5 ms·

Tax what exactly in the specific context of real estate? If you tax the ownership, that's property tax, it already exists, and 1) It's already high in the mos

Tax what exactly in the specific context of real estate? If you tax the ownership, that's property tax, it already exists, and 1) It's already high in the most HCOL states (imagine paying 30K a year for a property worth 750K, that's Westchester, NY or many parts of NJ, and a handful of other states) 2) Imagine you're 75, retired, and suddenly your property tax spikes and the house you bought 20 years ago for 150 is now worth 750K, and now you're on the hook for 30K. So that's out. Next we have taxing transactions. OK, so we up flip taxes (ownership less than X months), we increase transaction taxes on a sale, we can even rid ourselves of the cap gains tax exclusion for single and married couples, and perhaps even tax everything as short-term cap gains. So now people will never sell. What have you accomplished? Or were you just expressing your emotions and letting others figure out the incredibly complicated logistics of your suggestions?

slt2021 5y ago
people will just title houses in the LLC name and flip LLC's shares. Very easy to avoid stupid tax ideas, a million way to avoid
kazinator 5y ago
> Imagine you're 75, retired, and suddenly your property tax spikes and the house you bought 20 years ago for 150 is now worth 750K, and now you're on the hook for 30K. Easily solved by not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence. I'd go easy on two-property people; some people need two places for various reasons, and they occupy both. The tax rules can be crafted such that heavy penalties are imposed on people with three or more properties, and on house flipping activity. Only reason you don't see more of that is because, doh, the rules are written by the rich. The politicians themselves or their rich chums are doing a lot of that speculating.
- atweiden 5y ago
  > Easily solved by not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence. This would discourage individuals from renting out their property for a small profit, which is exactly what you want to see more of to increase affordability (and liveability — not everyone likes renting from big investment firms and property management companies).
  - kazinator 5y ago
    No, someone renting out their one property, which is their primary residence, does not increase affordability. That is because they themselves have to live somewhere. If they have to rent, then what have we achieved? Harassing these people is entirely regressive. People doing something entirely normal, like buying a place and living in it, are not the root cause of any problem. (OK, I've heard of the practice of sleeping under the desk at work and using the company kitchen and shower, while AirBnB'ing your apartment for $. Good luck with that if you have a family.)
    - atweiden 5y ago
      Making it costlier to own a second or third property discourages small time investors from renting out those properties, which decreases the availability of rental units, and raises rents. Alternatively, and worse still, it might erode profit margins such that rentals become exclusively the domain of big investment firms. How is this of benefit to ordinary renters?
      - kazinator 5y ago
        My remark about "not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence" doesn't say anything about second or third property owners. I'm against harassing two-property owners with taxes and even three. Some people have reasons for living in two places and don't want to rent: they have their things there. (I think I said something to that effect in my original comment.) I'm with you about the undesirability of these investment firms who hog up properties; the tax structure could easily be set up to squeeze them out, while encouraging the small owner rentals: people who have two or three places. These firms are basically parasites who contribute to the housing problem as much as home flipping speculators. It should be entirely unprofitable for someone to have like twelve properties. We simply cannot have that in cities where affordability is spiraling out of control. Maybe once upon a time chains of managed condo buildings and such owned by big companies wasn't a problem; it could be high time to crack down on it.
        5y ago
koolba 5y ago
> So that's out. Nobody is entitled to live in the same space forever. It’s perfectly reasonable and expected for for someone on a fixed income to sell their appreciated home rather than paying the higher upkeep. If the value proposition makes sense for someone with a higher income then they’ll fill the void. If not, the price will drop and it will all adjust anyway. The alternative is to end up like CA and we all know the shit show that has become.
- mancerayder 5y ago
  That's black and white thinking, though. The answer isn't "freeze taxes forever v. kick the grandparents out by making their taxes go up faster than their social security checks."
- 14 5y ago
  Exactly. Around here say you get old and need a nursing home they(public health) will asses all you own. If you have a house they will say gosh we are very sorry. It looks like you own a house, a boat, a property or what ever and this guy over here has nothing. You can afford private care so look into that. The public spaces goes to those who most need it and if you have assets then you don’t need it you can pay elsewhere. They say but that isn’t fair I saved my whole life and was going to give my assets to my children. Who cares not public health. I’ve seen this countless times working in a care home. They are told to sell their house and pay for their own bills while the broke person is subsidized. The secret is to give your children your assets before you need to ask for help or expect to be told to look for private care. Private care is about $6000-$10000 per month. Once you spend all your money you now qualify for subsidized care.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > The secret is to give your children your assets before you need to ask for help or expect to be told to look for private care. Private care is about $6000-$10000 per month. Once you spend all your money you now qualify for subsidized care. The Medicaid look back period for assets is five years. The real “trick” is to have kids, raise them right, and then get old knowing that they’ll do what’s right. Whether that’s taking you in, putting you in a home, or kicking you to the curb is all a matter of what you teach them.
mcny 5y ago
» Imagine you're 75, retired, and suddenly your property tax spikes and the house you bought 20 years ago for 150 is now worth 750K, and now you're on the hook for 30K. I propose a complete overhaul to this tax. We make this tax a federal tax, no exclusion allowed for any reason. Increase this tax rate to about 8% of the property value meaning if the property is worth USD 1M, you owe USD 80k in property tax each year. No exclusions for anyone. Walmart pays. Megachurches pay. Amazon.com pays. Yes, even the state capitol pays and public schools pays. Now, to make the math work, we must make a calculation we revise each year. What is the median price of a two bedroom unit in the nation? Every adult gets this allowance for the year. Ideally, this more than offsets the cost of the property tax for this person. If it doesn't, the person is responsible for the difference. The beauty of this scheme is every building pays and failure to pay for about five to ten years is enough to confiscate the property and put it back in circulation. Everyone has some money for housing. If some place is too expensive, move elsewhere and make money.
- ericmay 5y ago
  For “homes I live in” $80,000 is far too much but locking in property taxes (non-transferable) at time of purchase seems to ale sense to me. $80,000 is what, twice the median income?
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    Isn't this how we got into the situation in California?
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Well not entirely and there are a lot of factors. One quick thing id mention is this should apply to residential dwellings only. I’ve heard stories (rumors?) of places like golf courses being locked into low property taxes too which isn’t great. But you don’t want to kick someone out of a house they bought because property taxes went up. That property taxes have increased so much that this is even possible is concerning. They shouldn’t go up that much. The housing issues in California come down to regulation making it expensive and difficult to build, and just way too many people wanting to move somewhere with some of the best weather and natural features and jobs in the world. That California is inherently expensive shouldn’t be controversial or surprising.
Glyptodon 5y ago
I don't see what's wrong with incentivizing old people move to LOCL areas.

slt2021 5y ago

people will just title houses in the LLC name and flip LLC's shares. Very easy to avoid stupid tax ideas, a million way to avoid

kazinator 5y ago

> Imagine you're 75, retired, and suddenly your property tax spikes and the house you bought 20 years ago for 150 is now worth 750K, and now you're on the hook for 30K. Easily solved by not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence. I'd go easy on two-property people; some people need two places for various reasons, and they occupy both. The tax rules can be crafted such that heavy penalties are imposed on people with three or more properties, and on house flipping activity. Only reason you don't see more of that is because, doh, the rules are written by the rich. The politicians themselves or their rich chums are doing a lot of that speculating.

atweiden 5y ago
> Easily solved by not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence. This would discourage individuals from renting out their property for a small profit, which is exactly what you want to see more of to increase affordability (and liveability — not everyone likes renting from big investment firms and property management companies).
- kazinator 5y ago
  No, someone renting out their one property, which is their primary residence, does not increase affordability. That is because they themselves have to live somewhere. If they have to rent, then what have we achieved? Harassing these people is entirely regressive. People doing something entirely normal, like buying a place and living in it, are not the root cause of any problem. (OK, I've heard of the practice of sleeping under the desk at work and using the company kitchen and shower, while AirBnB'ing your apartment for $. Good luck with that if you have a family.)
  - atweiden 5y ago
    Making it costlier to own a second or third property discourages small time investors from renting out those properties, which decreases the availability of rental units, and raises rents. Alternatively, and worse still, it might erode profit margins such that rentals become exclusively the domain of big investment firms. How is this of benefit to ordinary renters?
    - kazinator 5y ago
      My remark about "not hitting people who own one property which is their primary residence" doesn't say anything about second or third property owners. I'm against harassing two-property owners with taxes and even three. Some people have reasons for living in two places and don't want to rent: they have their things there. (I think I said something to that effect in my original comment.) I'm with you about the undesirability of these investment firms who hog up properties; the tax structure could easily be set up to squeeze them out, while encouraging the small owner rentals: people who have two or three places. These firms are basically parasites who contribute to the housing problem as much as home flipping speculators. It should be entirely unprofitable for someone to have like twelve properties. We simply cannot have that in cities where affordability is spiraling out of control. Maybe once upon a time chains of managed condo buildings and such owned by big companies wasn't a problem; it could be high time to crack down on it.
      - 5y ago

koolba 5y ago

> So that's out. Nobody is entitled to live in the same space forever. It’s perfectly reasonable and expected for for someone on a fixed income to sell their appreciated home rather than paying the higher upkeep. If the value proposition makes sense for someone with a higher income then they’ll fill the void. If not, the price will drop and it will all adjust anyway. The alternative is to end up like CA and we all know the shit show that has become.

mancerayder 5y ago
That's black and white thinking, though. The answer isn't "freeze taxes forever v. kick the grandparents out by making their taxes go up faster than their social security checks."
14 5y ago
Exactly. Around here say you get old and need a nursing home they(public health) will asses all you own. If you have a house they will say gosh we are very sorry. It looks like you own a house, a boat, a property or what ever and this guy over here has nothing. You can afford private care so look into that. The public spaces goes to those who most need it and if you have assets then you don’t need it you can pay elsewhere. They say but that isn’t fair I saved my whole life and was going to give my assets to my children. Who cares not public health. I’ve seen this countless times working in a care home. They are told to sell their house and pay for their own bills while the broke person is subsidized. The secret is to give your children your assets before you need to ask for help or expect to be told to look for private care. Private care is about $6000-$10000 per month. Once you spend all your money you now qualify for subsidized care.
- koolba 5y ago
  > The secret is to give your children your assets before you need to ask for help or expect to be told to look for private care. Private care is about $6000-$10000 per month. Once you spend all your money you now qualify for subsidized care. The Medicaid look back period for assets is five years. The real “trick” is to have kids, raise them right, and then get old knowing that they’ll do what’s right. Whether that’s taking you in, putting you in a home, or kicking you to the curb is all a matter of what you teach them.

mcny 5y ago

» Imagine you're 75, retired, and suddenly your property tax spikes and the house you bought 20 years ago for 150 is now worth 750K, and now you're on the hook for 30K. I propose a complete overhaul to this tax. We make this tax a federal tax, no exclusion allowed for any reason. Increase this tax rate to about 8% of the property value meaning if the property is worth USD 1M, you owe USD 80k in property tax each year. No exclusions for anyone. Walmart pays. Megachurches pay. Amazon.com pays. Yes, even the state capitol pays and public schools pays. Now, to make the math work, we must make a calculation we revise each year. What is the median price of a two bedroom unit in the nation? Every adult gets this allowance for the year. Ideally, this more than offsets the cost of the property tax for this person. If it doesn't, the person is responsible for the difference. The beauty of this scheme is every building pays and failure to pay for about five to ten years is enough to confiscate the property and put it back in circulation. Everyone has some money for housing. If some place is too expensive, move elsewhere and make money.

ericmay 5y ago
For “homes I live in” $80,000 is far too much but locking in property taxes (non-transferable) at time of purchase seems to ale sense to me. $80,000 is what, twice the median income?
- t-writescode 5y ago
  Isn't this how we got into the situation in California?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Well not entirely and there are a lot of factors. One quick thing id mention is this should apply to residential dwellings only. I’ve heard stories (rumors?) of places like golf courses being locked into low property taxes too which isn’t great. But you don’t want to kick someone out of a house they bought because property taxes went up. That property taxes have increased so much that this is even possible is concerning. They shouldn’t go up that much. The housing issues in California come down to regulation making it expensive and difficult to build, and just way too many people wanting to move somewhere with some of the best weather and natural features and jobs in the world. That California is inherently expensive shouldn’t be controversial or surprising.

Glyptodon 5y ago

I don't see what's wrong with incentivizing old people move to LOCL areas.