4 ms·

We’re talking about wealth, not money. If you buy a house $1M and a few years later it’s worth $1.4M, your wealth went up by $400k but it’s hardly taxeable unle

by hk__2 3y ago

We’re talking about wealth, not money. If you buy a house $1M and a few years later it’s worth $1.4M, your wealth went up by $400k but it’s hardly taxeable unless you sell the house.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Reubachi 3y ago
Ha. Maybe not a problem for rich people who have the ability to obfuscate local laws, mandatory appraisals, and inspections until they sell their property. Me? A person who actually lives in the property and NEEDS to comply? MY home certainly is a tax burden on me when every single year it's taxable value is reassessed by the county for 20 percent more, requiring immediate and prompt payment before it's lien'd. Such a joke.
- Guvante 3y ago
  I feel like you are overselling a bit. Property tax needs to be very delinquent to trigger a foreclosure and a lien doesn't matter unless you sell the property. Also in my experience there has been a relatively painless path to challenge the assessment. Although I have never seen an example where the $400 appraisal is worth paying to do so.
  - Reubachi 3y ago
    Neither of your statements make me feel better about the problem that greatly affects my life. Sure, I need to be marked as a deliquent debtor (somehow) for my property to be taken away from me. And sure, every year, I can pay the department of revenue an appraisal fee to undo the arbitrary decision to increase my tax responsibility. How about though, we force municipalities and departments of revenues to actually examine the assessment, reassessments, and economic impact? The idea that my home, the land it sits on, an the unconscious value associated with it is worth 40 percent more to other homebuyers is absolutely laughable Very shortly ,my town will have population 0 with the only commercial land being the giant paper factory owned by a chinese paper congolomerate with a stranglehold over shipping products.
- __loam 3y ago
  I think something like 45% of house sales in the US went to corporate investors last year. Land speculators are a plague. They also cause problems like this because their goal is the appreciation of the assets, not necessarily to live in houses.
undersuit 3y ago
Houses... like many assets can be leveraged. One of the ways to take advantage of your wealth increasing 43% is to take out a loan with your wealth as leverage and if your wealth increases another 43% in value next year you're happy that you only pay 1-7% interest on the loan and not 15-25% in capital gains taxation.
jzb 3y ago
Fair enough - raise it to anything over $100M then. Absolutely nobody needs more than that, and it's a policy failure that people are able to amass that kind of money - especially when it's often then deployed to help shape public policy to funnel more wealth their way.
- cdiamand 3y ago
  Let's say an (extremely) successful businessman wants to create a new business that requires a 250m investment to launch. Wouldn't this prevent that individual from starting the business?
  - jzb 3y ago
    If they can't secure loans for it, I suppose it would. Do I think the loss of the ability of extremely successful businessperson to independently launch a business that needs $250m up-front is a huge loss to society? No.
    - cdiamand 3y ago
      So in this case we would be eliminating the power of the individual to undertake large, risky undertakings that would provide a net benefit to society. Now you'd have to cobble together a group of investors, but if you can't find people who don't understand your vision, you're out of luck. Or you could go to a bank, so now the banks have more power, but they probably won't invest in your risky idea anyway. Okay so I guess, now it's up to the government to undertake this large risky project? Great. I don't know, I like the fact that motivated individuals can take a large amount of their own capital and take on large projects.
      - asadotzler 3y ago
        That one or two motivated billionaires start interesting businesses every once in a while is justification for an economic system hundreds of thousands die because of the resulting poverty? 2016 Study: A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimated that approximately 133,000 deaths in the US annually are attributable to poverty. 2019 Study: A report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggested that around 300,000 deaths could be linked to social factors like poverty and lack of access to healthcare. 2020 Report: The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that roughly 136,000 deaths in 2018 were associated with poverty-related factors like lack of access to healthcare and healthy food. Your "please think of the rich guys" argument holds no sway with me.

by hk__2 3y ago

We’re talking about wealth, not money. If you buy a house $1M and a few years later it’s worth $1.4M, your wealth went up by $400k but it’s hardly taxeable unless you sell the house.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Reubachi 3y ago

Ha. Maybe not a problem for rich people who have the ability to obfuscate local laws, mandatory appraisals, and inspections until they sell their property. Me? A person who actually lives in the property and NEEDS to comply? MY home certainly is a tax burden on me when every single year it's taxable value is reassessed by the county for 20 percent more, requiring immediate and prompt payment before it's lien'd. Such a joke.

Guvante 3y ago
I feel like you are overselling a bit. Property tax needs to be very delinquent to trigger a foreclosure and a lien doesn't matter unless you sell the property. Also in my experience there has been a relatively painless path to challenge the assessment. Although I have never seen an example where the $400 appraisal is worth paying to do so.
- Reubachi 3y ago
  Neither of your statements make me feel better about the problem that greatly affects my life. Sure, I need to be marked as a deliquent debtor (somehow) for my property to be taken away from me. And sure, every year, I can pay the department of revenue an appraisal fee to undo the arbitrary decision to increase my tax responsibility. How about though, we force municipalities and departments of revenues to actually examine the assessment, reassessments, and economic impact? The idea that my home, the land it sits on, an the unconscious value associated with it is worth 40 percent more to other homebuyers is absolutely laughable Very shortly ,my town will have population 0 with the only commercial land being the giant paper factory owned by a chinese paper congolomerate with a stranglehold over shipping products.
__loam 3y ago
I think something like 45% of house sales in the US went to corporate investors last year. Land speculators are a plague. They also cause problems like this because their goal is the appreciation of the assets, not necessarily to live in houses.

undersuit 3y ago

Houses... like many assets can be leveraged. One of the ways to take advantage of your wealth increasing 43% is to take out a loan with your wealth as leverage and if your wealth increases another 43% in value next year you're happy that you only pay 1-7% interest on the loan and not 15-25% in capital gains taxation.

jzb 3y ago

Fair enough - raise it to anything over $100M then. Absolutely nobody needs more than that, and it's a policy failure that people are able to amass that kind of money - especially when it's often then deployed to help shape public policy to funnel more wealth their way.

cdiamand 3y ago
Let's say an (extremely) successful businessman wants to create a new business that requires a 250m investment to launch. Wouldn't this prevent that individual from starting the business?
- jzb 3y ago
  If they can't secure loans for it, I suppose it would. Do I think the loss of the ability of extremely successful businessperson to independently launch a business that needs $250m up-front is a huge loss to society? No.
  - cdiamand 3y ago
    So in this case we would be eliminating the power of the individual to undertake large, risky undertakings that would provide a net benefit to society. Now you'd have to cobble together a group of investors, but if you can't find people who don't understand your vision, you're out of luck. Or you could go to a bank, so now the banks have more power, but they probably won't invest in your risky idea anyway. Okay so I guess, now it's up to the government to undertake this large risky project? Great. I don't know, I like the fact that motivated individuals can take a large amount of their own capital and take on large projects.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      That one or two motivated billionaires start interesting businesses every once in a while is justification for an economic system hundreds of thousands die because of the resulting poverty? 2016 Study: A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimated that approximately 133,000 deaths in the US annually are attributable to poverty. 2019 Study: A report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggested that around 300,000 deaths could be linked to social factors like poverty and lack of access to healthcare. 2020 Report: The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that roughly 136,000 deaths in 2018 were associated with poverty-related factors like lack of access to healthcare and healthy food. Your "please think of the rich guys" argument holds no sway with me.