4 ms·
this is a far better situation than rich neighbors moving in next to a lower-middle-class family and driving them out of the neighborhood by bringing up the ass
by dnautics 5y ago
this is a far better situation than rich neighbors moving in next to a lower-middle-class family and driving them out of the neighborhood by bringing up the assessed value.
- _dain_ 5y agoSince rich people are rare, by definition this wouldn't happen very often. Unlike with the current situation in California where it happens _everywhere_. And such a lower middle class family would still be selling their house at a higher value than for which they bought it, so it's hard to see how they are being robbed. And don't you think it's funny: we can't have rich people moving here because that would drive up land taxes, and we can't have poor people moving here because that would drive down the total resale value. I guess people should only be allowed to live among their exact socioeconomic equals ...
- dnautics 5y agoyou're neglecting the important asymmetry. If we fail to tax a rich person, it doesn't actively hurt someone, it may passively prevent some people (who would have wanted to move in) from having an easier time with certain life-paths. If you eject a middle class person from their home, you are actively forcing them to find a new life-path. Suppose that lower-middle class person is a mobility-challenged elderly person on a fixed income that is already being eaten away by inflation. Yes, sure, they get to sell their house at a high mark to market, but they have to suffer the hassle of finding a new place, which at best is equivalent quality minus income tax on LTCG, on an eroding deadline. That is a really shitty situation to be in. > this wouldn't happen very often Then, I suppose we would have no reason for the term "gentrification", if it's that damn rare.