A more palatable argument is that it would create incentives to keep housing prices stable, rather than expecting a lifetime skyrocketing windfall at everyone else's expense.

The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman lives in a 900 sqft home bought in 1963, how is it her fault that the world went crazy and values it at $1,200,000+ today? Have you seen a 1963 house? They’re a fire hazard not worth 1.2M.. And yet, you want her owe tax on that crazy value, yet she is stuck with a static retirement income? Where should she go? Idaho?

I’m for increasing tax on income earners, but not on retired elderly who just want to die in peace. The younger generation could move to other geographies much easier

> The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman…

Proposition 13 does not target widowed elderly women; it only benefits property owners regardless of whether they are widowed elderly women. For example, widowed elderly renters are harmed instead of helped. If we wanted an entitlement for low-income and elderly people, we should have made one that targeted these groups instead of the one that only incidentally helps low-income people (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html)

The old lady made $1m in unearned value in her house. She can use a part of that value to pay taxes on the increase, live and die in the house, and her heirs still make free money.

It’s also unrealized. Maybe just tax on the sale or transfer.

Honestly the whole situation is a nightmare. I feel like whenever I think of a “solution” I just find problems with it.

> unrealized

She can borrow against it and easily afford property taxes for the rest of her life.

Unless she resorts to a reverse mortgage, it's surprisingly difficult to refi when you have no earned income. I have over 1M equity in my house but can't access it while unemployed (according to lenders I've contacted, including credit unions with whom I have 30+-year ties.)

Let's say property taxes are 2%. She's got a $1M house so thats $20k per year for the rest of her life. Is it really that hard to borrow $200k against a $1M house?

And then die me not pay back loans? Or what if there is a market downturn and now the lenders are stuck holding it? Maybe they don’t lend I’m the first place?

Lots of unknowns here.

Yes: Buy. Borrow. Die. It's how the wealthy skip taxes in the US.

Or, if she is seriously so destitute and financially illiterate that this is all too hard there are targeted programs in California for her: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html

The fact is that Prop 13 is just a handout to successful land speculators at the expense of everyone else.

It sounds like keeping housing prices stable rather than expecting/encouraging housing prices to skyrocket indefinitely at everyone else's expense would solve both problems, no?

I honestly think it has less to do with money than the younger HN community realizes. Older people don't like change, especially significant changes like moving. Most of the people who have been here for decades stay because it's their home and they have no where else to go. Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home.

Why are we bending over backwards to appease them though. Renters have to leave their residences all the time due to rental increases, often after being financially stressed to a limit. The home owners could at least take out credit against their property to pay for the taxes if they don't want to move. In fact I think that's a good thing! A large number of California home owners all needing large lines of credit backed by highly valued properties could devalue the properties or cause a crash.

> Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home.

The correct solution to address both the problem of growing property taxes (due to growing land values) and the housing shortage is to zone the lots to encourage growth, as promoted by Strong Towns (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g...), not to give a special tax break to long-time homeowners at the expense of renters and new homeowners. This would enable homeowners to pay the higher taxes without being displaced as well as serve more households.

non-primary residences as well as commercial properties are also covered by it. It's about wealth, not about keeping someone in their home.

I can get on board with amending non-primary residences and commercial properties.

I would argue that buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose). Anything else is basically the elimination of the concept of private property.

Kicking people out of their houses is not a sign of a healthy society.

You're confusing the "fee simple" notion of land tenure that we have in the United States with "allodial title" which doesn't happen anywhere anymore because it turns out that's a terrible way to run a society.

I'm not confusing anything, you just don't agree with my position.

> buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose)

That's simply not how it works in the United States. The government here is allowed to levy taxes on you for fencing off a portion of our land from other citizens.

so you support rent control below CPI?

No. I don't think the government should be manipulating the housing market directly like that.

I do think it should invest more in building low income houses and that zoning should mix incomes though. I think that would make for a healthier environment for everyone.