5 ms·

I think we need to better manage expectations of living space. Renters have no right to live forever in the same apartment, and if they can't pay rent, they hav

I think we need to better manage expectations of living space. Renters have no right to live forever in the same apartment, and if they can't pay rent, they have to move. Homeowners pay rent in the form of property taxes to the government, and likewise: if you can't pay your rent, you gotta move. So you won a lottery ticket? You pay your taxes or go to jail. So you got lucky with your home purchase? You pay your taxes or lose your home. Property is pretty fungible - if your taxes go up, you got lucky, now you probably are sitting on hundreds of thousands more dollars. Stop being stubborn. You've had your turn in that property. Sell. Move to a cheaper place, own it free and clear, and free up housing stock for people who are willing to pay for it. - Sincerely, the rest of us. PS - a commenter writes: > That ignores the possibility that you bought your house as an investment, because you recognized the potential of a neighborhood, or that you were responsible (in part) for building the value of the neighborhood. Oh, you expected the neighborhood to improve and didn't expect your property taxes to go up? That seems really disingenuous. > Luck We all have luck, and for the most part, we make it ourselves. The reality of life is that you shouldn't expect to live in the same place forever. If you've had your turn in one place, but the economy is saying your turn is over, don't fight it. It's not worth it. Make your own luck. Move where the taxes and crime-rates are lower and where the schools and streets are better.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
This seems antithetical to the concept of ownership. If it's my house, why do I have to give it up just because someone with more money wants it? Why should my taxes go up, just because people value my property at an increased rate? Property taxes are supposed to fund the services provided by the local government, not evict poor people for the benefit of the rich. You suggest that buying a house that people want is like winning a lottery ticket. That ignores the possibility that you bought your house as an investment, because you recognized the potential of a neighborhood, or that you were responsible (in part) for building the value of the neighborhood. Setting those possibilities aside, being rich is a matter of luck too. Your parents were well off, you happened to study the right thing at college, get involved with a startup at the right time, or were even born with the genetics and upbringing to generate a high iq. That's all luck too. Why should the rich person's luck be rewarded by forcing the poor to give up their home and move somewhere worse?
- scarmig 9y ago
  Two points: 1) Someone's getting taxed, somewhere. The question is what we want to incentivize. Working hard for a living? Saving money and investing it to grow the economy? Purchasing food to feed and garments to clothe your family? Trading with people outside the country who make things more efficiently than you can? Or sitting on underutilized land? No matter what, someone's ox gets gored. The key is that it should be oriented around good public policy, and that people should have the time to incorporate policy changes into their decision making process. 2) You seem unrealistically worried about government coming in and removing people from houses they own at gunpoint. The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass. In other words, a permanent and widespread subsidy that enriches the banking industry at the expense of the public. Don't we have enough of those already?
    - scarmig 9y ago
      I'm confused how you'd consider reverse mortgages a subsidy.
      - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
        How could one not? See https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-are-the-costs-i-will-have-to-pay-for-a-reverse-mortgage-en-237/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-are-the-costs-... Reverse mortgages don't happen for free. The interest and all those fees go to the banking & other industries. By making reverse mortgages a considerably more frequent scenario, those industries clearly benefit.
  - 9y ago

ImSkeptical 9y ago

This seems antithetical to the concept of ownership. If it's my house, why do I have to give it up just because someone with more money wants it? Why should my taxes go up, just because people value my property at an increased rate? Property taxes are supposed to fund the services provided by the local government, not evict poor people for the benefit of the rich. You suggest that buying a house that people want is like winning a lottery ticket. That ignores the possibility that you bought your house as an investment, because you recognized the potential of a neighborhood, or that you were responsible (in part) for building the value of the neighborhood. Setting those possibilities aside, being rich is a matter of luck too. Your parents were well off, you happened to study the right thing at college, get involved with a startup at the right time, or were even born with the genetics and upbringing to generate a high iq. That's all luck too. Why should the rich person's luck be rewarded by forcing the poor to give up their home and move somewhere worse?

scarmig 9y ago
Two points: 1) Someone's getting taxed, somewhere. The question is what we want to incentivize. Working hard for a living? Saving money and investing it to grow the economy? Purchasing food to feed and garments to clothe your family? Trading with people outside the country who make things more efficiently than you can? Or sitting on underutilized land? No matter what, someone's ox gets gored. The key is that it should be oriented around good public policy, and that people should have the time to incorporate policy changes into their decision making process. 2) You seem unrealistically worried about government coming in and removing people from houses they own at gunpoint. The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > The actual worst case scenario is someone gets a reverse mortgage from the bank to pay property tax with equity from the home, and they end up bequeathing a smaller proportion of wealth to their heirs when they pass. In other words, a permanent and widespread subsidy that enriches the banking industry at the expense of the public. Don't we have enough of those already?
  - scarmig 9y ago
    I'm confused how you'd consider reverse mortgages a subsidy.
    - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
      How could one not? See https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-are-the-costs-i-will-have-to-pay-for-a-reverse-mortgage-en-237/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-are-the-costs-... Reverse mortgages don't happen for free. The interest and all those fees go to the banking & other industries. By making reverse mortgages a considerably more frequent scenario, those industries clearly benefit.
- 9y ago