3 ms·

> Charitable property owners will eventually be out-competed by ruthless ones. While true, the primary virtue of being an owner is that you’re free to do whate

by kd5bjo 7y ago

> Charitable property owners will eventually be out-competed by ruthless ones. While true, the primary virtue of being an owner is that you’re free to do whatever you want with your property, even if there is a different, more profitable, use. These evictions are entirely the property owners’ choice, and have not been forced by competition. What we have here is a demonstration that they are capitalists, and not philanthropists. I don’t think that comes as much of a surprise to anyone.

deogeo 7y ago
That's the primary reason I'm opposed to real-estate taxes (at least for small to reasonably large lots) - they force you on a hamster wheel just to keep what you have. If they're pegged to property values (not just area) they act as eminent domain - you either use your property in some market-driven way, or be forced to sell it as keeping it becomes unaffordable. No room for sentiment or tradition - develop or die.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  But, if they're not tied to property values, you get what's happening in California: Older people, simply by virtue of them being here first, end up being able to enjoy million-dollar neighborhoods while paying $hundreds in taxes. While younger people pay 10X more in taxes to live in 0.25X the neighborhood. It's like domain squatting but with homes.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    As I understand, the tax difference in California is because the tax is based on the property value at the time of purchase. If it were instead based on just e.g. area and zoning, everyone would be paying the same tax rate (barring zoning shenanigans...)
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    It doesn't make sense to me how people who oppose gentrification pushing poor residents out of areas would be fine with higher property taxes pushing old people out of areas. Maybe it's ageism. Both seem bad to me. It's not even like California's budget is suffering - they have a huge surplus.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      I think it's because the connection to one's home has been devalued. That there is no legitimacy in wanting to live where one grew up. That it's somehow entitled to expect to stay without paying for it - 'it' being taxes, since the house was already paid for.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  Counterpoint: higher property taxes force property valuations to be based closer to the “current use” value (ex, what is the value of this house based on its use as a place where someone lives), lower property taxes allow property valuations to be based on the “speculative” price (how much will this land be worth in 40 years, regardless of how I use it now). In general, jurisdictions with low property taxes have a combination of high property values and more rundown buildings/land banking/speculative investment (where speculative investment means owning an empty lot or vacant lot in a highly productive urban area for 40 years) as the carrying costs are lower (houses are valued more on the “what will this be worth in 40 years” and less on “what is it worth for me to use this house as a house right now”)
  - deogeo 7y ago
    That's part of the reason for that "at least for small to reasonably large lots" exception I made. Suppose there is a tax, but it's progressive (by square-foot), so you pay ~0 for your first house, a bit more for your second, and so on up to some maximum, same as income tax. That should make speculating on the future price more costly, and so reduce speculation - a bank/investor would probably be paying the maximum tax.

by kd5bjo 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

That's the primary reason I'm opposed to real-estate taxes (at least for small to reasonably large lots) - they force you on a hamster wheel just to keep what you have. If they're pegged to property values (not just area) they act as eminent domain - you either use your property in some market-driven way, or be forced to sell it as keeping it becomes unaffordable. No room for sentiment or tradition - develop or die.

ryandrake 7y ago
But, if they're not tied to property values, you get what's happening in California: Older people, simply by virtue of them being here first, end up being able to enjoy million-dollar neighborhoods while paying $hundreds in taxes. While younger people pay 10X more in taxes to live in 0.25X the neighborhood. It's like domain squatting but with homes.
- deogeo 7y ago
  As I understand, the tax difference in California is because the tax is based on the property value at the time of purchase. If it were instead based on just e.g. area and zoning, everyone would be paying the same tax rate (barring zoning shenanigans...)
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  It doesn't make sense to me how people who oppose gentrification pushing poor residents out of areas would be fine with higher property taxes pushing old people out of areas. Maybe it's ageism. Both seem bad to me. It's not even like California's budget is suffering - they have a huge surplus.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    I think it's because the connection to one's home has been devalued. That there is no legitimacy in wanting to live where one grew up. That it's somehow entitled to expect to stay without paying for it - 'it' being taxes, since the house was already paid for.
0xB31B1B 7y ago
Counterpoint: higher property taxes force property valuations to be based closer to the “current use” value (ex, what is the value of this house based on its use as a place where someone lives), lower property taxes allow property valuations to be based on the “speculative” price (how much will this land be worth in 40 years, regardless of how I use it now). In general, jurisdictions with low property taxes have a combination of high property values and more rundown buildings/land banking/speculative investment (where speculative investment means owning an empty lot or vacant lot in a highly productive urban area for 40 years) as the carrying costs are lower (houses are valued more on the “what will this be worth in 40 years” and less on “what is it worth for me to use this house as a house right now”)
- deogeo 7y ago
  That's part of the reason for that "at least for small to reasonably large lots" exception I made. Suppose there is a tax, but it's progressive (by square-foot), so you pay ~0 for your first house, a bit more for your second, and so on up to some maximum, same as income tax. That should make speculating on the future price more costly, and so reduce speculation - a bank/investor would probably be paying the maximum tax.