Californian's are older and broker

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/12/MN1G1JEI9J.DTL&tsp=1


Californians are grayer on the whole, and under the crushing forces of foreclosures and a bad economy, more of them are living with relatives than a decade ago, newly compiled U.S. census figures show.

People still defend Prop 13, which was a total disaster for Cali's budget. The effects we see now are cumulative; they didn't happen overnight.

Older people who bought homes many years ago can stay in those homes only because Prop. 13 assures that their property taxes will not rise to reflect the supposed current sale value of their homes.

If the population of California has aged, then it is even less likely that people will vote to do away with Prop. 13.

My husband and I are retired. We would have no choice but to move to another state if we had to pay higher property taxes.

A lot of older Californians are in our position. So, if they raise the property taxes, then many older Californians will lose their homes or try to sell them. Housing prices may decrease somewhat, but at what cost?

So, it's very easy to blame Prop. 13 and to complain about the fact that California has so many older people. But, this is our home. Where are we to go? You are talking about forcing millions of people in their 70s-100s to pack and move. Not so easy.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/11/bloomberg1376-LL3C786S972801-3LOGK9JQLJ4E0E2R3649MS8SI2.DTL

which means half of the houses in ca sell for under $280k.

in washington state median = $228K
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9N4P49O1.htm

in oregon = $249K
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/asking-prices/oregon/portland/

i don't see that california as a whole is that much more expensive than the rest of the west coast. and it has much better weather.

Certainly not with jobs.

prices are higher than the rest of the state in seattle & portland too.

but fwiw, i find that in san francisco the 25th percentile of house prices = $249k.

which means there is *something* in san francisco proper selling for <$280K.

and oakland (which i guess is part of the bay area) median = $138k in 2010.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2010/snapshots/PL0653000.html

be my guest.

in case you don't get it yet, that's how the housing market & the entire economy *works*, that's what capitalism is about, that's entirely normal.

if you can't afford to live in san francisco, you're supposed to make other arrangements. just like if a person with less income than you is supposed to make other arrangements when they can't even afford a house.

just don't go around whining that "california" as a whole, or "the bay area," is too expensive to live in, or that it takes $250K a year just to scrape by in those places.

plenty of poor people live in the bay area. they just don't live in the style some people here at DU apparently think is "normal" & their birthright.

i don't have enough money to buy property in most expensive neighborhoods in seattle. i don't expect sympathy for being in that position. i don't paint myself as a hard-luck case & scream about how i can barely get by on $150k a year.

Hmmm. Perhaps I will be forced to continue not to give a shit.


I hope you didn't sprain anything with that little lecture you just tried to give me. :rofl:

i would like to use the "barf" guy every time i see people whining about how their $250K/year barely lets them make their mortgage payments.

you make more money than 98% of the population. buy a cheaper house.

just like the rest of the population has to do when they don't have enough money to get what they want.

Because all I said was, "if you want to live in the ass of Oakland, be my guest"

I'm not sure where you're getting all that other noise.

I'd like to see the seniors who make $250,000 per year. Not many of them around. $25,000 might be closer to reality for those who are lucky.

it's not much more expensive than the rest of the west coast.

as for seniors; some make $25K or less -- & mostly they don't own houses worth half a million & up, either.

if they do, & can will their house to their heirs under today's inheritance tax regime, they've got a good deal going. am i supposed to feel sorry because their property values have increased?

i don't mean to be rude but i just don't get it. i could understand if the property had been in the family for generations and was, like, a farm that suddenly got surrounded by development -- but i just don't get why people living in cities with appreciating property values think they're getting a bad deal.

to move because my property is worth more than twice what it cost and my income has not increased to cover the additional taxes but rather has decreased drastically.

I could easily buy a house in Des Moines or Indianapolis for the price that we paid for our house.

And it isn't particularly me. The OP is about the fact that California has an older population than it once had. That affects the income tax base and it makes it all the more difficult to get higher property taxes passed. Older people don't want to lose the homes in which they raised their children and have lived for many years. It's just hard to move a long distance such as from Los Angeles to Indianapolis when you are older.

An older person has a harder time meeting people, making friends, finding the doctors and other services that he or she needs. That's why I don't think that older people will vote to raise property taxes by enough to help pay for the shortfall in California's tax revenue.

That's pretty funny.

I *still* wouldn't be able to afford to buy in.

I actually think we agree on this one; things like real estate and gasoline are 'worth' whatever the seller charges and the buyer is willing to pay. Foot-stomping and demanding it be any different misses the point.

it's "impossible" to live in certain areas on less than $250K a year when most of the population of those areas generally *does* live on less than that. in many cases, much, much less.

which is a place you couldn't pay ME enough to live in.

of nyc & la live on way less.

You won't bring many people on side by holding up abject poverty as the alternative.

a house and a community should not be forced to move because they no longer earn a competitive salary and their house has become more expensive than they could afford on their income as they age. The idea is to promote stability in communities. And remember, seniors do not have children in school although seniors certainly care about education. California does not require developers of housing for seniors to put aside land or pay a fee for the schools when getting their permits to build. That is because housing for seniors does not add to the number of students in local schools.

why don't we just say no one has to pay taxes except the unemployed or poor, will that satisfy everyone?

seriously. how does an intelligent person not know that Oakland is in the Bay Area?

and NOT knowing, why on earth would they correct somebody on it?

The median livable house in the Bay Area is nowhere near 138k

home of the panthers in the 60s, etc etc etc.

you apparently don't get sarcasm, though.

also, go back & read what i wrote, as i nowhere wrote anything like "the median home in the bay area is $138K".

i linked a website that said the median home in oakland sold for $138k in 2010.

whether or not *you* consider it liveable, someone bought it for something -- maybe folks in more "liveable" areas want to become slumlords -- generally the case.

http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37b.htm

There are a few around $280,000 or less but they are gang-ridden to an extreme or way, way out in the desert. The desert areas had a lot of new developments. I figure those houses are foreclosures. They are not anywhere near jobs.

Take a look at the list.

in the VERY low 100s lately.

I am SO ready to move there!!!! If only I could sell this damn house here in AZ.

Some areas have been hit much worse by the foreclosures. It could be that housing prices are down there.

The prices are lower in my area than they were a few years ago. But we have lived in our house for over 20 years as have many of our neighbors, and we could not afford to buy a house in our neighborhood at this time. Not in LA. Not anywhere in LA for what we would get for our house.

There probably are houses in California for less than $280,000, but none of the houses I see for sale are for less than that. All of them are more expensive than that. Even the repos.

property prices (median) and they are still very high.

$280,000 is too much to pay if you bought your house for around $100,000 long ago.

The whole idea of buying a house is that you buy something you can afford and keep it so that you don't have to owe more than you can earn on your house.

One of the reasons Americans got into some much trouble with debt is that they bought into the idea of "moving up," that is paying off part of one house, building equity and then buying a more expensive house. Not smart at all.

Buy a house and try to pay it off because when you retire your income will go down to next to nothing. You won't be able to afford a mortgage or rent much less property taxes. $280,000 is a lot of money to a retired person. Working people, yes. But once you retire, very few have that kind of income. Right now retired people are not earning interest on savings even if they were fortunate enough to save. So very, very few retired people have incomes like that. Most are lucky to have an income of $12,000 per year.

Just the ones that benefit corporate land owners.

Plus, think about this: don't you think artificially low property taxes might be one factor in continuing tio inflate real estate prices?

If anything, they make them cheaper.
You can't just raise property taxes on corporations. Equal protection you know. I don't think you can discriminate based on who owns a property. That's the problem.

That's why Prop. 13 was adopted.

If property tax rates are hiked, the increases will hit across the board. Rents will also go up. There are no simple solutions to this.

:eyes:

The property taxes on my house had it be reaccessed at its bubble value would have put me out on the street seeing as the real estate bubble quite nicely coincided with the worst earning years of my career.

Exactly how do you get from cause to effect. If anything you would think the younger people would be worse off being deprived of an education or something.

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

Isn't that what you are suggesting?

Tax the rich, and you can take care of the whole matter without dispatching anyone from their home or sacrificing schools and children.

We have huge numbers of extremely rich people in California. Hollywood Hills, Silicon Valley, and many other parts of California are full of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Why make the poor and elderly pick of the tabs for the state's expenditures?

It won't work anyway. That's because we just don't have the money to pay more in taxes.

Grammar Nazi, coming through!!!

That's happening more and more lately; I'm getting old and distracted.

so sometimes the shit I write is a mess..

Only reason I felt compelled to snark on that was b/c there's a stray apostrophe in the OP, too.

The trick is to do that without pissing folks off, so you can show at least a little of the functional justification for good grammar and spelling.

My own errors are increasing in frequency and it's stuff I NEVER used to do wrong.

http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/


Funny stuff.

Wonder if that is a coincidence?

Don

seriously?

I am a retired union autoworker who always planned on vacationing to California. You know, spend some money there.

Well guess what? Due to so many peoples love for imports my retirement hasn't been increased in years while my health insurance co-pays and such have increased.

So now I don't have any extra money to go on vacation to California and spend some money.

Now multiply my situation times a few hundred thousand other retired autoworkers in the same position all across the US.

Think losing that kind if income could effect California's economy?

Don

California, we prefer low-mileage, low-emissions cars. Only recently has Detroit begun to respond to California preferences. My husband patriotically bought a Saturn in 1992. Still driving it. He's good with cars.

Hopefully the more fuel efficient, lower mileage American cars aren't too late to catch on with Californians.

I don't know a soul who works for Ford, but two people on my street work for Hyundai in Fountain Valley and one works for Mitsubishi in Cypress. I also know a few people who work for Honda in Los Angeles.

While the "domestics" have closed every single plant in California, the imports have established their corporate operations here.

What obligation does California have to the Big Three?