California income taxes
12-29-2019, 08:17 AM
#331
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,127
As an aside, during the last downturn in CA, they didn't advertise it much, but if your house was worth less than it had been purchased at (and appraised for taxes), you could apply annually to have your house reassessed and they did lower your taxes temp for that year but if you didn't apply each year, the value and tax rebounded to the original higher value.
It did "snap back" to the original baseline when the market recovered, obviously it was not a permanent reduction in baseline.
12-29-2019, 11:04 AM
#332
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 344
Fast forward a few years and I refinanced the house. Tax appraisal came in higher than the loan appraisal. Took the loan appraisal to the county and they lowered their value to mine. The county appraises every other year, usually by just adding 5% or so to the previous one. This one successful appeal will help me for a few more years.
12-29-2019, 11:17 AM
#333
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
Yeah but he said it was the purchase which triggered the reassessment, which ended up being “way more” than he paid for the house.
So I still don’t understand the situation because you can protest the valuation using comps and purchase price. I know because I’ve done this myself.
So I still don’t understand the situation because you can protest the valuation using comps and purchase price. I know because I’ve done this myself.
Not sure what he meant by "certain modification" but the only thing that makes sense was that he bought at market rate but made improvements/increased SF that enhanced the market value, at least in the eyes of the tax assessor.
Property taxes are the most "local" of all taxes and the rules can vary wildly from state to state, county to county, city to city.....
12-29-2019, 11:23 AM
#334
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,197
US Constitution > Article I. Legislative Department › SECTION 8. Clause 1.
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Sounds like they do have the right to at least some of your money, consent was given in 1788...
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Sounds like they do have the right to at least some of your money, consent was given in 1788...
The correct date is March 4, 1789.
GF
12-29-2019, 01:49 PM
#335
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
This law has been around for many decades. If it was truly unfair, it wouldn’t hold up to the scrutiny of the equal protection clause nor a new law, just as slavery was outlawed.
This law treats anyone buying a house on the same day the same way. The fact that a house appreciates in value is a good thing. When you cash out and buy another house, it’ll treat you the same as the person doing the same thing. Anything else, I would call envy.
12-29-2019, 01:52 PM
#336
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
Every place I’ve ever lived, people pay property tax on the assessed value of their home. If you live in a $500k house, you’ll pay the tax on that amount. If you live in a $150k house, you pay on that amount. Doesn’t matter when you bought. Only matters what the home value is assessed at.
That’s about as fair as you can make it. CA is idiotic. On many many levels.
That’s about as fair as you can make it. CA is idiotic. On many many levels.
And who gets to asses the value on your home? The beauty of going off of what you paid for it, rather than what someone thinks someone else would pay for it, is that that transaction is made freely by two independent parties who agreed on the price.
I won’t argue against California being idiotic. But I’ll trust two people coming up with their own mutual price a trillion times more than some government entity deciding what it should be assessed at.
12-29-2019, 01:55 PM
#337
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
What I wanted (because I cashed out last year in fact of my rental) is for the voters to quit spending so much money on govt, or at least when they do, agree to make everybody pay for it.
If I were "king" of Cali, I'd make every boondoggle (public train) and prison guard raise come attached with a bill to the taxpayer that they all would see and pay.
If I continued renting my house in that neighborhood, I'd be essentially locked in at that property tax valuation until I died, no matter how many families moved in and enjoyed the services that the "suckers" that bought more recently were forced to pay for. If you don't see the inequity in that, then I can't help you. As a landlord, I'd be able to continually make more money while rents rose, but not have to worry about crazy CA spending....ie taxes.
I benefited from the "system" several years by keeping my house as a rental, enjoying much lower taxes than many of my neighbors and would agree that it's not "fair" from a moral sense, apparently it is from a legal sense.
If I were "king" of Cali, I'd make every boondoggle (public train) and prison guard raise come attached with a bill to the taxpayer that they all would see and pay.
If I continued renting my house in that neighborhood, I'd be essentially locked in at that property tax valuation until I died, no matter how many families moved in and enjoyed the services that the "suckers" that bought more recently were forced to pay for. If you don't see the inequity in that, then I can't help you. As a landlord, I'd be able to continually make more money while rents rose, but not have to worry about crazy CA spending....ie taxes.
I benefited from the "system" several years by keeping my house as a rental, enjoying much lower taxes than many of my neighbors and would agree that it's not "fair" from a moral sense, apparently it is from a legal sense.
It seems to me we are making two different points. I’m only saying is that the law treats everyone the same. And I’m also saying that if you don’t see it that way, it’s more of an emotional thing rather than a rational thing.
By the way, I don’t disagree with most of what you said.
12-29-2019, 02:01 PM
#338
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
There should be some provision for inheritance. Most people agree on that although it is subject to debate.
There's a balance between your obvious right to leave some stuff for your kids, and a reasonable policy to give future generations a clean slate. That last is important in a meritocracy.
There's a balance between your obvious right to leave some stuff for your kids, and a reasonable policy to give future generations a clean slate. That last is important in a meritocracy.
Only some stuff? You mean the stuff you paid for with earned income that has already been taxed?
If I have $100k when I die, should I only have a right to leave $50k of that to all my kids and grandkids?
12-29-2019, 02:04 PM
#339
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
I think he meant that it’s our money and WE have decided to use some of it for roads, schools, police, etc.
So it ALWAYS our money FIRST. Then we get to decide what it’s spent for next.
12-29-2019, 02:10 PM
#340
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,122
California income taxes
US Constitution > Article I. Legislative Department › SECTION 8. Clause 1.
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Sounds like they do have the right to at least some of your money, consent was given in 1788...
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Sounds like they do have the right to at least some of your money, consent was given in 1788...
And if you read the rest of section 8, it specifically enumerates what they can spend the money on. But we’ve gone WAY beyond those 18 items. Plus, we’ve decided to change the last part of that section you cherry picked and felt it was ok not to tax everyone uniformly.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wannabepilot
Hangar Talk
0
04-25-2008 09:19 PM
