3 ms·
>Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years. No, you wouldn't. You could have t
by ramesh31 3y ago
>Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years.
No, you wouldn't. You could have taken out a HELOC for a tiny portion of your appreciation over those years to pay your fair share of taxes, the way people do in literally every other state.
Glad you got yours, though.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eweise 3y agoFunny I never thought my neighbors weren't paying their fair share when I bought in. Figured the rule has been there since the 70s and applies to everyone equally (well except I'm over 55 and can now keep my current tax basis to the next house I buy) I'll pay taxes on the appreciation when I sell so the government will get theirs. Should I also only carry a variable rate mortgage so that I pay whatever a new home buyer pays? Should the government spend whatever they take in even if their costs haven't increased with home values? Sorry home ownership is not affordable. It hasn't been in California since the late 90s. I threw 20 years of savings at mine so I could have a reasonable mortgage. I actually would be better off financially if I had put that money in the stock market. Now with remote work, you don't have to live near a work center, opening tons of location possibilities. I wish that happened before I bought.