3 ms·

I'm sorry, did you just complain about making 30% ROI on $200k over two years? Oh no, your tax burden.

Jtsummers 10y ago
It's unrealized earnings. They don't have $200k to spend on taxes, and if they sell the home they still need to buy (or rent) in an area that's very expensive to live. That extra tax burden is not something most people plan on (smart or not, sometimes these booms are more unexpected than others).
phil21 10y ago
Some people just want a place to live close to work/whatever that doesn't have high maintenance (e.g. rent/mortgage/taxes). In a "hot" city it's trivial to get very modest places that have monthly tax bills more than rent is on a similar sized place in the mid-tier NFL city I grew up in. That's a lot of cashflow to be burning - even if the investment is appreciating faster than the burn. It eventually forces you to sell and move, when your goal was not an investment but a place to live and make a home.
EliRivers 10y ago
This is nonsensical. I have to pay that extra tax NOW. That's real money that I have to pay out. An extra 30% on something I nominally own? That's not real. I can't pay the taxes with that. What should I do to get that extra 30%? Take out an extra mortgage on that alleged increase in house value? Sell it and move to a worse house in a worse neighbourhood, somewhere I don't really want to live that I can still afford the taxes? I bought a house that I wanted to live in, that I could afford the taxes on, and now I can't afford the taxes through no fault of my own. There is no solace to be taken in the fact that if I sold it, I might get 30% more than I paid. I don't want the money. If I wanted the money, I wouldn't have bought the house to live in, in the first place. I want what I bought two years ago; the house I could afford to live in. 30% increase in alleged value is of no use to me, and it's costing me money.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought Prop 13 to California back in the 70s.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    The thinking is fine. The thinking is identifying a problem. Prop 13 was wrongfooted and created a new set of problems. We shouldn't ignore a problem just because someone else once royally screwed up a solution to it.
echlebek 10y ago
It's only effectively realizable if I move to a different city, so yes, I did complain about that. I want real estate prices to stabilize.

It's unrealized earnings. They don't have $200k to spend on taxes, and if they sell the home they still need to buy (or rent) in an area that's very expensive to live. That extra tax burden is not something most people plan on (smart or not, sometimes these booms are more unexpected than others).

phil21 10y ago

Some people just want a place to live close to work/whatever that doesn't have high maintenance (e.g. rent/mortgage/taxes). In a "hot" city it's trivial to get very modest places that have monthly tax bills more than rent is on a similar sized place in the mid-tier NFL city I grew up in. That's a lot of cashflow to be burning - even if the investment is appreciating faster than the burn. It eventually forces you to sell and move, when your goal was not an investment but a place to live and make a home.

EliRivers 10y ago

This is nonsensical. I have to pay that extra tax NOW. That's real money that I have to pay out. An extra 30% on something I nominally own? That's not real. I can't pay the taxes with that. What should I do to get that extra 30%? Take out an extra mortgage on that alleged increase in house value? Sell it and move to a worse house in a worse neighbourhood, somewhere I don't really want to live that I can still afford the taxes? I bought a house that I wanted to live in, that I could afford the taxes on, and now I can't afford the taxes through no fault of my own. There is no solace to be taken in the fact that if I sold it, I might get 30% more than I paid. I don't want the money. If I wanted the money, I wouldn't have bought the house to live in, in the first place. I want what I bought two years ago; the house I could afford to live in. 30% increase in alleged value is of no use to me, and it's costing me money.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought Prop 13 to California back in the 70s.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  The thinking is fine. The thinking is identifying a problem. Prop 13 was wrongfooted and created a new set of problems. We shouldn't ignore a problem just because someone else once royally screwed up a solution to it.

echlebek 10y ago

It's only effectively realizable if I move to a different city, so yes, I did complain about that. I want real estate prices to stabilize.