3 ms·
I never understood this argument. People are not priced out of their homes. Their homes are rising in prices so they actually have assets to match the price inc
by cycomanic 4y ago
I never understood this argument. People are not priced out of their homes. Their homes are rising in prices so they actually have assets to match the price increase. Yes they might not be able to afford the tax, but they have a million dollar asset that they could use. The whole point of the tax is to disencent a single person living in a huge house all by themselves.
- pandaman 4y agoThis would only work if the assessed value was the actual price i.e. if the agency making the assessment had been bound to buy the property at the price it has assessed. Of course, if such an obligation existed, the land would not have high value in the first place.
- giantg2 4y agoThe argument is that you shouldn't be forcing people out of their homes. The reason you don't get the argument is that you view people's property as something you should optimize for others, while the people making the argument are believers in strong property rights, especially that they want to be left alone without oppressive government actions. The other half of the argument is that your terms are vague. Not every million dollar house is huge. It could be used to price people out of normal SFH just because the land is zoned in a way that allows higher density housing. You're literally proposing a scheme that views removing people from their homes as beneficial. Your values don't match with others. That's the disconnect. And by the way, that increase in value over the years is because other people want to live in that area. Perhaps we should disincentivize that instead of punishing the people who made it a nice area to live in.