9 ms·
Of course a disincentive to sell will be created by your proposal! Any lien that comes close to offsetting or canceling out the owner's gain will do that. The l
by twblalock 10y ago
Of course a disincentive to sell will be created by your proposal! Any lien that comes close to offsetting or canceling out the owner's gain will do that. The lien doesn't have to exceed the gain to create a disincentive. Why would anyone sell for little to no gain? Any time the potential gain is decreased, a disincentive to sell is created.
Furthermore, not only does this create a disincentive to sell, it also creates a disincentive to buy. Buying property becomes a lot less attractive when the same disincentive that applies to the current seller will apply to buyer in the future, when the buyer decides to sell the home.
- ScottBurson 10y agoActually the people who would feel the disincentive most strongly are speculators. Those are the people we want to discourage. The whole point is to slow the growth of prices, by giving cities an incentive to increase supply. Higher prices are the biggest disincentive to purchasers.
- vonmoltke 10y agoI have brought this up in multiple Prop 13 discussions, including I think the one you are referring to where you pitched your proposal. My opinion is that the proper fix for Prop 13 is to modify it to match Florida's much saner[1] practice of only providing the appreciation cap to owner-occupied primary residences. That speculators, investors, and landlords get to benefit from taxable value caps is bullshit, IMNSHO. [1] Who would have expected Florida to be the same one on anything?
- ScottBurson 10y agoI think you did bring it up there, and I completely agree. I don't know how much it would help, though, in the specific area of giving cities more of an incentive to approve residential construction projects. I guess it would help some.
- hilop 10y agoThat's an arbitrary advantage given to homeowners over renters (who pay the landlord's taxes)