DOFF & DOFFS (3189036) Legal & Tax Status

jtmunkus · **Joined:** Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm **Posts:** 3496

Fogbow rules.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:37 pm

Tax assessments in California are recalculated only upon transfer or when taxable additions are made to the property. The tax assessment cannot be considered a reflection of current market value.

Edit: Or - when the taxpayer files for a reduction based on decline in value. I doubt that Taitz could accomplish such a thing.

kate520 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:43 pm

IIRC, Taitz paid $1.2 mil for the house. Over the years the value, not necessarily valuation, of the house has risen to between 4 and 4.5 million.

We received a new assessment a couple of years ago to reflect the plummeting property values. No sale or transfer involved. We only lost $300k. Some are a lot worse off.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9352

This thread makes me miss elliewyatt. She had a truly elegant grasp of this exact subject (tax-exempt entities).

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:17 pm

nycpeter wrote:

Total Due and Payable $5,674.92 Click Here to Pay Online

I think I discern a part of California's problem. My house is valued at just a portion of the ancient assessed value of the Taitz Taj Mahal, and my annual property taxes are substantially higher than those the Taitzes pay. We are a high-tax, high-service state (more or less), so I would have expected to be taxed proportionately higher than the Taitz manse, but this is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder UC plans to raise tuition by 80% over the next five years. No wonder California public schools have fallen far from the excellence that they once had. Was California the original Republican experiment in trying to destroy government by starving it?

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:23 pm

I just paid my property taxes. They were about half of what the Tatiz's paid. My house is worth about 1/20 the value of Taitz's house. BTW, my taxes did go down a whopping $30 this year. That was because a bond was retired.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:36 pm

TollandRCR wrote:

nycpeter wrote:

Total Due and Payable $5,674.92 Click Here to Pay Online

I think I discern a part of California's problem. My house is valued at just a portion of the ancient assessed value of the Taitz Taj Mahal, and my annual property taxes are substantially higher than those the Taitzes pay. We are a high-tax, high-service state (more or less), so I would have expected to be taxed proportionately higher than the Taitz manse, but this is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder UC plans to raise tuition by 80% over the next five years. No wonder California public schools have fallen far from the excellence that they once had. Was California the original Republican experiment in trying to destroy government by starving it?

However, if the Taitz house were sold, the selling price would be the new assessed value and the taxes would be much higher. The market has been hot in the urban areas and suburbs with a fairly high turnover until the Great Recession. Once again, the reason Prop 13 passed and is still popular is that it allows people to stay in their homes when prices rise to bubble heights and over-valued and inflated market values. It would be better to blame speculators than homeowners trying to afford to keep their homes and primary investment and source of security. We also have some of the highest sales taxes and income taxes. Add to that a cost of living that is many times higher that most parts of the country and life becomes unaffordable for most people. Prop 13 was a relief valve in an overheated economy. It still is. When people buy a house, they can predict what their taxes are going to be until they decide to sell it. That adds stability to the economy and that's a good thing.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9352

TollandRCR wrote:

nycpeter wrote:

Total Due and Payable $5,674.92 Click Here to Pay Online

I think I discern a part of California's problem. My house is valued at just a portion of the ancient assessed value of the Taitz Taj Mahal, and my annual property taxes are substantially higher than those the Taitzes pay. We are a high-tax, high-service state (more or less), so I would have expected to be taxed proportionately higher than the Taitz manse, but this is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder UC plans to raise tuition by 80% over the next five years. No wonder California public schools have fallen far from the excellence that they once had. Was California the original Republican experiment in trying to destroy government by starving it?

Thank Prop 13. It turned California into a third-world country where the Gini coefficient is something you can rarely find outside of Africa, or was at least a part of that transformation.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:55 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

TollandRCR wrote:

nycpeter wrote:

Total Due and Payable $5,674.92 Click Here to Pay Online

I think I discern a part of California's problem. My house is valued at just a portion of the ancient assessed value of the Taitz Taj Mahal, and my annual property taxes are substantially higher than those the Taitzes pay. We are a high-tax, high-service state (more or less), so I would have expected to be taxed proportionately higher than the Taitz manse, but this is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder UC plans to raise tuition by 80% over the next five years. No wonder California public schools have fallen far from the excellence that they once had. Was California the original Republican experiment in trying to destroy government by starving it?

Thank Prop 13. It turned California into a third-world country where the Gini coefficient is something you can rarely find outside of Africa, or was at least a part of that transformation.

And yet it continues to be one of the most attractive, desirable places to live and is a magnet for the best, brightest and most creative minds.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9352

esseff44 wrote:

And yet it continues to be one of the most attractive, desirable places to live and is a magnet for the best, brightest and most creative minds.

Then I thank God that I am one of the worst, dimmest and least creative minds, because I find it repulsive, undesirable and you couldn't pay me to move there. Well, unless you paid me a lot.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:18 pm

I can understand not getting taxed out of your house. It seems the Taitz's are paying taxes of .14% (yes, the decimal belongs there) on the value of their house. Don't you think that's a tad bit low? I'd rather see an exemption with a cap as a means to keep someone from having an unaffordable tax burden. It's not for me to say. I don't live in CA. This is an example of using a constitutional ammendment to solve a financial problem. It gives you no room to change it when the economics change.

bob · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:58 pm

ZekeB wrote:

This is an example of using a constitutional ammendment to solve a financial problem. It gives you no room to change it when the economics change.

You are not alone: [Proposed] Super Committee for California's Initiative Process:

KQED wrote:

Frustrated by the tendency of elected officials to kowtow to political pressure and the unchecked power of interest groups to write their own laws that never get revisited, California's latest governance reform effort proposes a new third way: a citizens panel empowered to place any measures on the statewide ballot that it wants -- even ones that slay sacred cows on the left and the right.

The plan is included in the 98-page report released Monday by the Think Long Committee, a pet project of billionaire investor Nicolas Berggruen that proposes a number of government fixes. Most of the early headlines were the group's advocacy of big-time changes to California's tax system, a proposal that certainly bares some resemblance to a heralded 2009 effort that hinged on a broader goods-and-services taxation.

[...]

No doubt your dreams or fears of what this citizens council would place on future statewide ballots depends on your politics. A change, or repeal, of Proposition 13? The creation of a part-time Legislature? Repeal of legislative term limits? A constitutional convention? The ideas seem to be limitless, especially given that so many big proposals never go anywhere under the current system. The commission would also have subpoena power, and is described in the new proposal as a "watchdog" group... all of which could make for some interesting showdowns with elected officials and state or local agencies.

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:22 pm

If y'all would like further in depth discussion of California's property tax structure, a new thread would be a terrific place for it.

:mrgreen:

LM K · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:35 pm

ZekeB wrote:

I can understand not getting taxed out of your house. It seems the Taitz's are paying taxes of .14% (yes, the decimal belongs there) on the value of their house. Don't you think that's a tad bit low? I'd rather see an exemption with a cap as a means to keep someone from having an unaffordable tax burden. It's not for me to say. I don't live in CA. This is an example of using a constitutional ammendment to solve a financial problem. It gives you no room to change it when the economics change.

You must want the 1% to pay their fair share. Hippie-liberal-Socialist-Swine!

esseff44 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:49 pm

ZekeB wrote:

I can understand not getting taxed out of your house. It seems the Taitz's are paying taxes of .14% (yes, the decimal belongs there) on the value of their house. Don't you think that's a tad bit low? I'd rather see an exemption with a cap as a means to keep someone from having an unaffordable tax burden. It's not for me to say. I don't live in CA. This is an example of using a constitutional ammendment to solve a financial problem. It gives you no room to change it when the economics change.

You are not taking into consideration the assessment ratio which is applied to the assessed value before the tax rate. Remember that property taxes are applied to the same property year after year unlike other taxes.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:54 pm

Offtopic :

Property taxes are based more on a "per capita" basis in California than on the basis of what the house is worth. A $3 million house in my neck of the woods probably sells for something close to $600,000 where Tollie lives. So, if I pay $35K in property taxes (not me), am I paying more than Tollie's similarly-situated homeowner with the $600,000 house?

That's the true measure of disparity. Look at the housing, not the prices. Compare the housing with the taxes.

Prop. 13 recognized that housing prices in many parts of California were artificially high, and that the services being "bought" by those homeowners needed to be equalized. Prop. 13 was the unwieldy meat axe to do so. The alternative would have been some kind of a COLA adjustment on a per county basis. But nobody could figure out how to do it.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Offtopic :

My taxes for 2011 calculated out to $1.44 per square foot, not counting my two car attached garage. We've seen the value of Taitz's house. Is the SF listed anywhere?

Paul Lentz · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:09 pm

raicha wrote:

If y'all would like further in depth discussion of California's property tax structure, a new thread would be a terrific place for it.

:mrgreen:

Yes, please.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9352

Paul Lentz wrote:

raicha wrote:

If y'all would like further in depth discussion of California's property tax structure, a new thread would be a terrific place for it.

:mrgreen:

Yes, please.

We should also have another thread any time anyone ever mentions anything that doesn't already have a thread. We have a desperate shortage of threads here, and need lots more.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

DOFF & DOFFS (3189036) Legal & Tax Status

Who is online