6 ms·

> The alternative is that we basically force people out of houses they've bought by gouging them with taxes. I would argue that being able to afford a place in

> The alternative is that we basically force people out of houses they've bought by gouging them with taxes. I would argue that being able to afford a place in the 1970s does not endow one with an inalienable right to remain there forever. Locking the property taxes creates an artificial incentive to hold onto property forever, thus creating market stagnation.

tremon 7y ago
Yes, of course, and after we've driven them from their home, maybe we can put them in a reservation instead /s
la6470 7y ago
The taxes should simply increase for the folks who has brought it in the 70s adjusted for inflation and senior citizen discount. But it should not stay the same. Gawd why can’t we ever take the middle road and only have to take fucking extreme positions in every damn thing???
almost_usual 7y ago
I honestly think it has less to do with money than the younger HN community realizes. Older people don't like change, especially significant changes like moving. Most of the people who have been here for decades stay because it's their home and they have no where else to go. Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home.
- pound 7y ago
  non-primary residences as well as commercial properties are also covered by it. It's about wealth, not about keeping someone in their home.
  - almost_usual 7y ago
    I can get on board with amending non-primary residences and commercial properties.
- undersuit 7y ago
  Why are we bending over backwards to appease them though. Renters have to leave their residences all the time due to rental increases, often after being financially stressed to a limit. The home owners could at least take out credit against their property to pay for the taxes if they don't want to move. In fact I think that's a good thing! A large number of California home owners all needing large lines of credit backed by highly valued properties could devalue the properties or cause a crash.
- yonran 7y ago
  > Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home. The correct solution to address both the problem of growing property taxes (due to growing land values) and the housing shortage is to zone the lots to encourage growth, as promoted by Strong Towns (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-growing-incrementally https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g...), not to give a special tax break to long-time homeowners at the expense of renters and new homeowners. This would enable homeowners to pay the higher taxes without being displaced as well as serve more households.
nerfhammer 7y ago
A more palatable argument is that it would create incentives to keep housing prices stable, rather than expecting a lifetime skyrocketing windfall at everyone else's expense.
- carty76ers 7y ago
  The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman lives in a 900 sqft home bought in 1963, how is it her fault that the world went crazy and values it at $1,200,000+ today? Have you seen a 1963 house? They’re a fire hazard not worth 1.2M.. And yet, you want her owe tax on that crazy value, yet she is stuck with a static retirement income? Where should she go? Idaho? I’m for increasing tax on income earners, but not on retired elderly who just want to die in peace. The younger generation could move to other geographies much easier
  - yonran 7y ago
    > The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman… Proposition 13 does not target widowed elderly women; it only benefits property owners regardless of whether they are widowed elderly women. For example, widowed elderly renters are harmed instead of helped. If we wanted an entitlement for low-income and elderly people, we should have made one that targeted these groups instead of the one that only incidentally helps low-income people (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html)
  - robotresearcher 7y ago
    The old lady made $1m in unearned value in her house. She can use a part of that value to pay taxes on the increase, live and die in the house, and her heirs still make free money.
    - ericmay 7y ago
      It’s also unrealized. Maybe just tax on the sale or transfer. Honestly the whole situation is a nightmare. I feel like whenever I think of a “solution” I just find problems with it.
malvosenior 7y ago
I would argue that buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose). Anything else is basically the elimination of the concept of private property. Kicking people out of their houses is not a sign of a healthy society.
- tmh79 7y ago
  so you support rent control below CPI?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    No. I don't think the government should be manipulating the housing market directly like that. I do think it should invest more in building low income houses and that zoning should mix incomes though. I think that would make for a healthier environment for everyone.
- rcpt 7y ago
  You're confusing the "fee simple" notion of land tenure that we have in the United States with "allodial title" which doesn't happen anywhere anymore because it turns out that's a terrible way to run a society.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I'm not confusing anything, you just don't agree with my position.
    - rcpt 7y ago
      > buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose) That's simply not how it works in the United States. The government here is allowed to levy taxes on you for fencing off a portion of our land from other citizens.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tremon 7y ago

Yes, of course, and after we've driven them from their home, maybe we can put them in a reservation instead /s

la6470 7y ago

The taxes should simply increase for the folks who has brought it in the 70s adjusted for inflation and senior citizen discount. But it should not stay the same. Gawd why can’t we ever take the middle road and only have to take fucking extreme positions in every damn thing???

almost_usual 7y ago

I honestly think it has less to do with money than the younger HN community realizes. Older people don't like change, especially significant changes like moving. Most of the people who have been here for decades stay because it's their home and they have no where else to go. Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home.

pound 7y ago
non-primary residences as well as commercial properties are also covered by it. It's about wealth, not about keeping someone in their home.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  I can get on board with amending non-primary residences and commercial properties.
undersuit 7y ago
Why are we bending over backwards to appease them though. Renters have to leave their residences all the time due to rental increases, often after being financially stressed to a limit. The home owners could at least take out credit against their property to pay for the taxes if they don't want to move. In fact I think that's a good thing! A large number of California home owners all needing large lines of credit backed by highly valued properties could devalue the properties or cause a crash.
yonran 7y ago
> Getting rid of Prop 13 and raising taxes to tech market rate is the equivalent of deporting someone from their home. The correct solution to address both the problem of growing property taxes (due to growing land values) and the housing shortage is to zone the lots to encourage growth, as promoted by Strong Towns (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-growing-incrementally https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/12/the-power-of-g...), not to give a special tax break to long-time homeowners at the expense of renters and new homeowners. This would enable homeowners to pay the higher taxes without being displaced as well as serve more households.

nerfhammer 7y ago

A more palatable argument is that it would create incentives to keep housing prices stable, rather than expecting a lifetime skyrocketing windfall at everyone else's expense.

carty76ers 7y ago
The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman lives in a 900 sqft home bought in 1963, how is it her fault that the world went crazy and values it at $1,200,000+ today? Have you seen a 1963 house? They’re a fire hazard not worth 1.2M.. And yet, you want her owe tax on that crazy value, yet she is stuck with a static retirement income? Where should she go? Idaho? I’m for increasing tax on income earners, but not on retired elderly who just want to die in peace. The younger generation could move to other geographies much easier
- yonran 7y ago
  > The counter argument is: If a widowed elderly woman… Proposition 13 does not target widowed elderly women; it only benefits property owners regardless of whether they are widowed elderly women. For example, widowed elderly renters are harmed instead of helped. If we wanted an entitlement for low-income and elderly people, we should have made one that targeted these groups instead of the one that only incidentally helps low-income people (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html)
- robotresearcher 7y ago
  The old lady made $1m in unearned value in her house. She can use a part of that value to pay taxes on the increase, live and die in the house, and her heirs still make free money.
  - ericmay 7y ago
    It’s also unrealized. Maybe just tax on the sale or transfer. Honestly the whole situation is a nightmare. I feel like whenever I think of a “solution” I just find problems with it.

malvosenior 7y ago

I would argue that buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose). Anything else is basically the elimination of the concept of private property. Kicking people out of their houses is not a sign of a healthy society.

tmh79 7y ago
so you support rent control below CPI?
- malvosenior 7y ago
  No. I don't think the government should be manipulating the housing market directly like that. I do think it should invest more in building low income houses and that zoning should mix incomes though. I think that would make for a healthier environment for everyone.
rcpt 7y ago
You're confusing the "fee simple" notion of land tenure that we have in the United States with "allodial title" which doesn't happen anywhere anymore because it turns out that's a terrible way to run a society.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I'm not confusing anything, you just don't agree with my position.
  - rcpt 7y ago
    > buying a house does give you the inalienable right to live there forever (if you so choose) That's simply not how it works in the United States. The government here is allowed to levy taxes on you for fencing off a portion of our land from other citizens.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]