4 ms·

It's not like these things happened over night. If someone bought a house for 100k and it is now worth two million, I'm not sure they can claim they are being

It's not like these things happened over night. If someone bought a house for 100k and it is now worth two million, I'm not sure they can claim they are being gouged on a 2000% increase of equity. Buying land still doesn't entitle you to be able to perpetually afford to live in one of the most desirable places on earth.

scarface74 7y ago
Well. No one is “entitled” to live in California. There are 49 other states in the US. There are also many other cities where the pay vs cost of living makes a lot more sense.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, this just sounds like a generalization of what I was saying (although not all of California is expensive).
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It sounds like you saying that it would be more fair to make them leave by pricing them out so other people can buy their homes.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      Pricing property taxes to be consistent with the value of a home is not 'making someone leave'. In this case 'so someone else can buy their home' is actually 'they can decide to sell their house for an enormous profit of twenty times what they bought it for if that is their choice'. To be clear here, if someone else bought the house, that person would pay the proper property tax, so why is someone's inaction so valuable?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So we should make them sell the house they’ve lived in for forty years and move to the Midwest somewhere so tech bros can buy them?
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        You have to agree it makes a lot of economic sense for cities to use eminent domain to acquire underutilized housing stock and hand it over to FAANG companies to house their workers.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Didn’t you just say this in another reply when you are arguing against my idea that people who couldn’t afford housing in CA as it is now could leave? One of the arguments for forcing Native Americans onto reservations was that it would free up the land for more productive uses. So now we should just march granny across the United States and set up reservations for old people?
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        People in this thread are saying that sort of thing but just about people they consider expendable. Not me.
        BubRoss 7y ago
        No one has to sell, everyone has to pay property taxes. Why do you keep saying they are 'forced to sell' and that they shouldn't pay the same property taxes as others?
        scarface74 7y ago
        When you are retired you are on a fixed income. One advantage of buying a house over renting is that you don’t have to worry about increasing housing expenses besides usually small increases in property taxes and homeowners insurance. Of course, there is an unscientific rule of thumb that you should set 1% of the value of your home aside for repairs and maintenance (no one took into account the rapid rise of house prices when coming up with that rule of thumb.) Especially in retirement but even while you are working, It could easily come to the point where you are priced out of your own home because you can’t afford increasing property taxes. You can’t sell part of your equity your house to pay taxes like you can stock. Not being taxed on “wealth” and being taxed on income and capital gains makes a lot more sense. Also, many counties don’t make senior citizens pay school taxes.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > Well. No one is “entitled” to live in California. There are 49 other states in the US. Why stop there? Why not deport people to other countries?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Wow. So now leaving California is like leaving the country? So why stop there? Why not squeeze everyone in California into one city?
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Why not? One of the arguments for forcing Native Americans onto reservations was that it would free up the land for more productive uses.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So using your analogy, the people who were there first that you are trying to displace by pricing them out of the market are the Native Americans. How many young people trying to buy a house were born in California?

scarface74 7y ago

Well. No one is “entitled” to live in California. There are 49 other states in the US. There are also many other cities where the pay vs cost of living makes a lot more sense.

BubRoss 7y ago
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, this just sounds like a generalization of what I was saying (although not all of California is expensive).
- scarface74 7y ago
  It sounds like you saying that it would be more fair to make them leave by pricing them out so other people can buy their homes.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Pricing property taxes to be consistent with the value of a home is not 'making someone leave'. In this case 'so someone else can buy their home' is actually 'they can decide to sell their house for an enormous profit of twenty times what they bought it for if that is their choice'. To be clear here, if someone else bought the house, that person would pay the proper property tax, so why is someone's inaction so valuable?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So we should make them sell the house they’ve lived in for forty years and move to the Midwest somewhere so tech bros can buy them?
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        You have to agree it makes a lot of economic sense for cities to use eminent domain to acquire underutilized housing stock and hand it over to FAANG companies to house their workers.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Didn’t you just say this in another reply when you are arguing against my idea that people who couldn’t afford housing in CA as it is now could leave? One of the arguments for forcing Native Americans onto reservations was that it would free up the land for more productive uses. So now we should just march granny across the United States and set up reservations for old people?
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        People in this thread are saying that sort of thing but just about people they consider expendable. Not me.
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        No one has to sell, everyone has to pay property taxes. Why do you keep saying they are 'forced to sell' and that they shouldn't pay the same property taxes as others?
        scarface74 7y ago
        When you are retired you are on a fixed income. One advantage of buying a house over renting is that you don’t have to worry about increasing housing expenses besides usually small increases in property taxes and homeowners insurance. Of course, there is an unscientific rule of thumb that you should set 1% of the value of your home aside for repairs and maintenance (no one took into account the rapid rise of house prices when coming up with that rule of thumb.) Especially in retirement but even while you are working, It could easily come to the point where you are priced out of your own home because you can’t afford increasing property taxes. You can’t sell part of your equity your house to pay taxes like you can stock. Not being taxed on “wealth” and being taxed on income and capital gains makes a lot more sense. Also, many counties don’t make senior citizens pay school taxes.
Gibbon1 7y ago
> Well. No one is “entitled” to live in California. There are 49 other states in the US. Why stop there? Why not deport people to other countries?
- scarface74 7y ago
  Wow. So now leaving California is like leaving the country? So why stop there? Why not squeeze everyone in California into one city?
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Why not? One of the arguments for forcing Native Americans onto reservations was that it would free up the land for more productive uses.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So using your analogy, the people who were there first that you are trying to displace by pricing them out of the market are the Native Americans. How many young people trying to buy a house were born in California?