Million Dollar Listing LA - General Discussion

[realityplease]

Real estate agents/brokers in L.A. are scrambling to close before April 1, 2023 - when Measure ULA, passed by voters in L.A. last Nov., goes into effect.  It's a "mansion tax" imposed on home sales over $5 million to fund public housing housing & tenant protection. Homes over $5 million will pay a transfer tax of 4%; homes over $10 million pay 5.5%. 

Mansion sales are down.  Not so much with "affordable" homes under or at $1 to 2 million. They're selling even if on the market longer, with fewer cash buyers, & no multiple offers - but our splashy group is likely loathe to dabble in these.  Prices & locations they don't deign to touch. Though they sure lost their earlier disdain for the Valley (or at least Encino) in recent years (& necessarily) ventured  into L.A. proper & away from only Beverly Hills & Bel Air this season.

Las Vegas has water conservation issues & recently imposed restrictions - no grass landscaping allowed for new homes, no pools larger than the size of a 3 car garage.  A re-do for Terra Firma's initial landscaping  & outdoor amenity plans.  Gravel in place of grass creates a lot of heat - especially in the desert.  A desert-like terrain can be nice but not as lush as flowers/grass & may look odd to foreign buyers who aren't from desert areas.  A smaller infinity pool is not as dramatic. Though huge pools are demanded even by those who never put a toe in water - like kitchens never used but with every high end amenity.  All about status - not utility.   

Interesting to see what next season brings for our status-seeking group & their sales - if there IS a next season.  

[Welshman in Ca]

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

Real estate agents/brokers in L.A. are scrambling to close before April 1, 2023 - when Measure ULA, passed by voters in L.A. last Nov., goes into effect.  It's a "mansion tax" imposed on home sales over $5 million to fund public housing housing & tenant protection. Homes over $5 million will pay a transfer tax of 4%; homes over $10 million pay 5.5%. 

Mansion sales are down.  Not so much with "affordable" homes under or at $1 to 2 million. They're selling even if on the market longer, with fewer cash buyers, & no multiple offers - but our splashy group is likely loathe to dabble in these.  Prices & locations they don't deign to touch. Though they sure lost their earlier disdain for the Valley (or at least Encino) in recent years (& necessarily) ventured  into L.A. proper & away from only Beverly Hills & Bel Air this season.

Las Vegas has water conservation issues & recently imposed restrictions - no grass landscaping allowed for new homes, no pools larger than the size of a 3 car garage.  A re-do for Terra Firma's initial landscaping  & outdoor amenity plans.  Gravel in place of grass creates a lot of heat - especially in the desert.  A desert-like terrain can be nice but not as lush as flowers/grass & may look odd to foreign buyers who aren't from desert areas.  A smaller infinity pool is not as dramatic. Though huge pools are demanded even by those who never put a toe in water - like kitchens never used but with every high end amenity.  All about status - not utility.   

Interesting to see what next season brings for our status-seeking group & their sales - if there IS a next season.  

My heart aches for those having to pay a mansion tax on their tiny $5,000,000 & over homes.

Give me a fucking break you poor whining assholes & pay up, it's not like you won't claw it all back somewhere.

[rhofmovalley]

23 hours ago, Welshman in Ca said:

My heart aches for those having to pay a mansion tax on their tiny $5,000,000 & over homes.

Give me a fucking break you poor whining assholes & pay up, it's not like you won't claw it all back somewhere.

It's like those people in Malibu whose homes keep sliding down the cliff during mudslide season. There's always news cameras and reporters doing stories about these oh so poor people who lost their homes and all their belongings. They never go back to report on how those people simply rebuilt on the same location because they can AFFORD to. Some have rebuilt multiple times. If they couldn't afford it they wouldn't live there. 

[realityplease]

Seemingly no end to those who want to live in Malibu despite repeated summer fires & winter rock/mud slides.  Rebuilding depends on what it'll take to shore up or re-build, the insurance they have, money they have, financing they can get. Also there's many leased properties. Disaster hits equally the ones who can afford to rebuild, the phonies who look like they can afford (but can't) & the ones who can't afford it.  All types here. 

Some rebuild & go right back. Others rebuild & sell as soon as possible to the clueless from other parts of CA or US or world who want a Malibu life or status - but don't know or question the geologic history of what they're buying. Then history repeats itself, leaving the next set to rebuild & re-sell.  An endless cycle. 

Out of town buyers & tourists are appreciative of the scenic lush greenery now on the Malibu hills - caused by winter rains this year.  Offset by residents bemoaning likely future fire damage should one spark from an idiot or arsonist (or downed electrical line) set fire to all that brush.  Same picture - two viewpoints.  Keeps the Malibu real estate market in motion.   

But maybe why our current group is not as focused on Malibu & leaving it to the Chad Rogers, Madisons & others.

Edited March 20, 2023 by realityplease

[realityplease]

Josh Altman was on Varney & Co. (Fox Business) boo-hoo-ing about the new "mansion tax" on the sale of homes over $5 million. (After April 1, sales of homes over $5 million will be subject to a 4% transfer tax, properties over $10 million subject to 5.5% tax.)  He claims it will lead to higher home prices, bureaucracy & hurt the working & middle class. He's had to offer a $1 million bonus on a $28 million home he's listed if it sells & closes before April 1.  Booo-hooooo! 

Actually, who it will hurt are the Altmans of the world who will have to lower listing prices down from the current ridiculously unjustified high levels that his ego & those of others of his ilk, pushed them up to.  Lowering his commissions or causing him to offer a commission shave in order to make a sale. 

He ridiculously claimed: "People who voted said, "Oh, I don't have a $5 million house, which by the way, is not a mansion in L.A. We're talking about a 4 bedroom 4,000 square foot house [which] in L.A. is $5 million, so this isn't a mansion tax. . .these are regular people that work bill to bill, that have to pay their mortgage just like everybody else, and now they're being penalized here." 

He needs to get his head out of his butt. Can most working middle-class folks who live bill to bill stretch enough to take on a mortgage for a $5 million home?  No.  Loss of a middle-class job would put them in serious jeopardy & what lender takes on that risk? Put down 20% & they'd need to put a million down & to take on a $4 million mortgage. (10% down means carrying a $4.5 million mortgage.) At 4% or more? NOT doable on a middle-class salary. 

Average in L.A. can be at or less than a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath, at or less than 2000 square feet, in an average neighborhood. And even those can be $1-2 million. (L.A. median in Dec. 2022 was $800,000.) It won't have more bathrooms than bedrooms.  Or every bedroom en suite.  Maybe no pool. It won't be 'sick" & not in B.Hills or Bird Streets.  $5 million may not be a mansion but it is by no means average.  Altman's been in rarified air too long.  He forgot what an average middle-class working stiff can afford. Whining jerk! 

[TheLastKidPicked]

Very good posts from all of you on this page!

Here is an investing point of view:

Rich people from around the world always need a safe place to park their money.  California real estate has been a safe place to park money.  The big development in Vegas was a great place to park money.

If you'll allow me to get my geek on, the Vegas development is interesting to a nerd like me who is into finance.

There are risks that weren't around a few years ago when they first thought of the idea.  As @realityplease mentioned, there are new restrictions coming up such as no new lawns for residential homes.   All it would take is one event, such as the golf course water being shut off or pool water being shut off and your big investment suddenly loses value.

Most of you have seen pools that are drained for repair or drained because they are no longer being used.  To put a fine point on it-- Nothing says "new and shiny" like an infinity pool and nothing says "abandoned" like a drained pool.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by TheLastKidPicked

[rhofmovalley]

Yeah, "middle class" families in CA are not buying $5 million homes. My brother is pretty firmly middle class (he earns roughly $150,000 annually) and he had to stretch a bit to afford his $650,000 home in San Bernardino county. My son and his spouse together earn about $160,000 and their home listed for about $450,000 when they bought three-ish years ago. THAT is middle class. 

Altman is worried about his commission. He wants to set some multi billion dollar commission record or some such. Well sorry, but I doubt he, Heather and the kids will be applying for WIC or food stamps anytime soon. I think they'll survive. 

[realityplease]

Bankrate put out an article that said if you have an annual salary of $150,00 (described as an "above average" salary in the U.S.), realistically, you can afford a $500,000 home.  What that will buy varies by area. (L.A.'s median in Dec. 2022 being $800,000,)

More proof (as if common sense isn't enough) that Altman's described 4-bdr, 4,000 sq. ft. home costing $5 million is ludicrously out of reach of the "working middle-class" though he claims THESE are the folks to be hurt by the new 4%-5.5% mansion transfer tax on homes over $5 mil.

Altman ignores his role in creating a problem. On this show, he repeatedly touted new overbuilt properties that boosted square footage (& therefore, price) in the Bird Streets & elsewhere. He crowed about getting the highest prices. But the market only stretches so far. What goes up, also comes down.  After reaping the benefits of his showmanship, he's grousing that high-flying property owners are burdened with a tax to help fund public housing & renter protections -- only because it won't put money in HIS pocket.  Not content to be a pig, he wants to be a HOG.

[rhofmovalley]

I read somewhere the median salary in the US is around $72,000 annually. In California it's just over $84,000. So no, the average middle class couple or family in CA is not buying $5 million homes.  I have to presume Altman is trying to stay on the good side of his clientele, which probably isn't a bad idea. But to call them "middle class" is ridiculous. In fact, I bet most of his clients would consider that an insult!

Source

[ML89]

MIddle class in LA is the level of home Tarek and Christina made over in Flip or Flop, or, at the extreme end, something James or David would sell. Altman whining about someone buying $5 mill homes is hilarious. I'm sorry, Cat Lady buying her $17 million should be paying some taxes. So should Barbie Penthouse lady and especially that odious guy in Orange County from this season.

[buttersister]

And for your entertainment pleasure, the (no paywall) NYTimes article in which Altman continues shoving his head up his ass--in service to his oversized commissions, not to mention his starring role in a reality TV series (that's circling the drain).

[realityplease]

Thanks for the article buttersister! The rich are greedy - I guess we always knew that.  But now we're to believe that sale of a $5 million home will be stymied or unprofitable due to a $200,000 transfer tax or $400,000 on a $10 million home. The profit depends on the seller's equity & what they bought the home for - where is it promised that property owners should expect 25% profits or more on the sale of a single home?  Instead of multi-millions in profit, the seller gets $200,000 less?  Cry me a river.  The seller pays more than that in agent commissions, but Altman's not grousing about that! 

Listing prices here ZOOMED in recent years.  Per Zillow, that $28 million property was last sold in 2015 for $5 million.  Money was no doubt spent to overhaul it, but while a transfer tax of $1,540,000 sounds hefty, there's still many, many MILLIONS to be made on this one sale.

Altman thinks EVERYONE (all homeowners) should pay the tax, not just the rich.  Sorry - this tax on the rich was specifically passed because only the upper 4% of home sales will be subject to it.  Altman wants to make the big bucks - but wants EVERYONE, not just the rich to whom he caters, to pay for the homeowner greed & overinflated expectations he caused. Too bad.   

[Grrarrggh]

6 hours ago, realityplease said:

Thanks for the article buttersister! The rich are greedy - I guess we always knew that.  But now we're to believe that sale of a $5 million home will be stymied or unprofitable due to a $200,000 transfer tax or $400,000 on a $10 million home. The profit depends on the seller's equity & what they bought the home for - where is it promised that property owners should expect 25% profits or more on the sale of a single home?  Instead of multi-millions in profit, the seller gets $200,000 less?  Cry me a river.  The seller pays more than that in agent commissions, but Altman's not grousing about that! 

Listing prices here ZOOMED in recent years.  Per Zillow, that $28 million property was last sold in 2015 for $5 million.  Money was no doubt spent to overhaul it, but while a transfer tax of $1,540,000 sounds hefty, there's still many, many MILLIONS to be made on this one sale.

Altman thinks EVERYONE (all homeowners) should pay the tax, not just the rich.  Sorry - this tax on the rich was specifically passed because only the upper 4% of home sales will be subject to it.  Altman wants to make the big bucks - but wants EVERYONE, not just the rich to whom he caters, to pay for the homeowner greed & overinflated expectations he caused. Too bad.   

Altman, and those he sells to and socialises with, don't want America to know that it is already a socialist country. It's just that it is only a socialist country for the rich. 

[Surrealist]

I know some defended Altman (although he was raised by a physician father and still grew up with a ton of privilege) for not having grown up with Flagg-level money, but he's the stereotypical nouveau riche dick who defends other wealthy people because he's obsessed with money too.

I do think he's softened a bit since getting married and having kids, but he's still Altman through and through. 😂

Edited March 25, 2023 by Surrealist

[rhofmovalley]

The fact that he wanted to sell their already huge family mansion to move into an even bigger mansion shows who he is. Thankfully Heather pulled him back down to earth and politely told him to tell his ego to take a seat.

[Marley]

Lol Heather and Altman actually just bought a new house in Newport Beach on the water that they are remodelling for a year then will live in.

[ZettaK]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:07 AM, Surrealist said:

I know some defended Altman (although he was raised by a physician father and still grew up with a ton of privilege) for not having grown up with Flagg-level money, but he's the stereotypical nouveau riche dick who defends other wealthy people because he's obsessed with money too.

I do think he's softened a bit since getting married and having kids, but he's still Altman through and through. 😂

Altman was privileged enough when he was growing up. His parents own an expensive house in Aspen/Snowmass (yes, I know, it is just a little outside the town). He would defend his rich clients, of course. His worth is in the tens of millions of dollars, and he hopes it will increase. He is one of them.

Edited March 28, 2023 by ZettaK

[rhofmovalley]

19 hours ago, Marley said:

Lol Heather and Altman actually just bought a new house in Newport Beach on the water that they are remodelling for a year then will live in.

Makes sense, then, why they were pushing NB on the show. They're likely transitioning their business to focus on NB and surrounding high dollar OC areas.

They likely won't see the extreme high priced mega mansions they handled in LA. But they should be able to do well enough to keep from requiring government assistance 😆

[Oregonrain]

Housing in California is completly different than anywhere else in the country. I hate to say it but I can see five million dollars for a middle class home in California depending on the location. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I remember in the eighties driving aroung some locations with my friends and them commenting that a house was not that good because it was worth ONLY a million dollars. This as I mentioned was in the eighties and i am certain that those homes are now worth at least ten million dollars. That is one of many reasons why I left California. Real middle class people simply do not own homes. Despite what is seen on this show, most people do not have that kind of money and resign themselves to being a life long renter.

[dleighg]

1 minute ago, Oregonrain said:

Despite what is seen on this show, most people do not have that kind of money and resign themselves to being a life long renter.

It doesn't even make economic sense to buy a house on a middle class, or even affluent, income. My kid is a 20-something making upper-middle-class salary in the tech area, and his girlfriend makes a decent middle-class salary. There would be no way to justify the mortgage for an equivalent apartment that they can rent in a nice neighborhood in San Francisco. It would be multiples more, not to mention the down payment. Maybe someday they will move to someplace with.a lower housing cost.

[realityplease]

2 hours ago, Oregonrain said:

Housing in California is completely different than anywhere else in the country. I hate to say it but I can see five million dollars for a middle class home in California depending on the location. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I remember in the eighties driving around some locations with my friends and them commenting that a house was not that good because it was worth ONLY a million dollars. This as I mentioned was in the eighties and i am certain that those homes are now worth at least ten million dollars. That is one of many reasons why I left California. Real middle class people simply do not own homes. Despite what is seen on this show, most people do not have that kind of money and resign themselves to being a life long renter.

2 hours ago, dleighg said:

It doesn't even make economic sense to buy a house on a middle class, or even affluent, income. My kid is a 20-something making upper-middle-class salary in the tech area, and his girlfriend makes a decent middle-class salary. There would be no way to justify the mortgage for an equivalent apartment that they can rent in a nice neighborhood in San Francisco. It would be multiples more, not to mention the down payment. Maybe someday they will move to someplace with.a lower housing cost.

When people look back at various time frames, they usually only look at their own unique circumstances, not at the market as a whole. 

Back in the '80's (40 years ago), interest rates (& mortgages) were in the double digits. Same as today, foreign money, inherited wealth, high echelon CEOs or entertainment folks had the means to buy, trade up, or pay cash.  Same as today, those starting out didn't have the needed down payments, couldn't afford or qualify for the mortgage. 

In L.A., $1 million homes didn't magically appreciate into $10 million homes, even over a period of 40 years. (Even today, only 4% of  homes sales in L.A. are over $5 million.)  Don't let Altman fool you. His $28 million listing was only $5 million in 2015. To increase prices like that, you need it to be in a very desirable location AND to have totally rebuilt it, added on to it, or very extensively remodeled it.

Many "real middle class people" DID & DO own homes here. They just don't own them in Beverly Hills or Bel Air. They necessarily buy more affordable options in less affluent neighborhoods. Maybe no view. Maybe not coastal. Maybe they started with an older fixer or smaller home on a smaller lot. Maybe put in sweat equity. And if bought/sold at the right time (because there were several steep ups & steep downs over these 40 years) or their personal fortunes improved, they might have traded up over time.

Not likely done as 20-somethings. The benefits of buying vs. renting - that's a whole other subject. Some folks have champagne taste on a beer pocket.  Not realistic about what they can afford.  Want to live in a great place, instead of living more modestly & saving.  Spending on rent doesn't build equity - but buy the wrong property at the wrong time & you can lose, not build, equity.  Some lack the means, others the grit, to save for a down payment. It can be an investment, as well as a place to live. Or it can be a money pit. Some leave L.A. for more "affordable" options - some love the new location & never return. Others come back because they got the home they wanted but find it's not worth different weather, different lifestyle, different job markets.

Shows like this - they show the house porn, the high life & high end.  Some real. Some phony.  Can't judge the entire market on this program.   

[rhofmovalley]

Most of my family is solidly middle class. We live in Southern California. All but one or two own their own homes. None of them owns a home that even approaches $5 million. My MIL owns a home that appraises for about $1.2 million, but she and my FIL bought it in 1960 for $20k. 

I disagree with the assessment that $5 million homes are typically middle class in Southern California. 

I also agree that Altman has a vested interest in doing PR for potential clients that can afford multi million dollar homes. 

[ZettaK]

11 hours ago, rhofmovalley said:

Makes sense, then, why they were pushing NB on the show. They're likely transitioning their business to focus on NB and surrounding high dollar OC areas.

They likely won't see the extreme high priced mega mansions they handled in LA. But they should be able to do well enough to keep from requiring government assistance 😆

They opened a new office, they didn't stop operating in LA. The Oppenheim Group (of Selling Sunset) opened one in the OC, as well. This is going to be a second house- Heather said she loved Newport Beach, and they might eventually make this house their primary residence (but not yet). Josh bought a house for his parents in NB already. 

The area has some of the most expensive real estate. 

[Welshman in Ca]

17 hours ago, Oregonrain said:

Housing in California is completly different than anywhere else in the country. I hate to say it but I can see five million dollars for a middle class home in California depending on the location. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I remember in the eighties driving aroung some locations with my friends and them commenting that a house was not that good because it was worth ONLY a million dollars. This as I mentioned was in the eighties and i am certain that those homes are now worth at least ten million dollars. That is one of many reasons why I left California. Real middle class people simply do not own homes. Despite what is seen on this show, most people do not have that kind of money and resign themselves to being a life long renter.

You seem make the mistake of confusing LA & SF with the rest of California like a lot of people do. Even LA has places where somewhat sensible money buys you a house to live in but California is a BIG place with a lot of people and $5m & up homes are a rarity in 95% of the state. Most of us live normal lives & live in normal homes not shown on tv or costing millions of $s.

 

[Oregonrain]

I understand California is a huge state as I am a native Californian. Yes, there is a huge area between LA and SF. Growing up in the Bay Area, Stockton and Sacramento were considered the central valley and separate from the Bay Area but now those areas have been in a way anexed by the Bay Area because housing is so ridiculously expensive and many people moved there and commute every day to SF. It is insane and I would never do it because it is a long commute. My family is still down there and they all own homes. Most of them are in good shape becasue they bought in the eighties. Those that bought recently were still able to do so but had to buy in very undesirable areas becasue that is the only place they could afford. I know LA is different becasue there are more affordable options but many would be shocked as to what is considered middle class down there. Even a 1.2 million dollar home which is refered to as middle class is WAY too expensive for those who are considered solidly middle class. Again, that is why I left. I love California and would love to return but I am one of the majority of people who is not wealthy enought to be there. My income would be sufficient to buy anywhere else but there.

[Welshman in Ca]

11 hours ago, Pegasaurus said:

I'm sure those Malibu people have huge homeowners insurance policy payments.  At least rebuilding provides work for construction companies. 

And those sellers that will end up paying a "mansion tax" will recover with little pain, I'm sure.  But, I have to admit, I don't understand why this tax is being imposed on people who sell their expensive real estate. It's not a crime to be wealthy. A wealth tax? Really? Because that's CA voters passed. And what is the cap on how much is "wealthy"? Maybe that $600K house will be considered high-end in the near future and those sellers will have to pay an extra tax.  Imo, there is a lot of wealth envy around these days. 

I'm not wealthy by any means and I watch MDLLA because of the fancy homes, cars, etc that I can't afford. I don't feel those wealthy people owe me anything. 

I deleted a lot of what I was going to say but the main point was that LA & CA are NOT the same place & that the people of CA did not vote for any such thing so please stop using them as if they are the same place, they're not, one is in the other. It's like saying Mississippi speaks for the whole USA and that the laws in MS apply to everyone in the USA, they don't.

 

[realityplease]

14 hours ago, Pegasaurus said:

But, I have to admit, I don't understand why this tax is being imposed on people who sell their expensive real estate. It's not a crime to be wealthy. A wealth tax? Really? Because that's CA voters passed. And what is the cap on how much is "wealthy"? Maybe that $600K house will be considered high-end in the near future and those sellers will have to pay an extra tax. 

No. The tax was passed in L.A., NOT in California as a whole. And only for sales OVER $5 million. NO current $600,000k home will appreciate to over $5 million in the near-future because no current $600,000 home (below median here) could possibly be located in any area that will permit THAT much appreciation - no matter how much razed/rebuilt or improved. Remember, only 4% of ALL sales in L.A. are over $5 mil. & subject to the new tax.

The tax is to build housing for L.A.'s huge (& growing) homeless & to create low income housing, of which there's little.  It falls on high-wealth (many non-local foreign buyers, out-of-state buyers, Northern CA tech czars - or celebrity or high net worth individuals.) They swoop into L.A. (in particular Malibu, B.Hills, Bel Air), buy high-end properties, then boost prices into the stratosphere on re-sale to others of their ilk for quick multi-million profits. 

Many don't live here year-round or invest in, boost, or contribute to L.A. in any other way - even if they do so in their hometowns or home countries.  Many are multi-property owners, serial flippers, investors. Yes, it's not a crime to be wealthy.  But it's also not a crime to take a cut of the obscene profits on the sale of a single home. Deemed a better solution than raising the now relatively modest property taxes on ALL property owners. (That would trickle down to raise already high rents.)

Money must be raised.  Who do you pinch? Those who won't feel it or those who will be hurt?  The wealthy investor/seller who pays 4 to 5.5% on each re-sale & anticipated a 25% profit in 5 yrs or less but must now (boo-hoo) shave profits to 10-20%, still a pretty good return in the investment world. For them, it's just the re-adjusted cost of doing business.

Yes, the churners of the market (driven by the Altmans of our world) who feast off sellers for hundreds of thousands in commissions on each sale - moan & groan. Chicken Little. But why?? Because listing prices will drop or be diminishing returns for the seller? (Lowering commissions.) Because a sellers' closing tax hit could cause resentment of the agent's equally large % commission? (Causing more to seek a cut.) More work adjusting seller expectations?  Instead of the sky falling, home sales in this rarified category will no doubt go on as before - the economy & dipping home prices more of a factor than this tax.

Edited March 30, 2023 by realityplease

[rhofmovalley]

Many of the same people who whine about the additional tax had spent millions either razing and rebuilding the multi million dollar homes or spent millions "renovating" them. The tax is not hitting low income or middle class families who are struggling to feed their children or purchase a home. 

How many sellers on the show brag about how much they spent renovating? Brag about the extremely high end, extremely pricy kitchen appliances, the chandeliers and flooring imported from Italy, or the car elevator? These are not struggling middle class people. 

Altman is full of it and probably knows it, but he must cater to the extremely wealthy. Or God forbid he might have to resort to selling homes that list for less than $5 million and give up his $100,000+ per sale commissions. Horrors. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by rhofmovalley

[Surrealist]

17 hours ago, Pegasaurus said:

I'm not wealthy by any means and I watch MDLLA because of the fancy homes, cars, etc that I can't afford. I don't feel those wealthy people owe me anything. 

You've described me too. 

Some of the developers and buyers make me roll my eyes, but I keep watching for the house porn.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Surrealist

[realityplease]

Why?

1st, the obvious: The voters passed it. 

2nd:  High-earners pay more in many arenas. There's higher tax rates on higher income. Earn more, pay a higher %. (Yes, there's loopholes, but theoretically that's the basis for income tax.) So why not a high end real estate sale transfer tax? It's not a unique theory or basis for taxation.

3d: CA & L.A. don't have "plenty of funds" for low income housing.  Whether, as you say, a result of doing a poor job or not, the funds aren't there.  Deficits looming.  Voters approved this new limited transfer tax to fund what needs to be done.

I don't feel the rich owe me anything & I won't be living in the low income housing they'll help fund. But if they live or merely buy here, like everyone else, they bear some responsibility for L.A.'s problems. Not buy, cash out, & run.

Homeless encampments aren't on their streets - they're on the streets of the lower & middle class - and growing.  Low income housing won't be built in their neighborhoods. High end buyers can easily ignore problems others cannot. So if a solution to the homeless/housing problem, even AFTER the new transfer tax, reduces their profit to still very favorable terms (say, a $15-18 mil. profit on that $28 mil. home Altman was pushing) but keeps the homeless/low income away from THEM, believe me, they'll still buy those showplace or investment homes here & happily pay to live in their protected bubbles.

Altman's not really advocating for his high end clients. He's whining because HE'LL need to pay the tax on his pricey home if he chooses to sell & move to his Newport home.  HE'S the one who'll pay a tax on the home he bought for his folks if they choose to follow him to Newport. His own interests/ego will always come before his clients or the public.

Edited March 31, 2023 by realityplease

[Marley]

Lol for real asking why the wealthy would pay extra? It’s called not hoarding wealth. Rich ppl have so many tax loopholes while the rest of the middle class get fucked. Rich never actually pay proper taxes. 

If you are asking why you don’t get it and don’t get the homeless epidemic.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Marley

[Lady Lucy]

This is something similar to what Canada is doing. They are levying a tax on non-Canadians who own property in Canada. It's more complex than that simple statement but their main goal is to tax/get money from rich Chinese, Russians, others who park (launder) their money by buying expensive real estate in Canada. The same happens in the US and we should should follow Canada's example.

Tax policy is often designed to obtain a societal good. As an example, mortgage deductions were created to help build the middle class and help the middle class buy homes. 

I have no issue with what LA is doing. 

[rhofmovalley]

We're all paying taxes for things we don't use. Child-free adults pay taxes that fund schools. I don't use public transportation but my tax $ go toward that. Some people don't drive but their tax $ go toward road maintenance and traffic control. If we didn't pay taxes we wouldn't have road maintenance, public safety, clean water, etc. 

If these people can afford to spend $10 million "renovating"  the homes they purchase and resell they can afford to pay this tax. 

I just recently moved into a higher tax bracket (thank you, employer!). I'm fine with some of my tax dollars going toward helping the homeless population or those whose employers don't provide healthcare benefits. 

I'm sure Altman and Heather and their kids will survive just fine. The might have to (gasp!) stay in their current mansion for another few years so they can scrape up the money to afford this "mansion tax". 

[meep.meep]

As a buyer or seller, you can negotiate the amount of commission you pay to the broker(s).  I'm sure part of Altman's concern is that they'll start seeing reduced commission to offset the tax increase.  

[SilverLake0315]

Josh and Andrew are still together (or, together again)

Edited April 2, 2023 by SilverLake0315
Absurd spacing

[ZettaK]

45 minutes ago, SilverLake0315 said:

Josh and Andrew are still together (or, together again)

Together again. For how long?

[Genlovestv]

Josh and Bobby's divorce was finalized on March 28th.  

I guess Andrew doesn't mind having a narcissist, man child, asshole as. Boyfriend.  I thought he had more sense than that but guess not.  

[Cosmocrush]

1 hour ago, Genlovestv said:

Josh and Bobby's divorce was finalized on March 28th.  

I guess Andrew doesn't mind having a narcissist, man child, asshole as. Boyfriend.  I thought he had more sense than that but guess not.  

Andrew is a gold digger.  Josh is single and loaded and looking for love.  I think it's just that simple.   Wish Josh could find someone in his own tax bracket and age group.

[buttersister]

On 4/1/2023 at 10:19 PM, Cosmocrush said:

Wish Josh could find someone in his own tax bracket and age group.

That would be far less annoying to watch, thank you.

Also, far better for Josh.

[Medicine Crow]

On 4/1/2023 at 9:19 PM, Cosmocrush said:

Andrew is a gold digger.  Josh is single and loaded and looking for love.  I think it's just that simple.   Wish Josh could find someone in his own tax bracket and age group.

Didn't someone say that Andrew was "wealthy"?

[ZettaK]

5 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

Didn't someone say that Andrew was "wealthy"?

Josh Flagg said so on the show. He said that Andrew came from the same background like him. And since others like Bobby, his ex husband were realtors, as well (and Bobby was not well-off), he meant of similar financial backgrounds. 

[greyflannel]

I would think that sellers would just add the cost of the new tax to the sales price.

[Surrealist]

1 hour ago, greyflannel said:

I would think that sellers would just add the cost of the new tax to the sales price.

This is what I was thinking too.

[realityplease]

4 hours ago, greyflannel said:

I would think that sellers would just add the cost of the new tax to the sales price.

And a buyer would accept that?  Not if they're thinking about value.  Sales price is usually based on price per sq. ft, neighborhood comparables, amenities, etc.  (Not a number pulled out of one's butt - though it sure seems so at times on this show!)  Pretty easy to search the home's past sales prices.  A transfer tax tack-on would boost the price without any added value. Except the usual one - greed beyond what the market will bear.  

Sure, it could happen if the buyer wants that home at any cost - or has no idea of the home's true worth.  But why would a buyer with open eyes willingly let a seller palm off to them a tax the SELLER is legally obligated to pay? So the seller can walk off with a 20-25% profit? or even 10% profit? Please. The buyer will want the seller to cut their profit (hefty or not) & pay the tax.

No longer a seller's market here.  No bidding wars. Few offers over ask.  Price reductions - not increases. Buyers beginning to bargain harder.  Homes unrealistically priced or over-improved or leased. The Spelling mansion at $155 mil.? Altman's $28 mil "bargain" in Bel Air sitting unsold for months. Inventory low - because if you can, why put a home on the market now instead of waiting for the tide to turn again?

Sellers may try to put their tax burden off on the buyer & as with anything, some might succeed.  But then, when the new buyers decide they want to sell - how likely they'll be able to tack yet another 4-5.5% onto the listing price to cover what they'll now need to pay in transfer tax on the subsequent sale? Not likely.  If a 4-5.5% increase in price to cover the tax adds no apparent value to the home when bought - adding yet another 4-5.5% to cover the tax on the subsequent sale won't add value to the home either - but now, the price is up around 10% more due to mere transaction costs - though adding nothing to the home value.  Doesn't fly.    

Edited April 5, 2023 by realityplease

[TheLastKidPicked]

I just saw a funny meme of a younger person talking to a rich dude:

"If you can't pay the mansion tax then work a second job, skip the morning Latte and pull yourself up by your bootstraps." 

Hit me as funny, and it made me think of you all on here.

 

[bichonblitz]

On 4/1/2023 at 9:07 PM, ZettaK said:

Together again. For how long?

I''m so surprised at this because both of their IG's were scrubbed of any couples photo's. No boasting about soulmates, love of my life BS at all! In fact Andrew was posting only pics of himself with girl friends and Josh was posting pics of himself with old ladies like Candy Spelling and that Nicki lady (forgot her last name).

I wonder what the purpose of that was. Maybe Josh's lawyer told them to cool the PDA until after Josh's divorce was final. 

[Genlovestv]

I think they're not together anymore.  Andrew has been in the South of France all week celebrating the wedding of Sofia Richie, Josh was not with him.  Josh loves the South of France.  

[bichonblitz]

On 4/23/2023 at 12:12 PM, Genlovestv said:

I think they're not together anymore.  Andrew has been in the South of France all week celebrating the wedding of Sofia Richie, Josh was not with him.  Josh loves the South of France.  

Then why the recent posting with the flowers Andrew apparently sent to Josh and Josh's proclamation of love for Andrew? It's only a couple of days old. What are they up to?

[Genlovestv]

2 hours ago, bichonblitz said:

Then why the recent posting with the flowers Andrew apparently sent to Josh and Josh's proclamation of love for Andrew? It's only a couple of days old. What are they up to?

Josh is the one that sent the flowers to Andrew and Josh proclaimed his love.  That was on April 1st.  I don't know if they're together or not together, but I believe that they're not together.  

 

[QQQQ]

On 4/24/2023 at 2:33 PM, Genlovestv said:

Josh is the one that sent the flowers to Andrew and Josh proclaimed his love.  That was on April 1st.  I don't know if they're together or not together, but I believe that they're not together.  

 

April Fool's joke?