> you are just failing to recognize that people who benefitted from buying 40 years ago are benefiting from 40 years of holding an investment.
No, that's in addition. No-one is saying that if someone bought a $400k house for $50k 40 years ago they should have to pay back the unearned $350k; they get to keep their investment gains and be just as well off as someone who buys a $400k house today. They just shouldn't get an extra tax break on top of that.
> People are in fact free to move wherever they want. They just can’t force others out of their homes because they think they deserve them more.
If charging a market price is "force" then people are being forced to not move to places where they want. Again, the mechanism that would move people out is exactly the same mechanism that currently stops other people moving in.
> You have the same opportunity as those 40 years ago did - go and live somewhere that is cheaper and where industry is going to develop because the economic conditions are right.
That's the opposite of what happened. 40 years ago those people moved into the very centre of the city, not to somewhere cheap. And they had that opportunity because the city wasn't filled up with 40 years' worth of moochers with tax breaks.
People moved in to the center of the city not because it was filled with ‘moochers’, but because people wanted to sell their homes.
Why? Because the city wasn’t considered attractive because the economy hadn’t created a huge demand for housing and a lot of rich people to compete for it.
It wasn’t tax breaks that made the city cheap. It was that the tech boom hadn’t happened yet.
If you )o somewhere where the economic growth is at an earlier stage, and you can benefit in the same way, while helping to improve the economic health of the country.
> People moved in to the center of the city not because it was filled with ‘moochers’
It wasn't filled with moochers then, it is now. That's my point.
> It wasn’t tax breaks that made the city cheap. It was that the tech boom hadn’t happened yet.
SF wasn't especially cheap, and in any case there's nothing particularly virtuous about moving in or out of somewhere at fair market price (if you move somewhere because it's cheap, you already got your reward for that: it was cheap). The people who happened to move in at a particular time got lucky that the tech boom happened to happen in a particular place, and raked in a massive unearned windfall on their property values. But apparently that isn't enough for them; they continue to massively underpay their property taxes as well.
> If you )o somewhere where the economic growth is at an earlier stage, and you can benefit in the same way, while helping to improve the economic health of the country.
I can benefit from house prices going up as they normally do, sure. I probably can't benefit from a substantial extra subsidy to my property taxes on top of that, because most of the country (rightly) does not have a Prop 13.
Anyone who underpays their property taxes ends up with a lien on their property.
If you want to benefit from prop 13 you can buy in California, just like anyone else can.
When you describe the rise in property prices as a result of the tech boom as an ‘unearned windfall’, it sounds like you are opposed to the appreciation of assets altogether.
> Anyone who underpays their property taxes ends up with a lien on their property.
Not in the age of Prop 13, sadly.
> When you describe the rise in property prices as a result of the tech boom as an ‘unearned windfall’, it sounds like you are opposed to the appreciation of assets altogether.
It's not a question of opposed or not. Sometimes some people get lucky and others don't, that's a fact of life. Houses appreciating at a normal rate is one thing, but SF has gone up massively, and the vast majority of those who benefited from that didn't do anything smart or virtuous to earn it, they just happened to pick a city that happened to become a lot more valuable. (Maybe some people genuinely did economic analysis and decided that SF was a smart place to invest in, but realistically they're a tiny minority).
All of which is fine. Some people picked one city and their houses have gone up 4x, others picked another city and their houses have gone up 10x, even though neither group of people worked more or less hard or are more or less deserving. That's life, that's fine. But we shouldn't be giving a tax subsidy to the people who were already lucky enough to have their houses go up 10x. (Indeed, if anyone should get a discount on their property taxes, it should be people whose land values haven't gone up much - the ones who've been unlucky).
> What would count as ‘earned’ in your estimation?
Labour income. Things that require active involvement. It's fairly standard terminology, no?
The point of prop 13 is to protect exactly the normal people who have regular non-tech incomes who happened to but in cities where there was a huge rise in property prices.
I.e. It enables people who have normal labor income from active involvement to keep the houses they were able to afford rather than being penalized simply because a nearby industry booming.
It impacts these people far more beneficially than any negative that comes from not penalizing the people for whom the tax would not be a problem.
You give the appearance of to preferring labor involvement over passive investment, and yet your entire argument is based on how unfair it is that you didn’t get to benefit from a passive investment. It seems like you would actually like that for yourself, no?
If you want to buy a home and your income comes from labor in the Bay Area, then Prop 13 is the only thing protecting you from being displaced if prices continue to rise.
> I.e. It enables people who have normal labor income from active involvement to keep the houses they were able to afford rather than being penalized simply because a nearby industry booming.
Working the same job you've always worked even as (relative) demand for your industry drops is the opposite of active involvement. No-one should be entitled to unearned money for life, or excess wages for life, or low property taxes for life, just because they got there first. They're blocking out other people who work harder or need it more; it should be a level playing field for everyone, which means fair market rate for the job you're doing, fair market prices for the things you buy, and nondiscriminatory taxation.
> It impacts these people far more beneficially than any negative that comes from not penalizing the people for whom the tax would not be a problem.
But you're not accounting for the people who can't move in because of people sitting on undertaxed properties. Once you add up everyone, prop 13 does a lot more harm than good.
> You give the appearance of to preferring labor involvement over passive investment, and yet your entire argument is based on how unfair it is that you didn’t get to benefit from a passive investment. It seems like you would actually like that for yourself, no?
I mean of course I'd like a pile of free cash. But it's unjust to be giving out public money (which is ultimately everyone else's tax dollars) arbitrarily, and it's doubly unjust to be giving it out to the people who already won big on passive investment.
> If you want to buy a home and your income comes from labor in the Bay Area, then Prop 13 is the only thing protecting you from being displaced if prices continue to rise.
Sure, but for everyone who's displaced there's another person who's now able to afford a better place to live. Likely more than one person actually, since in practice it's more often a case of empty-nesters in a big house that could be subdivided for several working people. (If people want to stop themselves being displaced in a fair way, the right answer is to allow more homebuilding - unfortunately homeowners are incentivised to pull up the ladder behind them so as to increase their own home price, and prop 13 just makes that worse). If I can't pay my fair share of property taxes, I'll sell my place on to people who can - and given how much money I'd be pocketing from price appreciation for that to happen, I wouldn't be particularly sad about it.
No, that's in addition. No-one is saying that if someone bought a $400k house for $50k 40 years ago they should have to pay back the unearned $350k; they get to keep their investment gains and be just as well off as someone who buys a $400k house today. They just shouldn't get an extra tax break on top of that.
> People are in fact free to move wherever they want. They just can’t force others out of their homes because they think they deserve them more.
If charging a market price is "force" then people are being forced to not move to places where they want. Again, the mechanism that would move people out is exactly the same mechanism that currently stops other people moving in.
> You have the same opportunity as those 40 years ago did - go and live somewhere that is cheaper and where industry is going to develop because the economic conditions are right.
That's the opposite of what happened. 40 years ago those people moved into the very centre of the city, not to somewhere cheap. And they had that opportunity because the city wasn't filled up with 40 years' worth of moochers with tax breaks.