4 ms·
So, they go from getting a reduced amount each year to getting nothing each year with the expectation of a larger lump sum at some indeterminate point the futur
by vonmoltke 7y ago
So, they go from getting a reduced amount each year to getting nothing each year with the expectation of a larger lump sum at some indeterminate point the future. I'm not sure that's a good deal in a housing market where turnover is low, and I don't see anything in a simple tax lien plan that is going to drive increased turnover.
- refurb 7y agoIt removes the incentive to stay in a home to keep the low tax rate. That’s a big deal. And the deferred revenue can be significant. A friend bought a house where the owner was paying $600 per year when the rate for the same home should have been $11,000 per year.
- novok 7y agoGovernment can apply prop 13 style 'minimum payments' along with the deferred payment. Or make people do reverse mortgages and make the market sort it out. Usually although, you have provide some sort of incentive to people adopt something, and no taxes vs some small amount taxes is attractive to a voting block. And democracy is getting enough voting blocks to get you over the pass rate. Also since government works over large numbers and is very long term, they can do actuarial calculations to see when revenue would kick in and issue fairly reliable bonds based on it.
- kortilla 7y agoNo, stop assuming the stupidest way to implement it and then attacking that implementation. People get the same annually capped increases and then the lien of the remainder of the normal increase.