[dragonwriter]

> The alternative is to kick people out right after they finish paying their mortgages and have retired.

False dichotomy much? If there was actually a problem with that happening under the preexisting tax policy (there wasn’t, really, on any significant scale, and if there had been there would be less now just from the improvement in the range of financial vehicles to let people access equity in their home, which is the source of the supposed risk) it would have been easy to solve it without either:

(1) Prop 13’s low fixed nominal property rate for all property (not limited to owner-occupied residential, or even residential property), or

(2) Prop 13’s limit on assessment increases without sale or other qualifying event on all property (not limited to owner-occupied residential, or even residential property), or

(3) Prop 13’s requirement for a 2/3 vote of the state legislature on any bill that includes an increase of any non-property taxes (even if it was a revenue neutral or negative shift), or

(4) Prop 13’s requirement that special local taxes be referred to public ballot with a 2/3 vote of the electors required to pass.

How? Simply by adopting an income-based limit on property taxes on an owner-occupied primary residence.

> You have to go back to Gov.Gray Davis disastrous handling of the state pension funds that has led to staggering unfunded pension liabilities.

California public pension funding has been improving and is around the national average funding ration (71.9% in 2019 vs. 71.3% nationally.) [0]

> The California Pension system is way under water and in dire need of reform. The state’s unfunded pension and retirement liabilities approach $1 trillion

They don’t and never have (even the source you directly cite claims only $241 billion at the time, which is very much not approaching $1 trillion); more recently the total liabilities are around 2/3 of that $1 trillion claim ($660 billion), and the unfunded share less than 1/5 of that ($185 billion). [0]

[0] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...

[jelliclesfarm]

I refuse to get into prop 13 debate with you. I am sorry but I didn’t read your reply. I don’t think taxing unrealized gains is fair. I am saving us both time and bandwidth by not engaging with you on this. Thanks.

[dragonwriter]

> I don’t think taxing unrealized gains is fair.

Taxing assets isn’t taxing gains, realized or not.

Flows vs. stocks.

(You might also object to asset taxes, but that is a fundamentally different thing than taxes on unrealized gains.)

[jelliclesfarm]

can you give an example of taxable assets?

ex: i bought a tractor and i will be making payments for 60 months. i paid the required taxes on it at the time of purchase and that is included in the loan repayment. i can depreciate the tractor as a fixed asset. i can claim deductions for repair/maint/service. the tractor is useful and still working even after i pay off the loan. after 60 months, i am not expected to pay a tax for it. even though i have no more payments and i still use the tractor to farm to generate income.

the realisation requirement is the fundamental rule of the IRS. asset appreciation is deferred up until realisation. the quality of life doesnt improve in an old house. if there are improvements made to the building, the assessment changes and the tax amount will change too. california increases property taxes by a capped percentage every year. it is govt spending that has gotten out of control and this spending is not always for the benefit of the tax payers in california. so perhaps thats where the fault lies.

if you change the IRS rules in this regard, the entire economy would become unstable and collapse. the problem is that CA govt spending is bloated and there is no accountability. there is a lot of money. the state is highly taxed. we are not asking enough questions and instead targeting the weakest participant because its the easiest and laziest thing to do.

[dragonwriter]

> can you give an example of taxable assets?

Real property in most US jurisdictions; cars in several US jurisdictions (though this is sometimes obscured.by opaque terminology; e.g., California has “registration fees” that are, in effect, an ad valorem asset tax on automobiles); net personal wealth in several international jurisdictions.

> the realisation requirement is the fundamental rule of the IRS

That's income taxes (on gains), not property/asset taxes (on value).

One is a flow tax, the other a stock tax.

[NoRagrets]

Exactly. There is a realization requirement for tax on value of asset class like property especially if it’s primary residence.

Registration fees is akin to use tax.

Seizure of agency over assets and dissolution of property rights is what happens in communist regimes and dictatorships.

[dragonwriter]

> There is a realization requirement for tax on value of asset class like property

No, there isn't.

Realization is what the IRS uses as the taxable income event for taxes on capital income (gains).

It is not, in any of the US jurisdictions that tax assets (real property or otherwise) a requirement for taxes on asset value, and doesn't begin to make sense for such taxes (one purpose for which, in some theories of tax on “hard” assets like real property, is motivating sale of idle assets to those who will productively employ them.)