🚀 go-pugleaf

 In article <309tip$it4@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Tyler R. Holcomb <tylerh@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Let's be clear.  Prop 13 (using purchase price for tax assessment )
>is a benefit *only* to owners who have experienced an unrealized
>captial gain - that is, those for whom forces "out of control" have 
>have raised their property values and directly
>enriched the owner.

Excuse me, but in one sentence you mention owners who have an unrealized
capital gain, and in another, you mention that the owners have been
"enriched". The two simply don't connect in this context, as the owner
has NOT been enriched until he/she sells the property in question,
and realizes the capital gain. The owner at that time will pay
capital gains according to those laws.

>Could you explain to me again why someone deserves a tax subsidy from
>my pocket because they have gotten richer?

Because they haven't. They're living in the same house whether it's
worth $50,000 or $300,000. The difference is ficticious until the
property is sold.

>About your [deleted] prop 13 defense: if the purchase price is the "correct"
>price, then why is there a provision in prop 13 that allows you to reduce
>you tax basis to market value if market value is less than  purchase price?

There needed to be something to offset the government's automatic
increase every year, that had my house assesed for $30,000 over the
appraisal for a refinance I got. It probably should be floored at the
purchase price.

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
	       University of California, San Diego
jlodman@ucsd.edu		             (619) 455-1500 x2627
	"It is better to be infamous than unknown" - Kerstin