6 ms·

I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to

I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. Imagine you spent your life eating a certain kind of shellfish, which used to be cheap, but then a foreign country started importing this shellfish in huge quantities and drove the price very high. I don't think you should feel entitled to be able to buy the product for the rest of your life at the cheaper price you were used to. People who bought may feel more entitled to a stake than renters, but in either case it's necessary to have some kind of incentive (high property tax) to drive out people who don't want to pay the market rate for living somewhere, so that available housing slots end up being given to those people who are willing to pay the most for them.

zepto 6y ago
> I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap What makes you think it was luck? How about people who saw the potential in a place before other people did, and contributed to its success? How about ordinary working class families who have lived there for generations? > should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. I don’t see why people with money should have the right to force people out of their homes. > that available housing slots end up being given to those people who are willing to pay the most for them I see, so this is about people with lots of money being able to force people out of their homes. Why are there limited slots? Why not just invest in other places? There are many underdeveloped towns even in California, where prices are cheaper. The market signal is that people should go and invest in those places.
- llampx 6y ago
  Is there any other space where taxes are so inequitable as with property in California? Why don't they move to a more equitable tax scheme based on, say, what the district requires rather than what the home was bought for? I already know the answer, because nobody would vote for it. It is the same in Berlin, where I live. People voted for the Mietendeckel but the only group of people that benefitted from it are the long-term renters who already have all the house they need. Among the screwed: small-time landlords, new renters and new families who need bigger apartments.
- jjav 6y ago
  > I don’t see why people with money should have the right to force people out of their homes. Agreed. Opposition to prop13 essentially is a statement saying that whoever has more money because they hit it rich on an IPO deserves the right to kick out established residents just because they have more money.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >How about people who saw the potential in a place before other people did, and contributed to its success? Contributed to its success by following a tax policy that encourages commercial real estate at the expense of residential real estate? Are you sure those people aren't just taking the jobs that the commercial real estate is providing hostage and are now extorting people for the privilege of living near the job? >The market signal is that people should go and invest in those places. No, the market literally screams into your face that you should build more housing and fix the commercial vs residential mismatch.
sokoloff 6y ago
> I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. What should buying a home mean if not that? Sure, if someone else is willing to pay a lot more, they're welcome to bid on it, but it's still up to you if you want to give that up and stay put where you have roots, friends, family, kids in school, etc.
- nybble41 6y ago
  Agreed. There is some cognitive dissonance going on between the idea of the home you bought being your property—meaning you shouldn't be affected by changes in market value unless you choose to sell it—and the requirement to pay annual property taxes merely to retain what you already own. People buy homes rather than rent precisely to avoid this sort of situation, but to the tax collector everyone looks like a renter.
- jjav 6y ago
  Exactly. A home is a home. It's not a share of stock to be sold to the highest bidder. The whole point of buying a home is to establish roots in one place and become part of the community and see your child grow up there.
godshatter 6y ago
> I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. If others are willing to pay more for the same home, then they should make the current owner of the home an offer.
- caturopath 6y ago
  There is a thing of value -- a tax subsidy -- which makes the house more valuable to the current owner than the next. That's the distorting power of Prop 13, the old owner has to give up not only the house but the tax rate. (This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact we let people take the tax subsidy with them under many circumstances now, so people can move to a different part of the state and already pay less tax.)
jjav 6y ago
A home is not a share of stock to be traded for economic benefit. A home is a home. Where your children are born and grow up. Where you get to know the neighbors and become part of the community. It's not an investment and should not be taxed based on the highest bidder.
- llampx 6y ago
  That's not the way most people in the US think though.

zepto 6y ago

> I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap What makes you think it was luck? How about people who saw the potential in a place before other people did, and contributed to its success? How about ordinary working class families who have lived there for generations? > should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. I don’t see why people with money should have the right to force people out of their homes. > that available housing slots end up being given to those people who are willing to pay the most for them I see, so this is about people with lots of money being able to force people out of their homes. Why are there limited slots? Why not just invest in other places? There are many underdeveloped towns even in California, where prices are cheaper. The market signal is that people should go and invest in those places.

llampx 6y ago
Is there any other space where taxes are so inequitable as with property in California? Why don't they move to a more equitable tax scheme based on, say, what the district requires rather than what the home was bought for? I already know the answer, because nobody would vote for it. It is the same in Berlin, where I live. People voted for the Mietendeckel but the only group of people that benefitted from it are the long-term renters who already have all the house they need. Among the screwed: small-time landlords, new renters and new families who need bigger apartments.
jjav 6y ago
> I don’t see why people with money should have the right to force people out of their homes. Agreed. Opposition to prop13 essentially is a statement saying that whoever has more money because they hit it rich on an IPO deserves the right to kick out established residents just because they have more money.
imtringued 6y ago
>How about people who saw the potential in a place before other people did, and contributed to its success? Contributed to its success by following a tax policy that encourages commercial real estate at the expense of residential real estate? Are you sure those people aren't just taking the jobs that the commercial real estate is providing hostage and are now extorting people for the privilege of living near the job? >The market signal is that people should go and invest in those places. No, the market literally screams into your face that you should build more housing and fix the commercial vs residential mismatch.

sokoloff 6y ago

> I don't think that having gotten lucky and bought a home somewhere when it was cheap should entitle you to enjoy living there forever when others are willing to pay more for the same home. What should buying a home mean if not that? Sure, if someone else is willing to pay a lot more, they're welcome to bid on it, but it's still up to you if you want to give that up and stay put where you have roots, friends, family, kids in school, etc.

nybble41 6y ago
Agreed. There is some cognitive dissonance going on between the idea of the home you bought being your property—meaning you shouldn't be affected by changes in market value unless you choose to sell it—and the requirement to pay annual property taxes merely to retain what you already own. People buy homes rather than rent precisely to avoid this sort of situation, but to the tax collector everyone looks like a renter.
jjav 6y ago
Exactly. A home is a home. It's not a share of stock to be sold to the highest bidder. The whole point of buying a home is to establish roots in one place and become part of the community and see your child grow up there.

godshatter 6y ago

caturopath 6y ago
There is a thing of value -- a tax subsidy -- which makes the house more valuable to the current owner than the next. That's the distorting power of Prop 13, the old owner has to give up not only the house but the tax rate. (This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact we let people take the tax subsidy with them under many circumstances now, so people can move to a different part of the state and already pay less tax.)

jjav 6y ago

A home is not a share of stock to be traded for economic benefit. A home is a home. Where your children are born and grow up. Where you get to know the neighbors and become part of the community. It's not an investment and should not be taxed based on the highest bidder.

llampx 6y ago
That's not the way most people in the US think though.