8 ms·

I'd be curious what is the source of the claim that "most cities have a class of elderly landowners..." I suspect these are cities which employ controls to cap

I'd be curious what is the source of the claim that "most cities have a class of elderly landowners..." I suspect these are cities which employ controls to cap the taxes on the property owned by elderly people. If the city employs an age-blind property tax, then elderly people on fixed incomes get taxed out of their residences, which is an equally problematic phenomenon.

trome 10y ago
Most people are on fixed incomes, full stop. If you are in a home that you can't afford the taxes on, you should sell said home. Anything else is how you end up with 60 thru 90 year olds living in housing that was never designed for them, both in that it is too large, and is missing elderly friendly features such as a single story layout. Sure, you can add these things on after the fact if its a single family home, but it often would make more sense to dump the 3 to 4 bedroom home (that you are expanding to 4 or 5 bedrooms with this reno) and get a place with a much lower maintenance burden and way fewer rooms. Sadly, we often distort reality here in the US with subsidies that incentivize poor decisions such as living out retirement in the home you raised your kids in, despite the burden that puts on those living there, their family, and the community around them. We should encourage the best possible outcome for everyone involved, by getting rid of tax deductions for having a mortgage against your home, or being over a certain age, as that will commoditize housing and allows people to live closer to where they need to be at a much lower cost. Otherwise, subsidies like this drive up housing costs and you end up like many American Cities.
- adrianN 10y ago
  If I were 80 years old I would be very upset if I were forced to move from my home where I had spent the last forty odd years because of rising taxes. I think we can find ways to deal with this problem without forcing people to sell their homes. Problems related to old people can often be solved by making sure that they don't perpetuate and waiting.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    It's not too difficult to allow the elderly to defer the tax until they die or choose to sell.
    - pc86 10y ago
      If the house is passed on to a child, they are forced to sell whether they can afford the taxes or not because now they have decades of built of tax debt they need to pay off out of the estate. If you defer until sale and the elderly person sells when they can't take care of themselves anymore, they have less money with which they can get a new residence.
      - notahacker 10y ago
        Sure, I wasn't suggesting that a special tax break created for elderly who wish to avoid moving out of a house they were fortunate enough to buy for far less than its current market value should continue to apply when they no longer need the house. Why wouldn't you organise things so that property-owning dynasties aren't able to freeload off the appreciation in their property values accruing from the work and taxes paid by others?
  - hydrogen18 10y ago
    Is this OK if you were 35 years old?
  - a_thro_away 10y ago
    Michigan has Proposal A, which limits property tax rise to inflation (or something close), until sold when it reverts to the current valuation. IIRC, it is exactly to counter throwing older people out of their homes, and other people who do not wish to lose their homes because of sometimes crazy increases in property value.
  - pc86 10y ago
    What's wrong with saying "you could afford this when it was taxed at x% and valued at $y, but now it's taxed at 1.5x and 2y, and you can't afford it, and you should move?" I'd much rather sell a $500k house and move because the monthly tax bill is too much for my cash flow than stay there and have the thing repossessed because I owe $15k, then I get nothing. This is more of the "I'm entitled to ___________" mindset coming out of the baby boomer generation. Yes you paid for your house, but there is a monthly tax requirement to keep it. If you paid the house off in full but can't pay the monthly taxes, you can't afford that house.
- true_religion 10y ago
  I don't see why this is an issue. Are the elderly so populous that they can force tax benefits for only themselves? If more young people move into an area, rentees or not, they're eligible to vote and should be a large voting block all their own. I'm surprised than in San Fran, supposedly a tech mecca, there isn't a strong opposition coming from young, able bodied tech workers, with oodles of money on their hands.
  - xapata 10y ago
    Young people don't vote; they're busy working, and too cynical. Retirees vote en masse. Thus the host of government programs taking money from the youth and unborn and giving it to the elderly.
    - pc86 10y ago
      Which makes the "FYIGM" mindset all the more dangerous. I've seen plenty of people even on HN say some version of "well it was tough when I was younger but it all worked out so we shouldn't change things to my detriment now"
      - xapata 10y ago
        It's like hazing. "Pay your dues" is just going through initiation. One of my favorites was hearing my professor say, "Now that I have tenure, I think it's a wonderful system!" He had been complaining about the tenure system as capricious, foolish, etc. for a while. He's a great guy, so it's not that he changed his mind, exactly. He knew all his past criticism was still relevant, but he was acknowledging his strong disincentive to fight the system.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Tech is only 10% of the SF workforce. The rest of the area gets way too much out of inflating housing prices and potential job competitors' rents while being immune to the downsides due to rent control or Prop 13. Also, what tends to happen is that the young folks move into commuting distance of the centralized jobs. If you BART into SF from the East Bay because you can't afford an apartment in SF, you can't vote for housing policies that would build apartments that you'd be able to move into.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

trome 10y ago

Most people are on fixed incomes, full stop. If you are in a home that you can't afford the taxes on, you should sell said home. Anything else is how you end up with 60 thru 90 year olds living in housing that was never designed for them, both in that it is too large, and is missing elderly friendly features such as a single story layout. Sure, you can add these things on after the fact if its a single family home, but it often would make more sense to dump the 3 to 4 bedroom home (that you are expanding to 4 or 5 bedrooms with this reno) and get a place with a much lower maintenance burden and way fewer rooms. Sadly, we often distort reality here in the US with subsidies that incentivize poor decisions such as living out retirement in the home you raised your kids in, despite the burden that puts on those living there, their family, and the community around them. We should encourage the best possible outcome for everyone involved, by getting rid of tax deductions for having a mortgage against your home, or being over a certain age, as that will commoditize housing and allows people to live closer to where they need to be at a much lower cost. Otherwise, subsidies like this drive up housing costs and you end up like many American Cities.

adrianN 10y ago
If I were 80 years old I would be very upset if I were forced to move from my home where I had spent the last forty odd years because of rising taxes. I think we can find ways to deal with this problem without forcing people to sell their homes. Problems related to old people can often be solved by making sure that they don't perpetuate and waiting.
- notahacker 10y ago
  It's not too difficult to allow the elderly to defer the tax until they die or choose to sell.
  - pc86 10y ago
    If the house is passed on to a child, they are forced to sell whether they can afford the taxes or not because now they have decades of built of tax debt they need to pay off out of the estate. If you defer until sale and the elderly person sells when they can't take care of themselves anymore, they have less money with which they can get a new residence.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Sure, I wasn't suggesting that a special tax break created for elderly who wish to avoid moving out of a house they were fortunate enough to buy for far less than its current market value should continue to apply when they no longer need the house. Why wouldn't you organise things so that property-owning dynasties aren't able to freeload off the appreciation in their property values accruing from the work and taxes paid by others?
- hydrogen18 10y ago
  Is this OK if you were 35 years old?
- a_thro_away 10y ago
  Michigan has Proposal A, which limits property tax rise to inflation (or something close), until sold when it reverts to the current valuation. IIRC, it is exactly to counter throwing older people out of their homes, and other people who do not wish to lose their homes because of sometimes crazy increases in property value.
- pc86 10y ago
  What's wrong with saying "you could afford this when it was taxed at x% and valued at $y, but now it's taxed at 1.5x and 2y, and you can't afford it, and you should move?" I'd much rather sell a $500k house and move because the monthly tax bill is too much for my cash flow than stay there and have the thing repossessed because I owe $15k, then I get nothing. This is more of the "I'm entitled to ___________" mindset coming out of the baby boomer generation. Yes you paid for your house, but there is a monthly tax requirement to keep it. If you paid the house off in full but can't pay the monthly taxes, you can't afford that house.
true_religion 10y ago
I don't see why this is an issue. Are the elderly so populous that they can force tax benefits for only themselves? If more young people move into an area, rentees or not, they're eligible to vote and should be a large voting block all their own. I'm surprised than in San Fran, supposedly a tech mecca, there isn't a strong opposition coming from young, able bodied tech workers, with oodles of money on their hands.
- xapata 10y ago
  Young people don't vote; they're busy working, and too cynical. Retirees vote en masse. Thus the host of government programs taking money from the youth and unborn and giving it to the elderly.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Which makes the "FYIGM" mindset all the more dangerous. I've seen plenty of people even on HN say some version of "well it was tough when I was younger but it all worked out so we shouldn't change things to my detriment now"
    - xapata 10y ago
      It's like hazing. "Pay your dues" is just going through initiation. One of my favorites was hearing my professor say, "Now that I have tenure, I think it's a wonderful system!" He had been complaining about the tenure system as capricious, foolish, etc. for a while. He's a great guy, so it's not that he changed his mind, exactly. He knew all his past criticism was still relevant, but he was acknowledging his strong disincentive to fight the system.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Tech is only 10% of the SF workforce. The rest of the area gets way too much out of inflating housing prices and potential job competitors' rents while being immune to the downsides due to rent control or Prop 13. Also, what tends to happen is that the young folks move into commuting distance of the centralized jobs. If you BART into SF from the East Bay because you can't afford an apartment in SF, you can't vote for housing policies that would build apartments that you'd be able to move into.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]