4 ms·

My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research

My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY to ensure that the number they put down is reasonable. Many of them literally can't (ex: my 87 year old Neighbor Phylis doesn't care what her house is worth, because she plans to die in it, and isn't seeking to maximize utility. Instead she wants to pass peacefully in the house she remembers raising her kids in, and has lived in for the last 50 years. She has no car, is in a wheelchair, and uses basically no online services - how is she going to go evaluate the right value for her house?). --- Basically - this plan sounds great for 5 seconds and then you realize people would literally revolt the second you pass it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mring33621 4y ago
"It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY" Every year in Chicago. My house has been, and still is, assessed for 600K over what I paid in Nov. 2021. It had been on the market since 2016, until I bought it. The price I paid is the value of the house. First assessment appeal denied. Second appeal lost in the system. We have to fight against an unfair and arbitrary tax system EVERY year. Now they are going to index the tax rate to inflation. Maybe other communities are under-taxed, but mine is not.
- allenrb 4y ago
  I’m with you, mring33621. Cook Co. is ridiculous. Bought our home (in 2018) just north of Chicago, out of foreclosure. Taxes jumped far beyond what they’d been trying (and failing) to sell for prior to foreclosure. Similar experience last year with an apartment building being valued at more than twice what I’d paid (in rough condition) in an open, arms length transaction literally months earlier. AFAICT, hiring an attorney is the way to go. Then you still have to pay, but much less overall. I’m about 80% convinced that the tax assessors are in it with the appeal attorneys to almost literally write themselves checks. Not that such misdeeds would ever occur in Chicago/Cook…
- monksy 4y ago
  You forgot the major rule. Hire an attorney that has serious connections with the alderman(s) and plays golf with the daileys.
- 8note 4y ago
  what could you sell it for though? what could you mortgage it for? what you paid for it is irrelevant if people are buying the neighboring places for double or triple the price. if it's worth so much more than you think, sell it
  - mring33621 4y ago
    The house was literally for sale to the public since 2016 through end of 2021. If it was worth more than what I paid, someone would have purchased it before I did. This is how free markets work.
at_compile_time 4y ago
The poor widow argument against land value taxes has been a mainstay of the landowning class for over a century. [Winston Churchill had had enough of it back in 1909.](https://web.archive.org/web/20010728120002/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~earthshr/winston.html https://web.archive.org/web/20010728120002/http://home.vicne...) Guaranteeing that people can take up the same space that they did when the population was half its current level is a great way to ensure that future generations have nowhere to live.
- lolinder 4y ago
  The person you're replying to isn't arguing against land value taxes in the abstract, they're arguing against an implementation of LVTs that would force most homeowners to decide between overpaying taxes by a wide margin or suddenly losing their home.
  - raldi 4y ago
    Perhaps I'm not stating the proposal clearly. Nobody would suddenly lose their home. If you understated its value, and someone made an offer, you'd have the opportunity to restate the property's value, keep the home, and pay the appropriate property taxes from then on.
    - krustymeathead 4y ago
      Hypothetically, let's say I owned a modest home. Then, what if a very wealthy person who grew up in that home wanted to buy it for a grand sum of money? In that case, I'd be torn between revaluing my house to a huge amount (that no one except this one person would be willing to pay) and being forced to sell. It's an interesting scenario, because that wealthy person could lower their valuation almost immediately after the sale, since no one else would pay what they paid.
      - raldi 4y ago
        C'mon, even setting aside the fact that the victim here walks away with a giant pile of money, there are countless ways to address this extremely unusual special-case scenario. For instance, you could be free to decline to sell as long as your declared valuation was >= the local neighborhood average.
renewiltord 4y ago
The usual solution to that is a property tax deferral to death or transfer. Phylis would pay nothing, but her estate would be required to. People will revolt anyway. For instance, in California they revolted when we attempted to remove Prop 13 for businesses.
- User23 4y ago
  Eliminating intergenerational wealth transfer among the middle class is an excellent way for the rentier class to maintain a more pliant populace.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Just a casual middle class millionaire renting out my home. Not one of those rentier class assholes.
lmm 4y ago
> My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. People who are hoarding a huge house in a desirable area to do nothing but slowly die in need to be fucked over. They're worse than speculators. > Many of them literally can't (ex: my 87 year old Neighbor Phylis doesn't care what her house is worth, because she plans to die in it, and isn't seeking to maximize utility. Instead she wants to pass peacefully in the house she remembers raising her kids in, and has lived in for the last 50 years. She has no car, is in a wheelchair, and uses basically no online services - how is she going to go evaluate the right value for her house?). She should quote how much someone would have to pay to make it worth her moving out - that's something she should be able to figure out for herself. If she wouldn't move for less than 3 million, quote it at 3 million.
- horsawlarway 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mring33621 4y ago

"It also requires property owners to do EXTENSIVE research and information gathering CONSTANTLY" Every year in Chicago. My house has been, and still is, assessed for 600K over what I paid in Nov. 2021. It had been on the market since 2016, until I bought it. The price I paid is the value of the house. First assessment appeal denied. Second appeal lost in the system. We have to fight against an unfair and arbitrary tax system EVERY year. Now they are going to index the tax rate to inflation. Maybe other communities are under-taxed, but mine is not.

allenrb 4y ago
I’m with you, mring33621. Cook Co. is ridiculous. Bought our home (in 2018) just north of Chicago, out of foreclosure. Taxes jumped far beyond what they’d been trying (and failing) to sell for prior to foreclosure. Similar experience last year with an apartment building being valued at more than twice what I’d paid (in rough condition) in an open, arms length transaction literally months earlier. AFAICT, hiring an attorney is the way to go. Then you still have to pay, but much less overall. I’m about 80% convinced that the tax assessors are in it with the appeal attorneys to almost literally write themselves checks. Not that such misdeeds would ever occur in Chicago/Cook…
monksy 4y ago
You forgot the major rule. Hire an attorney that has serious connections with the alderman(s) and plays golf with the daileys.
8note 4y ago
what could you sell it for though? what could you mortgage it for? what you paid for it is irrelevant if people are buying the neighboring places for double or triple the price. if it's worth so much more than you think, sell it
- mring33621 4y ago
  The house was literally for sale to the public since 2016 through end of 2021. If it was worth more than what I paid, someone would have purchased it before I did. This is how free markets work.

at_compile_time 4y ago

The poor widow argument against land value taxes has been a mainstay of the landowning class for over a century. [Winston Churchill had had enough of it back in 1909.](https://web.archive.org/web/20010728120002/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~earthshr/winston.html https://web.archive.org/web/20010728120002/http://home.vicne...) Guaranteeing that people can take up the same space that they did when the population was half its current level is a great way to ensure that future generations have nowhere to live.

lolinder 4y ago
The person you're replying to isn't arguing against land value taxes in the abstract, they're arguing against an implementation of LVTs that would force most homeowners to decide between overpaying taxes by a wide margin or suddenly losing their home.
- raldi 4y ago
  Perhaps I'm not stating the proposal clearly. Nobody would suddenly lose their home. If you understated its value, and someone made an offer, you'd have the opportunity to restate the property's value, keep the home, and pay the appropriate property taxes from then on.
  - krustymeathead 4y ago
    Hypothetically, let's say I owned a modest home. Then, what if a very wealthy person who grew up in that home wanted to buy it for a grand sum of money? In that case, I'd be torn between revaluing my house to a huge amount (that no one except this one person would be willing to pay) and being forced to sell. It's an interesting scenario, because that wealthy person could lower their valuation almost immediately after the sale, since no one else would pay what they paid.
    - raldi 4y ago
      C'mon, even setting aside the fact that the victim here walks away with a giant pile of money, there are countless ways to address this extremely unusual special-case scenario. For instance, you could be free to decline to sell as long as your declared valuation was >= the local neighborhood average.

renewiltord 4y ago

The usual solution to that is a property tax deferral to death or transfer. Phylis would pay nothing, but her estate would be required to. People will revolt anyway. For instance, in California they revolted when we attempted to remove Prop 13 for businesses.

User23 4y ago
Eliminating intergenerational wealth transfer among the middle class is an excellent way for the rentier class to maintain a more pliant populace.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Just a casual middle class millionaire renting out my home. Not one of those rentier class assholes.

lmm 4y ago

> My strong suspicion is that this will completely fuck over the elderly and marginalized communities. People who are hoarding a huge house in a desirable area to do nothing but slowly die in need to be fucked over. They're worse than speculators. > Many of them literally can't (ex: my 87 year old Neighbor Phylis doesn't care what her house is worth, because she plans to die in it, and isn't seeking to maximize utility. Instead she wants to pass peacefully in the house she remembers raising her kids in, and has lived in for the last 50 years. She has no car, is in a wheelchair, and uses basically no online services - how is she going to go evaluate the right value for her house?). She should quote how much someone would have to pay to make it worth her moving out - that's something she should be able to figure out for herself. If she wouldn't move for less than 3 million, quote it at 3 million.

horsawlarway 4y ago