Originally Posted by B-Line

#1 - On my side of town, the $200,000 house is still worth $3mil. Or the land is worth $2.5mil and the house is a tear down.
#2 - Absolutely, 100% correct. But in addition, grandma and grandpa are incentivized NOT to move. Cause it's more expensive to move to a 2 bedroom apt. than it is to stay in the 5 bedroom house.

Sorry QS, but where I come from when people reach the age that their children are out of the house, they downsize. They sell their house and move to a nice retirement area and get a great apt.

So unless Grandma and Grandpa decide to foster some kids, move relatives into the house, turn the extra rooms in the house into some sort of day care, there is no reason why the state gov't and the younger residents should subsidize their living.

I know young families that are successful and can't afford a house and are living in one bedroom apt's with babies, while I have neighbors who haven't mowed their lawns, fixed their retaining walls, painted their house, or done anything other than live relatively tax free, in a 5 bedroom house that is completely empty..

I have lived in many states including Florida, NY, Ohio and believe you me, Prop 13 is not a benefit to anyone except a small few.
ANd just like people pay taxes on income, so should they pay taxes on the value of their real estate.

It's a socialist program and is making this state worse, not better, except for the very few how are staying in family homes long beyond their children being gone..

Just my .02

Of course though, I could understand your point of view as well... "Why should I have to move?" Why should I pay more in taxes?

- to which I would answer, What costs the same today as it did in 1980?
NOTHING... So the people who have benefitted the most from prop 13 are being subsidized by my friends who can't afford a home and have nice incomes as doctors, etc.