4 ms·

It’s hard to have sympathy for people whose home has skyrocketed in value and they now “can’t afford” the property tax on their multimillion dollar homes. What

It’s hard to have sympathy for people whose home has skyrocketed in value and they now “can’t afford” the property tax on their multimillion dollar homes. What it needed is a way for people whose homes had only gone up a small amount from getting budget busting increments. Once your home has doubled in value, there are other financial mechanisms to solve that problem and you can afford to pay the increase.

zepto 7y ago
Why do you have no sympathy? If you are a retiree who has worked hard the paper value of your home if you were forced to sell is not a real gain.
- sharx 7y ago
  There are other options beside selling e.g. reverse mortgage or heloc
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Because they own a multi-million dollar asset? They can, worse case, take out a reverse mortgage and live happily ever after. There are better financial options available than a reverse mortgage but anyway you look at it they are rich. What do you mean by "is not a real gain"?
  - zepto 7y ago
    Asset gains only become real when the asset is sold. That’s what I mean. Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls. There is no guarantee that home values will remain stable nor that whatever assets you put the loan into will perform adequately too. Given that retirees typically don’t have the ability to correct for investments gone wrong out of future earnings, your recommendations would be foolhardy for most. Simply buying a house to live in is fine. The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
    - Ensorceled 7y ago
      > Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls. That's not how a reverse mortgage works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage > The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead. That's just not true. We want baby boomers to pay their fair share of taxes and not squirrel away their wealth for their heirs at our expense. In addition, because of Prop 13 (and similar programs else where) mean OTHER tax payers are paying a higher rate than they need to in order to cover the short fall.
      - zepto 7y ago
        If you were worried about wealth being passed on to heirs, you’d be focussed on estate taxes rather than just trying to tax people who just want to live in their own homes. Also, what about all of the other people lives you’d destroy? I live in Oakland in a neighborhood where most homes are either rented, or owned by families that are neither boomers, nor high income tech employees. Any honest discussion about this has to admit that these are would be hardest hit and their communities decimated so that beneficiaries of the tech boom can buy them out.
        Ensorceled 7y ago
        Honestly, I'm talking about Toronto, where similar attempts to keep our taxes low "for the poor widow in her house she raised her five children in" has resulted in an inability to properly fund our transit system. This is a systemic problem as boomers retire and look for ways to minimize the contributions to a society they are no longer interested in funding. You are clearly very emotional about this topic but it's NOT about "techbros" "stealing" property from "poor" retirees on a fixed income.
        zepto 7y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. It’s clear that you don’t care about the consequences to anyone who owns a home other than the ‘Boomers’ who you want to make pay. I didn’t say ‘tech bros’. But I did mention tech. I stand by that but I agree that it is narrow - It’s a stand in for anyone who is young and in a position to have high future earnings.
- refurb 7y ago
  Why should the people that saw the biggest increase it net worth be protected from the taxes everyone has to pay? A better solution would be offering up a property lien instead of taxes. The govt collects when the property is eventually sold. People get to stay in their home and property taxes remain fair.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    That's an interesting idea, but I see three main problems: 1) It doesn't solve the immediate revenue problems of the taxing authority 2) It doesn't provide any more incentive to move than the current situation in California 3) It exposes taxing authorities to risk in a housing market downturn where people may start surrendering their property rather than sell because selling would net them little money, or even cost them money.
    - novok 7y ago
      It's better than the status quo, and reduces the lost taxes to a far smaller number of units (every corporation and person vs some older people). Solutions don't have to be %100, especially when you can stack them to get to a target revenue number. It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo.
      - vonmoltke 7y ago
        > It's better than the status quo Without putting more thought into it, I don't know. I don't see how this changes the revenue picture. > reduces the lost taxes to a far smaller number of units (every corporation and person vs some older people) That is independent of the tax lien idea. > It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo. This I can see. I know Florida had issues with people who wanted to downsize but couldn't afford to because of the tax jump from selling their homesteaded property. That said, I'm not sure this alone would open up enough inventory to actually reduce prices.
- asdfgasd 7y ago
  Because there are a thousand other practical solutions people have presented that you're ignoring in deference to your ideological motive that you don't like taxes.
  - zepto 7y ago
    I’m quite happy with taxes on investment gains and income and even estates. I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have.
    - asdfgasd 7y ago
      > I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have. This is just a variant of "the left is just jealous of rich people" argument. That's not an argument and I'm not jealous, I'm actually quite rich by most standards, I just don't think it's earned or justified, especially in a country with a vivid history of genocide.

zepto 7y ago

Why do you have no sympathy? If you are a retiree who has worked hard the paper value of your home if you were forced to sell is not a real gain.

sharx 7y ago
There are other options beside selling e.g. reverse mortgage or heloc
Ensorceled 7y ago
Because they own a multi-million dollar asset? They can, worse case, take out a reverse mortgage and live happily ever after. There are better financial options available than a reverse mortgage but anyway you look at it they are rich. What do you mean by "is not a real gain"?
- zepto 7y ago
  Asset gains only become real when the asset is sold. That’s what I mean. Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls. There is no guarantee that home values will remain stable nor that whatever assets you put the loan into will perform adequately too. Given that retirees typically don’t have the ability to correct for investments gone wrong out of future earnings, your recommendations would be foolhardy for most. Simply buying a house to live in is fine. The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
  - Ensorceled 7y ago
    > Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls. That's not how a reverse mortgage works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage > The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead. That's just not true. We want baby boomers to pay their fair share of taxes and not squirrel away their wealth for their heirs at our expense. In addition, because of Prop 13 (and similar programs else where) mean OTHER tax payers are paying a higher rate than they need to in order to cover the short fall.
    - zepto 7y ago
      If you were worried about wealth being passed on to heirs, you’d be focussed on estate taxes rather than just trying to tax people who just want to live in their own homes. Also, what about all of the other people lives you’d destroy? I live in Oakland in a neighborhood where most homes are either rented, or owned by families that are neither boomers, nor high income tech employees. Any honest discussion about this has to admit that these are would be hardest hit and their communities decimated so that beneficiaries of the tech boom can buy them out.
      - Ensorceled 7y ago
        Honestly, I'm talking about Toronto, where similar attempts to keep our taxes low "for the poor widow in her house she raised her five children in" has resulted in an inability to properly fund our transit system. This is a systemic problem as boomers retire and look for ways to minimize the contributions to a society they are no longer interested in funding. You are clearly very emotional about this topic but it's NOT about "techbros" "stealing" property from "poor" retirees on a fixed income.
        zepto 7y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. It’s clear that you don’t care about the consequences to anyone who owns a home other than the ‘Boomers’ who you want to make pay. I didn’t say ‘tech bros’. But I did mention tech. I stand by that but I agree that it is narrow - It’s a stand in for anyone who is young and in a position to have high future earnings.
refurb 7y ago
Why should the people that saw the biggest increase it net worth be protected from the taxes everyone has to pay? A better solution would be offering up a property lien instead of taxes. The govt collects when the property is eventually sold. People get to stay in their home and property taxes remain fair.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  That's an interesting idea, but I see three main problems: 1) It doesn't solve the immediate revenue problems of the taxing authority 2) It doesn't provide any more incentive to move than the current situation in California 3) It exposes taxing authorities to risk in a housing market downturn where people may start surrendering their property rather than sell because selling would net them little money, or even cost them money.
  - novok 7y ago
    It's better than the status quo, and reduces the lost taxes to a far smaller number of units (every corporation and person vs some older people). Solutions don't have to be %100, especially when you can stack them to get to a target revenue number. It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      > It's better than the status quo Without putting more thought into it, I don't know. I don't see how this changes the revenue picture. > reduces the lost taxes to a far smaller number of units (every corporation and person vs some older people) That is independent of the tax lien idea. > It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo. This I can see. I know Florida had issues with people who wanted to downsize but couldn't afford to because of the tax jump from selling their homesteaded property. That said, I'm not sure this alone would open up enough inventory to actually reduce prices.
asdfgasd 7y ago
Because there are a thousand other practical solutions people have presented that you're ignoring in deference to your ideological motive that you don't like taxes.
- zepto 7y ago
  I’m quite happy with taxes on investment gains and income and even estates. I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have.
  - asdfgasd 7y ago
    > I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have. This is just a variant of "the left is just jealous of rich people" argument. That's not an argument and I'm not jealous, I'm actually quite rich by most standards, I just don't think it's earned or justified, especially in a country with a vivid history of genocide.