4 ms·

I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by

I'm not following. Postponing those taxes doesn't mean they don't need to get paid. I quickly googled it and saw "The deferment of property taxes is secured by a lien against the property which must eventually be repaid." Which sounds like a recipe for... grandpa dies, grandma can't pay property taxes so defers it for 10 years. Grandma dies and whoever inherits the home needs to be pay a massive deferment (unaffordable?) or give up the home.

refurb 4y ago
Right. Seems reasonable no? Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.
- 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
  The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home? It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.
  - jonas21 4y ago
    Yes, that's the point of postponing the taxes. The retiree can live out their remaining life in the home, and the taxes are due when their heirs inherit it.
    - 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
      Yea I guess that makes sense. Although inheritance is a change of ownership and the new owner would see the home re-assessed, no? The other issue I see is that the deferment program is limited to very low income seniors (< $35k year or something like that). That's pretty low for a lot of places in the Bay Area which means not being able to go on road trips and do whatever it is seniors do in their twilight years.
      - jdeibele 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 "1986 Proposition 58 Proposition 58 allowed homeowners to transfer their principal residence to children without a property tax re-assessment, as well as the first $1 million (not indexed to inflation) in assessed value of other real property." Of course if the homeowner has more than one child it could get messy
  - librish 4y ago
    Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.
    - eropple 4y ago
      This is a bad situation if you want long-term neighborhood and cultural cohesion, though, because it encourages turnover (particularly among less affluent groups).
      - refurb 4y ago
        I mean if people can defer taxes until they die you’re not increasing turnover at all.
        eropple 4y ago
        There's value to generational continuity, though--again, particularly for marginalized communities. One of the ways gentrification makes its way in is during these kinds of estate liquidations. I think it's reasonable to assert that there's value in not fracturing those communities any more than is necessary.
        refurb 4y ago
        Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Honestly I have trouble summoning up much pity for people whose face a property tax burden because their homes have doubled or tripled in value.
        eropple 4y ago
        > Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Illiquid property value isn't the same thing as having money, so...yes? I mean, if you want every neighborhood in every urban area to be tech and finance bros, maybe this is a good idea, but most people would disagree with the premise you're pushing.
- foogazi 4y ago
  If someone buys my neighbor’s house for 2X what I paid for mine, why should I pay more in taxes ?
  - leetcrew 4y ago
    because property tax is based on the value of the property, and your property is worth more too? a different way of phrasing the question: is it fair that your new neighbor pays twice as much as you to support city services, just because they bought their place more recently?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - foogazi 4y ago
      > is it fair that your new neighbor pays twice as much as you to support city services, just because they bought their place more recently? My neighbor paying 2x what I paid has no effect on the cost of city services
  - refurb 4y ago
    Because your house is now more valuable and as a general rule progressive taxes are best where those with more money pay more tax.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      My house going up or down in value doesn’t make me richer or poorer I could see the point of your argument if I sell and make a profit - but before I do that my QOL within my house is not affected
      - refurb 4y ago
        Of course it means you’re richer. Wealth = assets minus liabilities

refurb 4y ago

Right. Seems reasonable no? Not sure where this bizarre idea came about that people whose houses dramatically increase in value should:1) be able to avoid paying taxes on that value and 2) pass the house down, in whole, to their heirs without paying increased taxes.

0xFACEFEED 4y ago
The idea doesn't sound that bizarre to me. I'm not an expert or anything but as people grow older their earning potential slows down too. What if the neighborhood grows in value even though the retired homeowner hasn't made any changes to their home? It sounds reasonable to me that a retiree with a conservative investment portfolio that is barely over/under inflation should be able to live out their remaining life in that home.
- jonas21 4y ago
  Yes, that's the point of postponing the taxes. The retiree can live out their remaining life in the home, and the taxes are due when their heirs inherit it.
  - 0xFACEFEED 4y ago
    Yea I guess that makes sense. Although inheritance is a change of ownership and the new owner would see the home re-assessed, no? The other issue I see is that the deferment program is limited to very low income seniors (< $35k year or something like that). That's pretty low for a lot of places in the Bay Area which means not being able to go on road trips and do whatever it is seniors do in their twilight years.
    - jdeibele 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 "1986 Proposition 58 Proposition 58 allowed homeowners to transfer their principal residence to children without a property tax re-assessment, as well as the first $1 million (not indexed to inflation) in assessed value of other real property." Of course if the homeowner has more than one child it could get messy
- librish 4y ago
  Yes that's the idea? They get to live out the rest of their years, and then their heirs pay the deferred taxes, selling the house if needed.
  - eropple 4y ago
    This is a bad situation if you want long-term neighborhood and cultural cohesion, though, because it encourages turnover (particularly among less affluent groups).
    - refurb 4y ago
      I mean if people can defer taxes until they die you’re not increasing turnover at all.
      - eropple 4y ago
        There's value to generational continuity, though--again, particularly for marginalized communities. One of the ways gentrification makes its way in is during these kinds of estate liquidations. I think it's reasonable to assert that there's value in not fracturing those communities any more than is necessary.
        refurb 4y ago
        Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Honestly I have trouble summoning up much pity for people whose face a property tax burden because their homes have doubled or tripled in value.
        eropple 4y ago
        > Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Illiquid property value isn't the same thing as having money, so...yes? I mean, if you want every neighborhood in every urban area to be tech and finance bros, maybe this is a good idea, but most people would disagree with the premise you're pushing.
foogazi 4y ago
If someone buys my neighbor’s house for 2X what I paid for mine, why should I pay more in taxes ?
- leetcrew 4y ago
  because property tax is based on the value of the property, and your property is worth more too? a different way of phrasing the question: is it fair that your new neighbor pays twice as much as you to support city services, just because they bought their place more recently?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - foogazi 4y ago
    > is it fair that your new neighbor pays twice as much as you to support city services, just because they bought their place more recently? My neighbor paying 2x what I paid has no effect on the cost of city services
- refurb 4y ago
  Because your house is now more valuable and as a general rule progressive taxes are best where those with more money pay more tax.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    My house going up or down in value doesn’t make me richer or poorer I could see the point of your argument if I sell and make a profit - but before I do that my QOL within my house is not affected
    - refurb 4y ago
      Of course it means you’re richer. Wealth = assets minus liabilities