[Gibbon1]

Perhaps it's time for progressive real estate taxes.

AKA roll back prop 13 but make it progressive. 1% on the first $250,000 worth of land, 2% on the next $250,000 to $1,000,000 worth and then 3% for anything over $1M.

Not by parcel, total.

[strictnein]

You're proposing an additional $2500 a year tax on a $250k home? And a $5000 a year increase on a $500k home? I don't foresee this being very successful.

[Gibbon1]

I'm proposing leaving the nominal Prop 13 discount alone for people that own modest homes. And making d*ckwads like Khosla pay full freight.

Simply individuals and businesses with real estate holdings over a $1M gets the nominal 2-3% property tax rate everyone outside of California enjoys.

Totally fair.

[traviscj]

Wouldn’t we just end up paying N rents to N partial owners, each of whom owned $249,999-sized parts of a given estate?

[Gibbon1]

> Not by parcel, total.

[TaylorAlexander]

In the Bay Area everything is $1m, so lots of regular people out here would see a huge tax hike.

[closeparen]

When you own a $1m home, you cease to be “regular.”

[Gibbon1]

One of my observations is that the cost of buying a house for most people has several components, capital costs, financing costs, taxes, and insurance. One assumes that if you increase property taxes that cuts into the amount that can be financed, which reduces the amount that can be financed, which means the price has to come down.

Difference between mortgage interest in a world of global finance and property taxes is property taxes pay for local services, where mortgage interest ends up who knows where. But it isn't paying for your communities roads, transit parks or schools, police and fire.