3 ms·

So since your home, which by your own admission is primarily a domicile and not an investment vehicle, is now worth more you can take out a loan based on the in

by evgen 11y ago

So since your home, which by your own admission is primarily a domicile and not an investment vehicle, is now worth more you can take out a loan based on the increase in value over what you paid for the house and use that to pay the additional taxes. You are being taxed on the appreciation in value to your home that you basically had nothing to do with and therefore have a very weak claim regarding a just right to this increase in value. tl;dr is "boo hoo, cry me a river"

gaius 11y ago
That is clearly nonsense; why should anyone be forced to monetize their assets? The increase in value is entirely "on paper".
- imrehg 11y ago
  As much as I understand, that "forced monetization" can exist, such as in the case of stock options - those can incur tax right away (alternative minimum tax), and usually will have to sell some of your just got stocks to be able to pay for that (if you don't have other assets to cover it). For example, point 2 at http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/10-tax-tips-stock-options-personal-finance-robert-wood.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/10-tax-tips-stock-options-p...
  - walshemj 11y ago
    Well that is why the USA's laws on taxation of options need to be reformed.
terryf 11y ago
So you're basically saying it's ok to tax people on gains, that are entirely theoretical and over which they had no control themselves? You might have a point if you consider a home something that is entirely fungible - but for a lot of people it is not.
- gaius 11y ago
  If a house drops in value, is it also the government's responsibility to refund the difference?
  - erentz 11y ago
    Since tax is tied to the value of the property when the house loses value taxes go down.
  - FifteenChractrs 11y ago
    There shouldn't be property taxes at all. It's asinine. Taxes for goods and services is more than enough. Not owning property, or the privilege of employment.
    - kspaans 11y ago
      Wouldn't that be really regressive? A poor person's spending on goods is going to be a larger proportion of their income than a rich person's. Admittedly, rich people could buy fancier goods which could be taxed more, but would that make up the difference?

by evgen 11y ago

gaius 11y ago

That is clearly nonsense; why should anyone be forced to monetize their assets? The increase in value is entirely "on paper".

imrehg 11y ago
As much as I understand, that "forced monetization" can exist, such as in the case of stock options - those can incur tax right away (alternative minimum tax), and usually will have to sell some of your just got stocks to be able to pay for that (if you don't have other assets to cover it). For example, point 2 at http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/10-tax-tips-stock-options-personal-finance-robert-wood.html http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/10-tax-tips-stock-options-p...
- walshemj 11y ago
  Well that is why the USA's laws on taxation of options need to be reformed.

terryf 11y ago

So you're basically saying it's ok to tax people on gains, that are entirely theoretical and over which they had no control themselves? You might have a point if you consider a home something that is entirely fungible - but for a lot of people it is not.

gaius 11y ago
If a house drops in value, is it also the government's responsibility to refund the difference?
- erentz 11y ago
  Since tax is tied to the value of the property when the house loses value taxes go down.
- FifteenChractrs 11y ago
  There shouldn't be property taxes at all. It's asinine. Taxes for goods and services is more than enough. Not owning property, or the privilege of employment.
  - kspaans 11y ago
    Wouldn't that be really regressive? A poor person's spending on goods is going to be a larger proportion of their income than a rich person's. Admittedly, rich people could buy fancier goods which could be taxed more, but would that make up the difference?