would say more capitals that are now used for leisure will
be turned into productivity. This will improve Labor's
productivity, which will improve demand for labors, which
will improve labors' sallary.

You and your neighbor are equally poor. You work hard, he's
lazy. You pay more tax.

Income tax punishes productivity!

Some people say that the rich will pay more. Possibly. But
the rich will make more too!!!!!

Say you're a good money manager. Say you earn 20%/year ROI.
..5% worth tax is less than 50% income tax for you. You're no
longer penalized for being good. That's intensive to be
great! Only stupid money managers that cannot earn high ROI
got hurt. But then, wouldn't economy be more efficient if
such momeny managers lend the money to smarter money
managers?

Finally, capitals are protected. You see, when Kubilai Khan
attack Sung, what do capital owners do? They switch side to
Kubilai Khan because the Sung tax capital in the form of
landsharing. That's because without landsharing, the poor
has no intensive to protect the capital from the rich.

1% capital tax will keep things straight and will also work
as protection fee. Remember, 1% capital tax is still much
lower than say, interest rate. It's not like your capital
will depletes over time. It just doesn't go as fast as it
used to be if you just sleep. But again, who knows? With no
income tax, interests rate in bank will go up too now that
there are plenty of entrepreneurs that can give higher
return for your capital?

Jim

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

I think actually switching taxes from income to worth makes
a lot of sense. There are numerous instances though out the
constitution, federalist papers, and other such documents
that the central role of government is the protection and
enforcement of property rights, not the protection of
income.

What statitics I have seen on this and its difficult to find
anything definitive suggest that it would be a substantial
shift in tax burden from the top 2-19% to the top 1%.

PS. From what I have seen that 48 trillion is for property
only. If you count all assets the net worth of the US is
around 110 trillion. Of course that could be total cripe.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Io Sono Mio" <rejecto[at]rejcet.ccc> wrote:

- quote -

Yep. We purchased our home in 1970. Without prop 13 there is
_no way_ we could still afford to be living in our home today.
Yea, I know that the guy next door who moved in last year is
paying 6 times the tax that we pay, but he was making 6 times
the salary I made when I retired.

What I can't figure out is why, my fellow Californians
elected "Arnold" in a landslide, because he represented
change, but then they continue to support their "local"
elected politicians who stick together like they were glued,
and will do _anything_ to undermine and defeat any changes
that Arnold purposes.

The "people have spoken", but it has fallen on deaf ears.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Rich Carreiro" <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote:
- quote -

California's politicians had chance after chance to come up
with something, but they just couldn't bring themselves to
limit their spending or taxation. So, some tax group came up
with something, and it passed overwhelmingly. Is it the
best way to do it? Not in my opinion. Was it extremely
clever and successful in keeping a bit of a lid on taxation?
You bet!

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Two identical houses being taxed at different rates? One
was bought 20 years ago and is now owned by a person whose
income has either not increased much or has even dropped.
The other was bought recently by someone whose income could
afford it.

The property tax in California, under Prop 13, is based on
the ability of someone to afford the house being taxed.

I personally LOVE it,

Nan, EA in LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Well, I can't continue to sit in a resturant and eat when I
can no longer pay the bill for that activity either.

I benefit from California's Prop 13 and continue to live in
Silicon Valley without my paying the costs of doing so.

But Prop 13 is dead wrong - I should be forced out, making
room here for someone who works here, whose economic
activity would pay the real costs of living here, but who
now has to commute an hour or more each way from the central
valley. And we all talk about how expensive houses here are
- what do you expect when you take so many houses (like
mine) off the market?

So we'll keep Prop 13; it has emotional appeal "not forcing
the old folks out of their homes" and we home owners
actually like the higher prices that result, in part, from
Prop 13.

dick w

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Rich Carreiro wrote:
- quote -

You can tell from an earlier post of mine that I think Prop
13 is bad economics, but your question actually has an easy
answer.

When you buy a house here you make a contract with the
taxing authority. Doing so is voluntary, if you don't like
the contract, don't buy the house. And don't complain that
prices have gone up, that someone last year got a contract
at a better price - thats normal business.

You might think the taxing authority is stupid (I do), but
it is a contract and it is voluntary.

dick w

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Dick Adams <rdadams[at]smart.net> wrote:
- quote -

Yet isn't this precisely the form of taxation used by most
cities and towns? They raise money with property taxes,
rather than income or consumption taxes.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar[at]alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >