[toast0]

It's kind of insane. But it's also kind of insane that when the housing prices double or triple, you can expect your property tax to go up quite a bit as well, which makes it hard to plan for the future.

I think if the value increase cap was raised (gradually) to something like 4-5% per year, you would still have assessed values trailing market values, but not by nearly as much. People could still make worst case projections of taxes to see if they could afford things.

Washington state has a different system, where the total property tax of each taxing jurisdiction can only increase by 1% each year (subject to exceptions and what not), and then that amount is apportioned to each property based on the assessed value. This provides a limit on government spending as CA prop 13 does, but it doesn't limit changes in tax on any individual homeowner; if your property becomes more relatively valuable than others in your taxing districts, your bill goes up and theirs goes down. Which I'm sure causes assessments to be a lot more contenious.

[cameldrv]

The solution is to let people run a tab with the government. Make the minimum payment the Prop 13 rate, but if there's a change in ownership, you have to pay back the difference plus a fair rate of interest.

This ensures that no one has to move because their home appreciated, but it also ensures that no one gets to pay taxes like their home never appreciated, but then pocket appreciation at sale time.

[danhak]

This seems like it might introduce a different perverse incentive for people to remain in their homes indefinitely even if they’d prefer to downsize / move. Might further exacerbate supply / demand issues.

[cheriot]

That's the status quo. People avoid moving because buying a house worth the same amount means paying far higher taxes.

At least with paying taxes on a sale then everyone is paying their fair share. It also reduces the incentive to vote in favor of a housing shortage.

[deepakhj]

You can allow people to carry it with them if they purchase another home. They should not be able to pass it to their children. It should also only apply to a primary residence. No investment properties or 2nd homes+.

[nathanvanfleet]

The problem is that there are so many people with locked in tax rates that the residents of san francisco has consistently prevented developments that would actually create relief for tax rates. But since their rates are locked they don't have any reason to ruin their view.

[xtiansimon]

> "...which makes it hard to plan for the future."

Let alone letting you retire in your home on a fixed income.