California Property Tax Exemptions For Solar Energy Systems Extended To 2025 76
New submitter DaveSmith1982 writes with word from PV Tech that A property tax exemption for solar power systems in California has been extended to 2025, following the passing of a bill as part of the annual state budget. Senate Bill 871 (SB871) was approved during the signing of the budget by governor Jerry Brown, which took place last week. The wording of SB871 extends the period during which property taxes will not be applied to "active solar energy systems," which includes PV and solar water heaters.
Property Tax? (Score:2)
Re:Property Tax? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but you only get reassessed when you buy/sell or add livable square footage. I don't pay property tax on my tank-less water heater.
For example: They didn't reassess me when I added a garage/workshop with more square footage then my shack.
Re: (Score:3)
If they think it adds to the value of the house in some way, yes. They'll grasp at every last penny they can in an effort for tax money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As they should, because those with the most property benefit the most from city infrastructure, police and fire services, and national defense. Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor people should pay more taxes to cover their benes then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
hey, nobody is forcing them not to hide in the bushes at the local park every night as a place to sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Benefits for the poor exist to keep the rich from facing Mr. Guillotine. Or, in America specifically, a communist revolution. In a rational society they'd also exist for the sake of helping keep the economy going by keeping demand up, but the remnants of market libertarian idealism are still sufficient to keep us from tackling the current crisis efficiently in that manner.
Peace and order only exist - an should only exist - as long as most people h
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't that many poor. And they are mostly incompetents, so revolutions run by them aren't a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
There's no way to determine who benefits the most. Our tax structure (not our society) is built on pretending to tax those who can pay more at a higher rate, but nobody believes it actually does that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one reason among many why taxes should be replaced with user fees whenever it's practical to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.
And that's how it should be, because the usual alternative is for urban areas to heavily subsidize th [streetsblog.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense. Those things would still be there regardless of if it was 3 properties or one worth $1000 or $1,000,000 each.
People with more expensive property do not use the fire department more or the police more just because it is more expensive. People with larger lots and bigger homes do not either.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the math if you don't believe me. Show your work.
Ask an insurance company whether more expensive properties are more expensive to insure than cheaper properties.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the math? What math, it's all the same. If the property has 1 mile road frontage or 10 feet, that 1 mile or road still needs all those services. If the property is valued at 10 dollars it still needs the same services as if the property is valued at 2 million dollars.
That's changing the goal post a bit isn't it? Taxes do not pay the insurance
Re: (Score:2)
But the cost of providing those services isn't the same. First, the probability of a forest fire is roughly proportional to the area of land, because lightning doesn't care. Second, people are more likely to steal from big, expensive house
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing a key point. the land does not disappear if one person owns 50 acres or if 50 people own 1 acre each right next to each other. It is still there and still costs the same. Like you said, lightning doesn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are missing a key point. If it costs a million dollars to protect a city block that contains 50 homes,
Re: (Score:1)
As they should, because those with the most property benefit the most from city infrastructure, police and fire services, and national defense. Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
Who told you that? Our society was built on the idea people should be free, meaning free from government, meaning free from politicians and muscular interests that could twist their arm to twist everyone's arm.
Re: (Score:3)
Who told you that? Our society was built on the idea people should be free, meaning free from government, meaning free from politicians and muscular interests that could twist their arm to twist everyone's arm.
Correct. It was built on exactly those things.
It will be destroyed on the idea that rights are given, not recognized. That responsibility is only for the rich. That freedom is only important till someone is offended. That making everyone have an equal amount of stuff trumps recognizing that everyone is equal. That government knows best and every person and every government is equally exceptional.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of ironic, since the story involves California, which has Prop 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
California needs to fix its property tax code (Score:1)
California is crazy. My dad bought in 1971 pays $600/year in property tax. Neighbors bought 25 years later the larger house next door pay about $6000/yr. The bonus is you can inherit the prop 13 property tax valuation with the property. This also holds for corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
What needs fixing?
The government has too much money already.
Re: (Score:2)
The market adjusts the values of these properties accordingly. It's part of the reason real estate is so expensive in CA (there are other reasons, but prop 13 contributes). The problem is that new buyers have to pay those inflated prices, usually with a mortage. So what? Think about it. If you're not swinging a smaller mortage and paying higher property taxes, you're paying more interest on your debt rather than paying higher property taxes. Thus, money that used to go to the state goes to the banks
O
Re: (Score:2)
Driving the cost of purchasing a house up will reduce the market value of the house, not increase it. Purchasers pay the tax on the assessed value, holders pay tax on their last assessment. Tax rates have to go up to cover the lost revenue to holders, increasing the cost to purchasers.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with property tax.
Re: (Score:2)
"Too much money" compared to what? The amount you decided the public sector should have?
Re: (Score:2)
The amount that leaves you with a functioning society. Too much government money attracts exactly the wrong people into government (e.g. Feinstein) and results in out of control government growth and a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that they reassess the property tax if you refinance your loan though. Mine went up $520/yr after refinancing during the 2008-9 crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you take cash out. I've never been re-assessed on a refi.
This is going to save me so much money. (Score:1)
Why do we permit "property tax" at all? (Score:1)
It only means you don't really own your property. You are leasing it from the government. That's insane.
Re:Why do we permit "property tax" at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a system with no property tax, there would be no disincentive to hoard property. This could have serious consequences for the economy. Imagine section after section of productive timber land being held simply on spec, while lumber prices soar..
If you're going to own real property, there's a general consensus that you should put it to productive use, or forfeit. Thus, that vacant lot in the city starts costing you... so you sell it off instead of holding it forever, and then somebody accumulates the lots, options an adjacent lot, gets plans approved for an apartment and... productive use.
Also, property tax is "progressive" in the sense that it's paid by people that have more wealth. Compare and contrast with sales tax which is "regressive"--taking a heavy toll on the poor.
Now of course all the "shrink government to the size of a thimble" people are going to come out of the woodwork. Sorry. It just isn't practical in the 21st century. We are not living in the days when bands of "Indians" with bow and arrow or colonists with muskets gave the British a run for their money. .
Re: (Score:3)
In a system with a property tax their is disincentive to improve you property.
Raw land value should be taxed (obviously at a higher rate).
Re: (Score:2)
That's land value tax [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
That's only when the property tax is based on the assessed value of the property instead of the property's burden on infrastructure and city services.
Re: (Score:2)
Your not an American are you?
4th of July and Halloween are the #1 DUI days of the year.
Re: (Score:1)
Based on your inability to spell "you're", you obviously ARE an American....
Re: (Score:2)
So? I apologize in advance; there is no way to say this politely; you can take your loaded term "hoard" as well as your consensus and your bowing and scraping to government, and stuff them. You started the name-calling when you characterized real property ownership as "hoarding".
If you get off on seeing people's wealth seized by force and redistributed, fine; viewpoints and opinions are the most basic rights everyone has. But
Re: (Score:3)
Very well, In a system with no property tax, there would be no disincentive to [ synonyms: stockpile, store, store up, stock up on, put aside, put by, lay by, lay up, set aside, stow away, buy up; cache, amass, collect, save, gather, garner, accumulate, squirrel away, put aside for a rainy day; informalstash away, salt away "they hoarded rations" ] please choose the preferred term which you regard as "unloaded". (synonyms courtesy of Google's dictionary).
If you get off on seeing people's wealth seized by
Re: (Score:2)
So? I apologize in advance; there is no way to say this politely; you can take your loaded term "hoard" as well as your consensus and your bowing and scraping to government, and stuff them. You started the name-calling when you characterized real property ownership as "hoarding".
If you get off on seeing people's wealth seized by force and redistributed, fine; viewpoints and opinions are the most basic rights everyone has. But if you give support and comfort to those doing the seizing, expect a little blowback.
Now, if you want to get to basics and discuss the pros and cons of allowing private ownership of what is called "real property" (basically land) in the first place, that is fair game.
I don't think istartedi was characterizing property ownership as hoarding at all. Hoarding would be buying up a ton of property with no intent to do anything with it. This would drive up property costs for anyone else wanting to buy in the area. Without property taxes, one or two people with enough capital could buy up most of the land in a region and then charge of whatever they felt like to other potential buyers. Or they could basically price things out of anybody's reach and rent out the property instea
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. Mere ownership of property isn't hoarding. Hoarding is cornering the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple to fix: unimproved land is taxed, land with improvements is not taxed.
You could go one further, and this would make sense much like not taxing food, that land which sole purpose is to provide housing to the property owners is not taxed, commercial land and unimproved land is taxed.
Re: (Score:1)
i propose the opposite. tax any land ruined by human infestation. land in it's natural state is untaxed.
Re: (Score:2)
For all intents and purposes, "all intensive purposes" is illiterate. Which begs the question, "is anyone literate to notice, much less care?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For all intents and purposes, "all intensive purposes" is illiterate. Which begs the question, "is anyone literate enough to notice, much less care?
There. FTFY.
Re: (Score:1)
Not a bad point. Asymmetric warfare does indeed cause problems. Goooood morning Vietnam... but the geurillas in Vietnam were backed by somebody, and ISIS is getting hi-tech from... well... I've heard some interesting theories. Round up the usual suspects.
It's like a fulcrum I suppose. Asymmetric warfare has always involved leverage. The weight is bigger on both sides now.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to own real property, there's a general consensus that you should put it to productive use, or forfeit.
There is no such general consensus; in fact that's a foolish utopian statement. Real property is a place to invest money. Taxes lower the return on that investment - but if you are not putting it to productive use there is no reason to continue that investment so it would be sold anyway. Market forces rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that is the historical origination of private property under the English system. This was also the case with "empty" land (meaning devoid of Europeans) annexed by the US throughout its history. Original owner was the Federal government, which then delegated ownership to others (railroads, homesteaders) by deeding the property to them provided certain obligations were met (build a railroad, occupy and cultivate the land, etc.).
The idea that private ownership of land precedes government is a weird
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, "own"? You can't mean possession - you aren't carrying your solar power system with you, after all. So why should your claim to "own" something trump any competing claims? And even if they did, why would that matter - do you expect other people to enforce your claims?
That's why a system that lets you "own" anything you aren't carrying with you at all times inevitably picks up aspects of
Ah yes, the party of "tax the rich" extends their (Score:1)
tax breaks on upper-middle class and rich people using an otherwise-uneconomical energy source...
Just like the electric car subsidies that help rich people buy a Tesla or Fisker as their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc car (which the upper classes COULD afford on their own but choose not to without the subsidies "because they're too expensive") while the poorer part of the population is left with old, inefficient, expensive-to-operate "clunkers".
If the party of "Tax the Rich!" TRULY wants to actively subsidize things lik
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AC runs an off shore tax shelter and is trying to drum up business.
Re: (Score:2)
What has it really cost us to keep the oil flowing out of the Middle East? What about the environmental and health impacts of burning fossil fuels? Who is paying for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is paying for that?
You wrote that on a computer most likely powered by fossil fuels, and posted on a web site almost certainly powered by fossil fuels, on an Internet developed by defense spending. So look in a mirror for the answer to your question.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record I don't mind spending money on necessary defense. I do have trouble with the idea of propping up unpopular leaders of questionable ethics in exchange for short term stability and cheap gas prices. You can argue that it's necessary but either way we still pay for it. I
Another subsidy.... (Score:2)
I thought solar power was already competitive (Score:2)
All these green energy subsidies have to stop. I believe we've past the tipping point years ago that green energy technology needed government money for development. Perhaps it was five years ago, maybe it was fifty, but we don't need to give rich people money to buy solar panels they'd be buying anyway.
Solar panels reduce carbon released into the environment, we know that. Solar panels save money for those people that can afford to buy them. What we have now are tax avoidance schemes for rich people.