|
|
|
|
|
|
by tjpd
2132 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of this proposal but I think this line of argument is pretty flimsy and pretty specious. In the Bay Area you're already subject to a form of wealth tax called property tax. And it's substantial. If you live in San Francisco you'll get charged 1.1801% every year [1] on the value of your wealth (property). If I bought a house in SF and live for another 60 years I would be taxed 60 times on that same asset. Does that mean the government will over the course of my life take 33.6% of my house? It's not as if property tax has kept a damper on Bay Area house price inflation. [1] https://sftreasurer.org/property/understanding-property-tax |
|
|
No, it's not
> If you live in San Francisco you'll get charged 1.1801% every year [1] on the value of your wealth (property).
That might be the average amount of taxes on real property, but it's not the rate of property tax. That's capped at 1% of the tax basis value, which grows at a capped rate excluding sales and certain other qualifying events. There are also Mello-Roos assessments, but those are per-parcel not as-share-of-value taxes.
> If I bought a house in SF and live for another 60 years I would be taxed 60 times on that same asset.
At a declining rate, because property value tends to increase much faster, on average, than California allows tax assessment value to increase.
> It's not as if property tax has kept a damper on Bay Area house price inflation.
Property tax assessment increase limits have accelerated it because they discourage sale of property.