[Henchster]

There's no way he pays that little on a $4 million house here in Cal. It's more like $40,000.+

I think the doofus looked at his MONTHLY tax bill (escrow) on his Cal home, and compared it to his ANNUAL bill on the house in Omaha.

[evolved_rage]

More than likely he bought a 600 square foot shack back in the 70's, and has upgraded the hell out of it.

[Callahan]

Buffet a doofus? I don't agree with his liberal leanings, but the guy knows how to make money.

[glory]

I think you are right--does not make sense to me either.

[NittanyLion]

There's no way he pays that little on a $4 million house here in Cal. It's more like $40,000.+ I think the doofus looked at his MONTHLY tax bill (escrow) on his Cal home, and compared it to his ANNUAL bill on the house in Omaha.

We learned on the other thread that in CA income tax is locked at the purchase price plus a 2% annual increase. So if property valuation dramatically increases one could be in the position of paying (say) 10% of their neighbor's tax bill for an identical house.

In that respect Buffett is right: CA has in place a system similar to rent controls. New entrants are forced to subsidize established property owners whose assessment remains artificially low.

[CarmelValleyite]

My mother pays next to nothing for her single family house, covered by Prop. 13 and owned outright for many decades. Prop. 13 delighted homeowners when put into effect.

I, on the other hand, pay several times what my mother pays in annual prop. taxes, but for a condo less than half the size of the house. It was purchased several years AFTER Prop. 13 went into effect for existing owners.

Sorry, but there is a lot about Prop. 13 that is just plain wrong. For the record, I noticed this gross inequity many years ago and it still ticks me off; Buffett's recently voiced opinion had nothing to do with my views, and I am a lifelong Republican voter for those who question THAT.