Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
We know we're treading in slightly dangerous territory here -- while we're fairly sure a good chunk of our readership are homeowners (condo, single-family, multifamily, whatever), we know an even larger chunk are not, and could care less about the burdens of homeownership, predatory mortgage-ship, and property tax increase-ship.
But for those of you that this applies to (or those of you thinking about owning property in the future), consider this a bit of a PSA.
Property owners should have all received their reassessment statements by now. Prop 13 will only let the city increase its valuation of your property for tax purposes by 2% -- but should you let them take even that much in a down market (understatement? perhaps; we'll leave that to the experts)?
Point is, you might want to think about contesting your reevaluation. What not everyone knows is that you have until Sept. 19th to contest it -- go to the city assessment appeals board's site for explicit details. We're afraid that forms are indeed involved. But should the government make more money if your place isn't actually appreciating? Yeah. Thought not.
Picture from CBS 5.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I think you mean non-homeowners could "not" care less, not that they could care less, which would mean they do have a level of concern, but that level could be lower than it is.
I care, because property taxes pay for basic services including schools, police and fire, and more. Prop 13 was the nail in this state's coffin...and I know...because I was in public school when it passed. Kids in school are cheated out of an education and basic services because a bunch of greedy folks decided it was more important to pay less in tax than educate children, have safe neighborhoods, and pave streets. We are paying now for that greed.
So...before you (sfist) take a strident stand about property tax....think a bit....
#1 -- Ah, ya got me.
#2, good points, but this is not a strident stand against property taxes by any means. Sorry that you took it that way.
Let me put it this way: folks that have bought places in the past few years are probably paying more than they should in property taxes, as those properties have probably diminished in value. Now, your point is especially well taken for, say, a place bought in the 90s or earlier, the value of which probably FAR exceeds what that homeowner's paying taxes on. Those are the people that Prop. 13 allows to truly screw the system.
So I suppose you should appeal your assessment according to your own conscience.
are we sure that home prices didn't rise by at least 2% since last year?
That would seem to be the case according to the real estate blogs I read.
Thanks for the heads up, Jeremy.
Dear anonymous poster number 2:
The average property tax bill in SF is just under $10K per year. Please step forward if you would gladly like to pay an addition $10K on top of your State and Fed. If you don't want to do this, shut the f**k up. The greedy peeps are the renters who don't pay this yet still benefit from the services it pays for.
Before you start twatting on about something you obviosly don't pay...think a bit...
are we sure that home prices didn't rise by at least 2% since last year?
I think it's a case-by-case basis thing. Plus I don't trust blogs.
commercial interest should not benefit from prop 13, but regular folks like the rest of us here should. the only time anyone should be assessing the value of your house for taxation purposes is when it sells, not annually.
just common sense.
before you left wing nut jobs jump on me, i'd like to see any of you pay anything close to my 23k a year in property tax and not complain about it.
i am not. i'd feel a lot better about it if i could get one extra vote per 1k i pay for our municipal elections so i could drown out all you wind bags that have no idea what's important around here.
>are we sure that home prices didn't rise by at >least 2% since last year?
Home prices have not risen in the last year. The *median* price has gone up. That is because lower priced houses were selling in large bunches because of reduced standards in lending. Now they
have stopped selling because of tightening in the subprime lending standards. Higher end houses have still been selling because people in that end of the market are more likely to have larger amounts for down payments, credit history, income, etc...
So while a single house would probably sell for less than it would a year ago - the median home sales price has gone up simply because less lower priced houses have sold.
The evidence pointing to this - median price has gone up - but total number of sales has gone down.
Alright, I'm going to address the elephant in the room here. Has anyone ever had a property tax assessment that values their home anywhere near market price? Aren't they usually way off the mark anyway?
Non-homeowners can stil find plenty of reason to worry: Higher property taxes = higher monthly rent.
fizzandpop - Yes. And boy does it hurt.
mattymatt, I was just trying to figure out a way to present that exact sentiment (higher property taxes = higher rent) but I couldn't quite get the economics right in my head. Isn't the price of a rental determined more by supply and demand than the rental owner's actual cost? So that a dollar increase in property taxes doesn't necessarily result in a dollar increase in annual rent? And that a unit held off the market by rent control does more to increase monthly rental rates? Alright, I have a headache now.
And renters should enjoy fewer or different rights, or have less to say about where tax revenues are directed, than property owners in SF, correct?
It's values like those that created the current conflict. And it's not much different from whining about the cost of parking when you own a car.
Of course, if we could only set our short sighted biases aside, we'd come around to seeing that property owners should rightly enjoy the right to unlimited profits... that's what made this country great, ain't it?
Uh, so property taxes should never go up when the market is up, but they should go down when the market is down? That makes ... no sense.
Yes, please, contest your property assessment but be prepared to pay for owning a home.
That's the deal, if you buy it, you need to be able to support it. Don't buy an expensive car if you can't afford the expensive maintenance, etc.
Also, make a note, that the renters should be paying enough to cover the mortgage on the building, yet the owners get the tax break on interest payments, etc.
Suckafree: Based on a tax rate of 1.135%, your 23k in taxes means your house has been assessed at over $2 million, I'm not sure why you expect sympathy from all us peons who can't tell "what is important around here" since we're too busy busting our humps to afford rent and will never be able to buy a house in SF.
i think it's hilarious how people did not mind huge increases annually in their property values for years. Now it's only going up about half as much, and somehow people are "losing value."
Bogus. if you own in SF, you're not going to be a victim of the crashing values affecting Middle Loserville, America. You will always sell your house at a price ABOVE WHAT YOU PAID.
What's really funny is that despite all these skyrocketing values, local governments are not allowed to reap any benefit , limited to 2% a year. So now we have to depend on the state of California for money, which as we all know has done wonders for local control of services.
Renters always pay higher taxes when the rents go up due to property taxes. Wealthy people who own 2 million dollar houses don't deserve any more say than anyone else. It's called democracy and one PERSON one VOTE. If you don't like it, move to the third world and buy a gated home. Otherwise try persuading the rest of us with something besides "F*ck all you renters and people who don't subscribe to my views 100% and are not in lock step with me and think like me, because it's about me me me."
jwb -- Let's get the semantics out of the way.
The rate of taxation is not what we're talking about, we're speaking merely of the current valuation of a property.
SO: The question at hand is: when the value of my property decreases, should I have to pay taxes on that value (or at least the same value as last year) for tax purposes -- rather than an automatic 2% increase assumption?
Yes, property taxes should go up when the market is up (or, more specifically, the property in question goes up in value). Silly me for believing the opposite holds true as well.
yes slappy, i presume you don't know what's good for you as you don't own a 2mm property, sorry. i presume that i do, and here's what it is. i want you to be able to live somewhere where you won't get shot at or robbed daily. where you can walk your dog, raise your kid and not have to teach them to avoid the discarded needles on the street or in their sandbox at the park. i want you to be able to send your kid to the public school down the street that they can safely walk to without getting molested or run over by a bike messenger or a car or muni. i want your kid to be able to apply to and get into any school they want, granted they applied themselves well in school and studied hard vs playing nintendo all day.
is that wrong?
do you agree that should be our priorities?
or are you one of the renters on this board that thinks the current state of the haight and golden gate park is charming?
So typical of greedy landlords to limit their property taxes with Prop 13 but begrudge renters the protections of rent control.
When it comes to wealthy property owners no amount of government welfare is too much when it goes to them, but when people are evicted in mass numbers then government intervention through constitutional laws and rent control is an abomination perpetrated by free loaders.
If you bought property in California anytime within the last 10 years you're gonna find out how dumb a person can be speculating in over priced assets, brought to you in part through your favorite government welfare program for the rich, prop 13.
Dear anonymous guest #20: Did you huff too much glue sticking the CRASS patches to your jacket?
Well, the former doesn't hold true in California. Property values go up and up and up some more, but taxes don't track. So why should they track on the downside?
The economic end of this discussion is way over my head; but I can offer this anecdote:
I'm good friends with my landlord. And when we talk about the house, it's clear that when his costs go up, he only has one way to recoup them: raising the rent. He doesn't WANT to raise rent -- keeping the price low and competitive is better for attracting good tenants -- but he has to pay the mortgage somehow.
Slappydafrog sez... " the renters should be paying enough to cover the mortgage on the building, yet the owners get the tax break on interest payments, etc."
This is absolutely untrue. If one were to purchase a house in San Francisco right now, and rent it out, you would be lucky to cover 50% of the mortgage/taxes/insurance. There is still value to owning something and renting it out, certainly, due to tax benefits and appreciation, but owning a rental in SF is far from a cash cow.
guest says "Renters always pay higher taxes when the rents go up due to property taxes."
Again untrue. Rent is set by supply and demand - period.
guest also says "if you own in SF, you're not going to be a victim of the crashing values affecting Middle Loserville, America. You will always sell your house at a price ABOVE WHAT YOU PAID."
Absolutely untrue. If I could be promised this, I would be buying as many homes in SF as possible, on margin, and I would be a billionaire many times over. And there would be no subprime mortgage crisis now because lenders would be happily lending more money to people without any resources or even a job, because the loan would be collateralized by property that can only magically appreciate.
Note - I am a renter in SF. I used to own in SF. I decided to sell because frankly, renting was a better deal than owning around here, I took my money and put it elsewhere.
The vilification of people who own homes astounds me.
I also think Prop 13 is very very bad for California. But it's an amusing conundrum. Many posters on this board would go nuts if some 87 year old renter had their rent raised beyond what they could afford on their fixed income. But if an 87 year old property owner had their property taxes raised beyond that they could afford on their fixed income - screw them!
That was the theoretical point of Prop 13, I would argue that the state needs the ability to raise taxes locally for schools and the like, and if you want to be a homeowner you should plan accordingly knowing that you will continue to pay increased property taxes over your lifetime - this may include the need for a reverse mortgage late in life.
Murph
First: renters DO pay property taxes(unless my landlord, who doesn't have a job other than sitting around and owning rental properties his daddy gave him has some other source of income than MY RENT MONEY. We renters pay the tax...we just don't receive the benefits of owning property.
Second: Anyone dumb enough and rich enough to buy a 600K one bedroom condo in SF during the absurd bubble deserves what they get. Think of this as a Darwinian correction...The world becomes a very dangerous place when too many people who are rich are also dumb. This "correction" is a way of bringing morons a bit closer to an economic notch that better reflects their intellectual properties.
It is just brainless to think that your property taxes can be frozen when property values go up, but when property values go down you get a nice tax break.
JWB sez: Well, the former doesn't hold true in California. Property values go up and up and up some more, but taxes don't track. So why should they track on the downside?
So, let me get this straight -- you think people that didn't buy before the boom should be punished? Because that's exactly that you are saying: "screw you for trying to own property in an inflated market."
Prop 13 is the very reason they don't track on the upside; I can understand if folks have a problem with that. What I can't comprehend is the shortsightedness of someone believing that a property owner should pay the city taxes that are based on more than the market says a property is worth.
The system isn't going to let anyone reassess the value of their property without a change of ownership -- the system merely allows you to contest the AUTOMATIC 2% raise. And that's what folks should do if they honestly believe their property is not appreciating.
Nobody's "tracking down," best case scenario in a tax sense is treading water.
Boo fucking hoo. As a property owner, you're already at a good advantage over a renter in terms of taxation. You can claim mortgage interest as a deduction on your federal income taxes at least. With that in mind, where would your money go if you weren't paying it in property taxes? Hmm... federal income taxes maybe? If you don't believe me, have a real CPA look over your taxes (no, not one of the droids at H&R Block or the like).
Fact is, nobody really likes paying taxes, but they're more or less a necessary evil. The whole myth that there's so much waste, abuse, and fraud in the government that we can just shift things around and poof have all sorts of money for new projects is just that... a myth. That myth has landed us in the mess we're in today with the state budget. There's so little discretion, everything suffers, and everyone's stuck arguing for months over trivial details.
Do I feel much sympathy for Bay Area home owners? Nope. Has your salary adjusted downward? Doubt it. Has inflation magically stopped? Ha. Take a look at Warren Buffet. Buffet made the point that he paid more in property taxes on his Nebraska house than he did on the comparatively posh Laguna Beach house.
Want a thoughtful analysis on Prop. 13? Read Peter Schrag's Paradise Lost.
guest #25 - I find it amusing you are calling other people dumb.
Again - renters do not pay property tax. They pay RENT. RENT is determined by the market - not by the cost of the asset. There are certainly renters in this city whose rent does not cover property taxes, insurance, and maintainance on the home - not making a dent in the mortgage.
Second - the people buying the 600k one bedroom condo during the bubble might certainly be dumb - but probably not rich. Note that many of them are now facing foreclosure. If they were rich - why can't they make the payments? If they were rich - why didn't they actually put more than 0% down when they bought the condo? Because they are *not* rich - by most any standard. And those morons will end up on the same economic notch as they will just declare bankruptcy. The rest of us will foot the bill one way or the other.
Murph
Murph: maybe if they're facing foreclosure, they just can't afford to buy a house in the Bay Area. Given the popularity of these asinine sub-prime mortgages being hawked a few years ago (interest only, stupidly short terms, etc, etc) it's hard to believe even a few thousand dollars a year would make the difference between sustenance and foreclosure.
Prop. 13 is bad for California, period. However, this does not mean that limits on property taxes as a whole are bad. Take a look at how other states handle the issue.
Properly differentiating between commercial and residential real estate would be a first step (for some). This would allow the same (overly restrictive, IMO) limits on property tax increases to remain on residential property so granny wouldn't loose her home.... and at the same time this would allow us to properly tax commercial property (instead of allowing commercial properties to remain with the 'same' owner for some asinine period of time).
Another thought would be to allow for exemptions and/or deferrals based on your level of income. Right now, in California, your only excuses are pretty much age or disability.
Yet another thought would be to abolish the 2/3rds requirement in favour of a simple majority.
There are lots of things that *can* be done, but until Californians get over the whole "ZOMG taxes are evil, tax everyone else, I shouldn't have to pay for anything" mentality nothing will be done. Look at Ahnold. As expected, he got accused of trying to drive granny out of her home when he proposed Prop. 13 reform. Look at the Democratic candidates for governator in the last 'election'. ZOMG we would *never* touch Prop. 13, anyone who would is simply trying to tax the retired folk.
California has one of the lowest property tax rates in the country - the only states that have lower rates are Hawaii, Louisiana, Alabama, and West Virginia. Hawaii makes its money off tourists, those other states aren't exactly known for the quality of their public services.
For example, as a consequence of our unwillingness to pay fair property taxes (aka Prop 13), California's public school system has plummeted from amongst the top 5 in the nation to the bottom 5.
You get what you pay for.
Here's some information (although given the quality of this conversation, I suspect very few will bother to read it)
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf
http://www.caltax.org/research/prop13/prop13.htm
http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=76984&subContentID=105281
Yes, property taxes should go up when the market is up (or, more specifically, the property in question goes up in value). Silly me for believing the opposite holds true as well.
Jeremy, the taxed value doesn't go up (at least not to the degree that the actual value goes up). That was the whole intent behind Prop. 13. Property prices shot up in the 70s, and people said "ZOMG I can't pay those taxes".
Why should the taxed value of the house track the actual value any closer on the downward slope? If you wanna knock off at most 2% of the taxed value, you've got my support.
Murph: In this market, any one who buys a property to make it in to rental would be an idiot. If a rental property can't pay for itself than it is a bad investment.
Suckafree: The logic of your "argument" escapes me, somehow my being in favor of people paying their fair share in taxes equates to my enjoying how scummy parts of the Haight are?
Services cost money. The money government spends comes from taxes. If you want services, you need to pay for them. Pretty simple concept. If your assessment went down, your taxes should go down, if your assessment went up, your taxes should go up. Seems like a pretty simple concept to me.
Prop 13 will be seriously amended or changed when ... how about never? Is never a good time?
Seriously, there is really no point in arguing about how to fix Prop 13, because the state's voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected such changes. It's horrible public policy, but we have to live with it. That means if you're a buyer since about 2003, you really should check your assessment, because not only are you paying 4-5x what your neighbor is paying, you may also possibly be paying too much on your assessed value.
Wow, #32, with an attitude like that it's no wonder people don't listen to you. Try a little less "snooty" next time. Even so, good links and thanks.
I'm glad the scope of the argument has increased here in comments. I'm also glad it appears the vitriol is largely directed at those whose properties are massively undervalued for tax purposes due to Prop 13. I still say that's no reason to punish those who are paying a fair property tax, one that reflects the true value of their property. (i.e., those I directed the above post at.)
#33 -- That's pretty much my opinion; thanks for your support. In fact knocking off 2% would be generous; I'm just looking to countermand the automatic increase when one isn't merited.
AJ -- thanks for breaking it down so succinctly.
"...Prop 13 is the very reason they don't track on the upside; I can understand if folks have a problem with that. What I can't comprehend is the shortsightedness of someone believing that a property owner should pay the city taxes that are based on more than the market says a property is worth..."
The same logic you use that property taxes should not go up when property values go up is the logic I use that property taxes should not go down when property taxes go down.
By the way, who was evicted to empty the property you purchased???
sorry slappy. i thought you were going to attack me for being a dumb property owner and asking for some accountability in what they spend my money on every year. ie. anything other than the homeless and needle exchanges.
Uh, look people. 2% tax increase is not even tracking inflation. If you bought a condo at the top of the market with an exotic loan, I frankly do not have any sympathy for you. You participated in an asset inflation bubble that has made it so only the top 3% of San Francisco earners can afford to buy. If property taxes did not take advantage of that asset inflation, then those revenues would simply have to come out of some other place, like wages, or sales taxes. Is that what you want?
Face the fact that the only reason your property is valuable is because it is in this city, and pony up for your share of the road paving and policing.
Dear Progressives: Don't forget that porperty tax is deducatable against Fed tax. So all these "Wealthy Homeowners" are in effect diverting money away from King George and his madcap schemes and into schools and cops in the city. But hey, carry on living in your dreamworld and supporting death overseas, the raping of our environmental laws and all those wonderful faith-based innitiatives I know you wholeheartedly support.
WOW. Can editors at sfist really afford to purchase property in SF?????
The same logic you use that property taxes should not go up when property values go up is the logic I use that property taxes should not go down when property taxes go down.
Who said anything about a decrease?
By the way, who was evicted to empty the property you purchased???
Your mom? Is that why you're so pissed off? No need for stupid pot shots, dude.
No, actually, we bought our condo from a lovely couple that had lived in the place since about 1992, so I guess they "evicted" themselves. We bought it for a fair price (difficult in this city, but we were patient), and I'm more than happy to pay the value on that fair price that I paid, at a level commensurately increasing with market value. I don't know why so many are projecting a false fantasy that anybody with a property and concerns about the taxes on it is trying to do something nasty or unfair -- the system itself allows you to contest the automatic reassessment. Then somebody in the government has to make a decision -- government in action. They approve or deny it. Huzzah. Everybody wins.
Oh, and #43 -- that's a great question. If you haven't heard, most people in the -ist system are volunteers. We do it because we love you.
(in other words, most of us have real jobs too)
jeremy - the flaw in your "logic" is big enough to drive a semi through.
yes, under the current system (which is the system we all have to live in), it is not fair to let homeowners get out of the 2% automatic increase. why? because what you are essentially aruging in favor of is a tax increase cap with no floor.
say the "market value" of a home bought two years ago has in acutality gone down in value and you get it reassessed marked down as such. its quite possible the reassesment will lower the tax assessed value by more than 2%. what that means is that when prices go up again, which they will, said property is not going to be reset to the market value. instead, it gets to go up only 2%, which could very well be less than what it had been marked down from. thus, you get to lock in an assessed value lower than what you paid merely due to short term market fluctuations
at the end of the day, it is fundamentally unfair to the PUBLIC (to whom the tax is owed) to grant a specific class of the taxpayers(i.e. homeowners) an absolute cap on tax increases while at the same time granting them an option on the floor to reduce their assessed value whenever its advantageous to do so. either properties get marked to market on both ends (ceiling and floor) or neither. anything else is fundamentally unfair.
most states, by the way, periodically (once a year or less frequently) reassess property to market value. california's system is the one that is completely out of whack. i've never met a set of people as completely greedy and self-centered as californians. landowners in this state are blessed to own land in on the longest stretch of blue chip coastline in the country - a veritable guarantee that owning land here will leave one wealthier in a relatively short period of time - than almost anywhere else in the country. and then they have the temerity to bitch about it as if its a burden on the order of the trials of Job.
china,
you are confusing an annual challenge to a property tax bill basis and a base year (year you bought) adjustment which the city never approves. they make you appeal the tax every year and they can deny it whenever they feel like the market has come back.
All I know is that I have been a renter in San Francisco for over 20 years.
Most anywhere else, I would have bought a home, but the last time I looked seriously at something to buy in SF, the monthly portion of the property taxes alone were more than my current rent.
chinanob, the problem is that NEW owners pay far more than their fair share relative to long term owners. So new owners HAVE to challenge the assessments, to pay something closer to their fair share.
sarahell -
In regards to rent not being determined by the value of the asset, you seem to view landlords as as stupid as other commenters view the bubble-buyers. A landlord is generally going to set rent based on his/her expenses for the property. As far as tenants' rent not making a dent in the mortgage, perhaps the landlord paid too much for the bulding?
************************************
Landlords are free to do so, but if they don't get a tenant, then the house will sit empty. They then have the choice to rent out for less than their inflow, let it sit empty, or to sell the property. I am not accusing anyone of buying an asset that has negative return.
I own a house at Lake Tahoe. I have never covered my mortgage/expenses from my rent collections. Nonetheless this was the best investment I have ever made in my life. While the property has cash flowed negatively, the tax consequences and appreciation have made it a huge win. Later on, as rents increase and my mortgage does not, it will cash flow positive. Landlords just getting into the business with a new property will often cash-flow negative in return for a later positive return on an asset that is appreciating over time to begin with.
People always discuss the mortgage interest deduction, for a landlord the big value is being able to depreciate the value of an appreciating asset to produce huge tax losses. I will never claim that the tax code does not favor those who have managed to accrue assets. It definitely does.
Nonetheless, I have always set my rents to what I think will maximize my revenue stream - never based on my fixed costs. The only impact my costs have on what I charge in rent is that I will always charge enough to produce a profit vs. my variable costs - it doesn't make sense to collect less than it costs to run the heat for the week.
If I raised the rent, I'd never have tenants.
AJ: bzzt. wrong.
Hey redseca2 --
I think you are making the right call. I would do the exact same were I in the same situation.
dearest stupidfree: i am perfectly aware that the "Decline in Value" appeal for a changed assessment is only good for one year and must be re-filed every year.
what i am saying is that the policy that allows even that is fundamentally unfair as the system basically prefers one set of taxpayers (i.e. homeowners) over the general class of all taxpayers by granting homeowners an upside ceiling of 2% on their taxes while at the same time granting them an open option on the floor for whenever its advantageous to take advantage of.
I guess I'd also add that anyone who essentially overpaid for their property by using funny money really has to have a lot of gall to turn around and ask the rest of us to should the burden for their folly.
AJ - as for new owners paying more than old owners, well duh. that's the system under Prop. 13. Funny thing though, is that those "new" owners quickly become "old" owners with property taxes sheltered by statute and the costs of the protection passed onto the next round of "new" owners. course, you never see these "new" old owners complaining. funny how that works.
in a town where you basically have to be rich to own property, it is being suggested that the renters are the greedy ones?? I would gladly pay property taxes but guess what - my rent is almost 40% higher than the morgage and taxes combined that i used to pay than before i had to move to this area for a job.
suckafree, there are many fine utopias across this country where you can find crime free neighborhoods and halfway decent schools, yet the median home price is something more like 150k and all us poor renters can afford housing and pay our taxes to do our civic duty for school and so forth. san francisco's problems with these issues aren't because renters aren't paying enough taxes, but rather due to a unique set of circumstances that makes this a nice place for homeless folks. personally i feel that addressing those circumstances with more aggressive policies rather than touchy-feely progressive stuff would go miles more towards changing the status quo. but that would probably just drive property values even higher.
Jesus ChinaNob (he, he), are you a f**king communist? Next you'll be telling us that we can't deduct our gambling losses because we split a pair of sevens against a 10 and statistically that was a stupid bet. Anyhow, the numbers you are talking about are so insignificant it would only take a dozen or so clued-in homeless people to decide to suck on SF's tit rather than Santa Monica's and the gains from your silly idea would be wiped out.
china is homeless
you aren't going to change his mind
besides, he smokes his own pole!
hey fizzandpop I hate to tell you this, but most people can in fact not deduct gambling losses.....
***..By the way, who was evicted to empty the property you purchased???***
***Your mom? Is that why you're so pissed off? No need for stupid pot shots, dude....***
Hey now Jeremy no need to get testy. It wasn't MY mom (but it was likely SOMEONE'S mom)
Yes, nobody can own property in this city unless someone else has been victimized in some way . . .
The level of selfishness you property owners exibit is astonishing considering the size of the government bailout it is going to take to save you from bankruptcy.....all you property owners can do is whine to the government when your ill advised business misadventure in surreal estate finally collpases. prop 13, increased FM conforming limits, billion dollar Federal Reserve mortgage company bail outs, higher interest rates, inflation.......why should people intelligent enought to avoid real estate scams care if you have a 2% higher property tax?????? Gawd you must be used to getting ripped off by now.....
If you own a condo in san francisco it is likely that somewhere down the line someone was evicted from their home. A few simple 'truth in lending' laws will stop San Francisco's eviction problems.
murphstahoe - I found your comment really informative.
Hey "guest 56" I hate to tell you this but if you can't find a way to deduct gambling losses you're just not trying hard enough.
And "guest 60" If you RENT an apartment in SF it's likely that somewhere UP the line (get it right, down the line means the future, up the line means the past, it's like stalegtites and stalagmites) anyway, if you rent an apartment in this city, some poor sucker got evicted years before from that very same place you call home. It's dog eat cat in this world. Put on your Reeboks man and tell me it ain't so.
SFist Jer made his ad revenue for the day from this post. Impressive!
You know folks, we can fix this whole mess by eliminating rent control. I guess it'll only be rich, rich yuppies in the city after that?
Boy there are a lotta haters on this blog. I thought i lived in a compassionate city.
Anyway, a big "Thanks!" to SFist for the timely tip. I appreciate getting this information when I still had a little time before the deadline.
Kisses everyone!! (and a big chillpill for ChinaNob).
Just check out the information pages closely -- there are indeed time commitments and fees associated with doing it . . . may ultimately prove to be not worth it. But more info is better than less.
Glad folks seemed to enjoy the discussion.
Speaking of fairness, how about all the renters who get tax benefits when revenue impacting propositions are passed?
When most bond propositions are passed, the landlord can't pass thru the new assessment costs. So it's basically a taxation without representation type of thing for the landlords.
Renters vote to pass the bonds without feeling the majority$ of the new financial burdens.
At least that's my understanding.
hey fizzandpop. guest 56 here. Could you elaborate a little more about how to deduct gambling losses??
Or if you just do your own taxes, lie, then hope you don't get audited. Simple.