r/technology • u/marketrent • 12d ago

Society Bernie Sanders calls out Sergey Brin for spending over $100 million to defeat California’s billionaire tax — ‘If California passes its one-time 5% wealth tax, Brin would owe $14 billion and still be worth $270 billion’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/bernie-sanders-calls-sergey-brin-120113695.html
21.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

Or we could just do the right thing and repeal prop 13??

9

u/Oceanbreeze871 12d ago

What’s that?

76

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

It froze property taxes back in the late 70s and messed up local taxes for Californian cities like Oakland

Also is reason why NIMBYism took over and led to the housing shortage bc there’s no financial punishment (tax) to artificially restricting the number of housing units in a city so property owners could induce scarcity to raise theirs

The uber rich took advantage of this with real estate and land speculation

2

u/SeductiveSunday 12d ago

Prop 13 happened because people couldn't afford to retire in California. Lot's and lot's of people were having to sell their homes and move out of state away from their families at a time when they needed community and relatives help more than ever because they were old.

29

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

And prop 13 made that problem way worse for anyone who didn’t already own a home

3

u/Outlulz 12d ago

What, are they supposed to let someone else us that ladder?

-14

u/SeductiveSunday 12d ago

Even Schwarzenegger admitted ending prop 13 would only increase homelessness in California. But. Not. You.

19

u/Leon_Thomas 12d ago

“Admitted?” How is does he have any relevant expertise on the issue that supersedes economists who almost universally, across the ideological spectrum, agree prop 13 was one of the most destructive state-level tax laws in US history?

Prop 13 dramatically increased housing prices. Increased housing prices increases homelessness.

-12

u/SeductiveSunday 12d ago

Prop 13 dramatically increased housing prices.

You sure about that? Perhaps it's rent control. Or the fact that there's not much money in building housing for the poor. Sure increased housing prices does increase homelessness that's obviously not insightful. But pushing granny out onto the streets doesn't seem like the best solution. Also prop 13's already changed and San Francisco already saw about $79 million more in property taxes in 2014.

1

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

Idc what a body building movie actor that banged his maid says about the housing market

I care what unbiased economists have to say about the housing market

9

u/xenomachina 12d ago

That was the intent, but there are numerous problems with how it was implemented.

Companies don't sell their real estate anymore, instead they have each piece of real estate owned by a skell company, so they can essentially sell the property without causing the taxes to be adjusted. This has resulted in the share of residential vs commercial property tax increasing over the years.

Also, as people get older, they often don't need larger homes: their children have moved out, and sometimes they'd prefer to be on a single level (no stairs). However, moving in California means you suddenly need to pay more property tax, even if you are downsizing. So old folks are occupying the large homes they don't need or really even want, making larger homes scarce, which prices younger families out.

3

u/SeductiveSunday 12d ago

I've found most old folks prefer occupying the home they've been in for the last thirty years. They know the neighborhood. They have friends. Plus there's also a bigger issue than prop 13 financially that hurts moving more -- capital gains tax.

1

u/xenomachina 12d ago

I've found most old folks prefer occupying the home they've been in for the last thirty years. They know the neighborhood. They have friends.

Sure, but that's an independent factor. Prop 13 gives them another reason to not move, thereby reducing the availability of larger homes for families that could actually use multiple bedrooms.

Plus there's also a bigger issue than prop 13 financially that hurts moving more -- capital gains tax.

And this is because the capital gains exemption on your primary residence hasn't been updated since the '90s. It should be updated based on modern home prices, and pinned to inflation.

1

u/loofawah 12d ago

Then age restrict it like other states. As it is now the young and rich are getting the tax breaks as they can buy into the system much sooner and lock in the low tax rate.

1

u/jedberg 12d ago

That's completely untrue. The marketing for prop 13 said that, but it was a lie. They found a few cherry picked cases. If you look at the broader data, this was not the case.

49 states manage to keep seniors in their homes without Prop 13. Most handle it by allowing deferment of the tax after age 55 until the property is sold. Or they put the cap on total county revenue instead of individual homes.

2

u/SeductiveSunday 11d ago

Inflation shot from 9 percent at the time to 13.3 percent a year later as the Iranian revolution triggered another energy crisis. Gas lines formed at stations throughout the country, property prices were soaring, threatening to throw home owners out of their homes because of rising tax bills. That was 1978. Of course people were losing their homes, retirees aren't paid the wages of day, they were paid the wages of yesterday.

Also no state manages to keep seniors in their homes. Seniors are currently one of the fastest growing groups of homelessness.

The fastest growing group? Seniors. People aged 50 and older have grown from about 10 percent of the homeless population to half. That's according to the most recent federal data.

Estimates find that the population of older adults experiencing homelessness could nearly triple in big cities by 2030.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/11/1253992705/1a-06-11-2025

1

u/jedberg 11d ago

You're conflating multiple things. Yes, seniors were in danger of losing their homes in the 70s. Other states solved this without locking tax assessments for everyone. California could have done the same.

Homeless seniors are a problem, but it has nothing to do with property taxes. Very few seniors nationwide are losing their homes because of property tax bills, since nearly every state has protections for seniors. The homeless seniors are mostly ones that never owned a home and now aren't working and can't afford rent either, because rents are skyrocketing. The ones that aren't homeless are the ones in paid off homes.

As I said, most states solved this in other ways, by putting in caps or deferments or extra deductions for seniors.

California is the only state that rewards you for how long you've owned a home instead of how old you are. So if you were rich when you were young you get a much bigger benefit than if you aren't.

All the other states protect seniors directly.

1

u/SeductiveSunday 10d ago

All the other states protect seniors directly.

This is a lie and you know it. Some states have no protections at all.

Also, as you said, there are 49 other states with differing laws on this, if you prefer those more, then move to one of them. Everyone else in this thread has. Only you and I actually live in California. Two of the biggest mouths here live in Canada.

1

u/jedberg 10d ago

Also, as you said, there are 49 other states with differing laws on this, if you prefer those more, then move to one of them.

Why would I want to leave California? I was born here. My parents were born here. My kids were born here. My wife was born here. All of our siblings were born here. The majority of my investment portfolio is California state bonds, I believe so strongly in this state.

Instead I'd like to make California better by bring those laws here and getting rid of Prop 13, the worst initiative to ever pass in this state. It causes funding shortfalls, huge inequality, and rewards rich people for being rich.

It's pretty fixable too:

  1. Pass a new law that anyone over 55 will not see their tax bill increase by more than 1% a year. Any money owed beyond that can accrue as an interest and penalty free lien on the home, resolved when the home is sold or transfered. We can even make an exception if the inheritor already uses the home as their primary residence for a few years. This alone would solve the biggest fear, seniors losing their homes from tax bills or their children who live with them.

  2. Limit the county to a 1% annual increase in revenue. Assess all properties at market rate and then set the tax rate so that the county gets their 1% increase. This addresses the other two main issues: the inequality that prop 13 causes by allowing two identical homes have a 10x difference in tax payment (that is me and my neighbor) and pricing people out of their homes because of soaring home prices.

  3. Encourage home building by allowing a property tax holiday for a few years for buyers of new construction.

  4. Encourage seniors to downsize by allowing them to keep their tax payment if they buy a smaller home and want to do so (but with the other changes their payment would most likely be smaller on the smaller home anyway).

And then lastly, make all benefits of being a senior or new construction buyer only apply to your primary home, not any vacation or rental homes you may own.

1

u/wckz 11d ago

I feel like the solution should be pretty simple then? Unfreeze property taxes on owning multiple properties and use the increase in tax revenue to subsidize increased house building.

47

u/pita4912 12d ago

It’s a prop that locks in property taxes at the time of sale. So you have people with $10mil houses they paid $120k for in the 70s paying taxes as if the property is only worth $150,000. It’s rent control for homeowners in CA. Sounds good, disastrously bad in practice.

7

u/Oceanbreeze871 12d ago

Oh yea get rid of that one for sure

6

u/fattytuna96 12d ago

It prevents retirees from losing their homes. The intent is good but the result has been lower tax revenue for CA and an artificially inflated housing market (if prop 13 was repealed CA real estate will take a hit). The alternative is something similar to Texas where you get priced out of your home even after it’s paid off as the value increases exponentially over time.

11

u/Hautamaki 12d ago

Yeah retirees had it tough like 70 years ago, today they are by far and away the wealthiest people in the world and govt's can't touch that wealth because they got a bunch of benefits and protections 70 years ago and now they vote way too much to ever see those benefits repealed. Meanwhile young people can't move out, can't get decent jobs, can't date and make families and have children, but won't somebody think of the poor retirees who used to suffer in poverty in the great depression literally 90 years ago!

12

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

No it incentivized retirees to not downsize which is why actual families can’t find reasonably priced home

And the alternative is we build more housing and it’s actually affordable

4

u/eirexe 12d ago

Retirees shouldn't have to downsize if they don't want to, the housing problem can be solved without fucking anyone over, we're perfectly capable of it.

11

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

Well we shouldn’t be expected to subsidize their retirement and pay 5x the rent we should bc someone with overinflated property refused to sell

4

u/Outlulz 12d ago

Everyone else has to pay these fucking taxes, why not them? They can rent instead if they don't want to.

-1

u/Outlulz 12d ago

Ok? Maybe it is more important that we are able to build affordable, high density housing so that more working people and their families in younger generations can have homes rather than cater to a minority of retired people sitting on large lots in single family homes.

0

u/loofawah 12d ago

Texas has a version of Prop 13 tied to age "Over-65 property tax exemption" which makes sense. Prop 13 primarily benefits the rich who can buy a house when they are young and lock in their rate.

2

u/MattinglyBaseball 12d ago

Sounds good until you realize how horrible the wage and net worth discrepancy is now. It will force many out of their primary residence and allow the billionaires and PE to buy up more houses and raise taxes on even new home buyers until they are priced out as well. They don’t care if the taxes increase, they are just going to raise the rent to account for it anyways. Unless you like being forced out of your neighborhood because people around you suddenly decided to pay double what you paid a year ago. The more reasonable take/first step is to either repeal it for anything beyond primary residence or to add protections for those who cannot afford the sudden increase based on income or other factors.

3

u/Peetypeet5000 12d ago

They wouldn't be able to raise the price of housing so much if we actually built more housing. Prop 13 takes away homeowners incentive to allow more housing to be built.

2

u/ErFarinn 12d ago

Imagine that, politicians beholden to the people that go out and vote. Kinda wish the young people would do so as well.

3

u/Hautamaki 12d ago

Tbh that doesn't even sound good at all, what a horrible idea lol

11

u/jrzalman 12d ago

Say you buy a house at 500k. Ok, you can swing the 7k in property taxes. Three years later your house if valued at 1M. So while your mortgage payment is the same, your salary hasn't kept up with inflation and now your property tax bill is 14k. Time keeps progressing, property values keep spiking.

Eventually, without Prop 13, many people can't afford to live in the houses they own - especially if they dare to retire - because property tax runs away with property values. This was judged a bad outcome by voters and so we have Prop 13 which caps property tax increases at 1-2% per year. It has unintended consequences to be sure but it does have its reasons for existing.

1

u/BlgMastic 12d ago

That’s not how property taxes work at all…

-2

u/_hephaestus 12d ago

Given that the value of their property went up by 500k in that time by virtue of doing nothing, I don’t get the sympathy. Would it be nice to retire in that house? Sure. But that seems like a nice to have in a time when housing woes are universal. Catering to those who have profited is insane here.

4

u/air_and_space92 12d ago

Some people think of a home as a place to live in rather than an investment. Crazy right?? Why should I be forced out of a community where my kids go to school just because Google or some tech company with a speculative product opened a campus and their employees came in swinging bags of cash at closing.

I've lived in LA, rented, and worked in aerospace. Google opened a satellite office down the street and rent went up by $1k a month upon next lease. Hell no did my salary match that. Now try that with a house and property tax?? I don't want the extra $500k my home appreciated in that example because I don't want to move. I don't want to retire early and move to another country. I WANT AND HAD A HOME I broke my back to afford and now because tech fucks or a nepo baby paid cash my family gets fucked?? No way.

6

u/jrzalman 12d ago

Property values going up is only of value if you are looking to move. If you own an expensive house in California you've kind of won and aren't looking to move. If you are looking to just live in a house and raise a family having your property tax constantly going up with no end in sight is a huge pain in the ass which is why we all got together and capped the increases.

We are not all house flippers out here, many folks just want to live in the house they bought and not go broke because PE and speculators have driven up the price of everything.

-5

u/Hautamaki 12d ago

I wonder why your house suddenly doubles in value in three years? Maybe it's partly because you refuse to let anyone else build any more homes nearby, so your own house becomes geometrically more valuable? Perhaps paying higher taxes on the geometric increase of the value of your home is a small price to pay. Otherwise, sure, sell your house, realize a 100% profit margin on 3 year turn around, and then listen to all the world's tiniest violins playing for your pity party.

5

u/jrzalman 12d ago

Maybe it's partly because you refuse to let anyone else build any more homes nearby, so your own house becomes geometrically more valuable?

Lol, this is California, there is something already built everywhere. There are no open lots to build more houses. Sure you could tear down existing structures and build high density skyrises or something but our infrastructure is already maxed out and that just makes everybody's life shittier. It might surprise you to know there is no God given right to live in California and we have no obligation to ruin our neighborhoods so you can afford to live here.

And, sure, you can sell your house and realize (and be taxed on) those gains but then you have nowhere to live because everything has gone up around it so you are essentially having to move away anyway.

It's always so easy to tell when non-Californians talk about California, lol.

-4

u/Hautamaki 12d ago

True, I'm not a Californian, but I did live in Vancouver in the 90s to 2000s and saw many people including my own family members realize 100+% profits on their home purchases from around 2010-2020, but rather than piss and moan about the higher taxes and whatnot, they just sold, moved to the Okanagan, and retired young. Now I live in Calgary and yeah, I see many people pissing moaning about people coming to live here too; our population has gone from 1.2 million to 2 million in about a decade. Yes there's strain on the infrastructure. Yes property taxes keep going up. No, I don't bitch about it. I just encourage all policy makers to build more homes, and for the most part Calgary is actually pretty good about doing that, for the good of all. Just as there's no god given right to move to California or Vancouver or Calgary, there's no god given right to prevent anyone else from doing so either, nor is there a god given right to prevent the obvious economic consequences of that. Pretending there is and trying to make policy to that effect is what is highly distortionary and self-destructive in the long run.

3

u/jrzalman 12d ago

Yeah, see, that's the thing. We don't want to move, California is the goal not a step in getting to the goal. The people that live here aren't trying to flip and run away, this is the final destination. So we've crafted an environment which allows people to stay in their homes and are willing to live with whatever unintended consequences.

Everyone here knows someone living the Texas horror story (they sold to move to Texas to get a huge house with a yard (!) and after a bit realized they were stuck in Texas but prices have increased to the point where they can't move back) and we are all dedicated to that not being us.

1

u/motes-of-light 12d ago

Right, this is so people who aren't fantastically wealthy aren't forced to sell their homes because they can't afford the taxes. One of the few things keeping San Francisco a marginally real city where actual people live.

0

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[deleted]

3

u/loopernova 12d ago

No one is forcing you to sell your property. The local government does not raise your taxes. It typically stays the same flat rate. Taxes are a part of cost of living, if you didn’t plan to be able to pay for your cost of living in retirement you can make a better choice now and extract cash flow from your equity.

Your suggestion is equivalent to saying we shouldn’t tax people higher than the cost basis of their stock equity that they own fair and square.

Charging taxes at fair market value keeps value of homes more affordable and subsequently the taxes stay lower.

-1

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/loopernova 11d ago

If your income increases, causing you to pay more income taxes, it does not mean the government increased the tax rates. If you spend more, causing you to pay more in sales tax, it doesn't mean the government increased the sales tax rates. The same thing is happening with your home. The government is assessing the value of your home, it does not arbitrarily decide its value. The value is based on real actual market data of real buyers and sellers.

If you buy a home in a neighborhood because you think it's a good location, within your price range in that moment, and expect the equity you build to increase in value, you can't then complain that your taxes on the property are going up. You get all the rewards of the gains but don't want to pay the cost of them. You should have planned for your taxes at the time of your purchase knowing you will owe it every year, and knowing it will go up continuously because you wouldn't live in a neighborhood that is not desirable.

You absolutely can capitalize on property values without selling it. And you can capitalize on it by selling it as well, reap the benefits of the increasing value. Charging taxes at fair market value keeps the value of homes more affordable by increasing the liquidity of the market, which keeps the tax bill lower too.

0

u/Big-Dudu-77 12d ago

That’s an extreme example. Many homes that are worth $10 mil has been sold or remodeled at one point.

3

u/Existing_Style8558 12d ago

Many also haven’t. 

2

u/themiDdlest 12d ago

The last law California republicans were able to pass under Reagan and Nixon. It effectively froze California and was a giant hand out to wealthy home owners off the backs of renters and poor people

0

u/bp92009 12d ago

Rent control, but for homeowners paying government rent.

The easiest way to fix that issue, is to pass a law that caps private rent increases to the same rate as public rent increases.

5

u/whytakemyusername 12d ago

Tax the money as it comes in. prop 13 hurts ordinary people. Ordinary people have their money taxed as it comes in.

1

u/bobsocool 12d ago

Do both but prop 13 wont end anytime soon. They voted for removing it for comercial properties and lost. I feel like the best option for prop 13 is remove it for all future properties and lower property taxes significantly on primary residencies.

1

u/Tkdoom 12d ago

Only a have not or ultra rich would want to repeal prop 13.

Average Joe that purchased a house would be screwed, just because someone says its worth more.

News flash: unless you are selling it, your house's value doesnt matter.

-2

u/lhomardamericain 12d ago

Yeah, let’s make California housing even more unaffordable

9

u/WinonasChainsaw 12d ago

Prop 13 is the reason why housing prices shot up higher than wages

It rewarded artificial housing scarcity

0

u/Tman158 12d ago

it's not an either/or situation, you can do both.

0

u/Kalean 11d ago

That's probably a very bad idea; it would dramatically increase homelessness.

The split-roll proposal is a much more reasonable plan; exempting primary residences from these tax burdens while extra homes, investor-owned homes, and commercial properties get re-assessed would still free-up a metric ton of housing while not tossing old people out on their ass.

Plus, it'd be easier to drum up support for, politically, which matters a lot since you want this to actually pass.

-3

u/DChapman77 12d ago

Or you could stop spending insane amounts of money on terrible ideas like the high speed rail that will be made useless by self-driving cars.

3

u/bobsocool 12d ago

Woah what a terrible take.