2 ms·

Honestly I think this one is totally fair. I would even go further and say that property tax you pay on your house should be capped at what you're paying on the

by Spivak 3y ago

Honestly I think this one is totally fair. I would even go further and say that property tax you pay on your house should be capped at what you're paying on the day you bought it. And even further we should just get rid of property taxes and collect it via income. We don't tax unrealized gains except for property and doubly because you can't just sell 20% of your house to pay the taxes. Owning your home is meaningless if you can be priced out of it while just living there. Making people come up with money because they have an asset that can't be readily turned into money is silly when you can just tax money.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
If you shouldn’t have to pay more in property tax, then why should you be a me to realize corresponding gains on the sale price, above inflation? After all, that has very little to do with whatever the owner does in HCOL areas, but is instead drive by the total economic activity that occurs around them. Home ownership is also meaningless if more and more people are locked out of it based on the premises of “fuck you I got mine (20 years ago)”.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Those gains are taxed (minus the exemptions, which perhaps are too generous). Part of that is to prevent the “I can’t move from my house to the identical one across the street because of taxes” issue.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    For all practical purposes, the majority of people do not pay taxes on those gains and they’re easily dodged through a variety of mechanisms.
SeanAnderson 3y ago
It's not entirely meaningless. You have a place you can modify to your desire as long as it's allowed by the law and you're earning equity instead of paying it to a lord. Quit exaggerating. California's laws allow for tax to not reset when passing houses down through inheritance, too. Do you feel this is also fair?
- Spivak 3y ago
  Earning equity just means I own it, that not a benefit that's the definition of ownership. Do you not view your government as the acting lord demanding recurring money to continue owning the thing you own? And yes for inheritance because I don't consider inheritance to be a transfer of property in any meaningful sense. The person who inherits my house didn't buy it, they don't have to get a new mortgage, and they deserve to continue having the property on the same terms I did. I don't think any inheritance should be taxed outside the regular taxes on income. And more broadly people should be able to and actively encouraged to build generational wealth. It's silly that the typical experience is kids starting new families from near nothing.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Nevada offered Allodial title for awhile. I agree property taxes are inherently problematic and potentially even dangerously unjust - they are one of the few major taxes that continue even after income has ceased. We (usually) don’t tax food because it’s “necessary” and then tax houses? The “homestead” exemption is usually a farce. I could be convinced that a 0% property tax on dwelling units, owner occupied (with reasonable limits to prevent Elon Tesla from living in his factory) and instead applied against commercial property would be fine. Could also reduce the expanding “all housing” suburbs.
  - SeanAnderson 3y ago
    These seem like wild takes to me, but thanks for sharing your opinions on them, it gave me another perspective to think on a bit.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    Of course inheritence is a transfer of property, in the only meaningful sense!
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Literally yes because that the framework the law provides to conceptualize it but we build in so many exceptions because folks don't really consider it to be one. We don't have a good way to express familial ownership. All my stuff isn't owned by me, not really, it's owned by a line of succession. My wife isn't being given my stuff if I die it always was hers, she's next in line and so on.
sagarm 3y ago
If it's unfair to tax unrealized gains from owning property, then surely it's even more unfair to tax actual work?

by Spivak 3y ago

bugglebeetle 3y ago

If you shouldn’t have to pay more in property tax, then why should you be a me to realize corresponding gains on the sale price, above inflation? After all, that has very little to do with whatever the owner does in HCOL areas, but is instead drive by the total economic activity that occurs around them. Home ownership is also meaningless if more and more people are locked out of it based on the premises of “fuck you I got mine (20 years ago)”.

bombcar 3y ago
Those gains are taxed (minus the exemptions, which perhaps are too generous). Part of that is to prevent the “I can’t move from my house to the identical one across the street because of taxes” issue.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  For all practical purposes, the majority of people do not pay taxes on those gains and they’re easily dodged through a variety of mechanisms.

SeanAnderson 3y ago

It's not entirely meaningless. You have a place you can modify to your desire as long as it's allowed by the law and you're earning equity instead of paying it to a lord. Quit exaggerating. California's laws allow for tax to not reset when passing houses down through inheritance, too. Do you feel this is also fair?

Spivak 3y ago
Earning equity just means I own it, that not a benefit that's the definition of ownership. Do you not view your government as the acting lord demanding recurring money to continue owning the thing you own? And yes for inheritance because I don't consider inheritance to be a transfer of property in any meaningful sense. The person who inherits my house didn't buy it, they don't have to get a new mortgage, and they deserve to continue having the property on the same terms I did. I don't think any inheritance should be taxed outside the regular taxes on income. And more broadly people should be able to and actively encouraged to build generational wealth. It's silly that the typical experience is kids starting new families from near nothing.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Nevada offered Allodial title for awhile. I agree property taxes are inherently problematic and potentially even dangerously unjust - they are one of the few major taxes that continue even after income has ceased. We (usually) don’t tax food because it’s “necessary” and then tax houses? The “homestead” exemption is usually a farce. I could be convinced that a 0% property tax on dwelling units, owner occupied (with reasonable limits to prevent Elon Tesla from living in his factory) and instead applied against commercial property would be fine. Could also reduce the expanding “all housing” suburbs.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  These seem like wild takes to me, but thanks for sharing your opinions on them, it gave me another perspective to think on a bit.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  Of course inheritence is a transfer of property, in the only meaningful sense!
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Literally yes because that the framework the law provides to conceptualize it but we build in so many exceptions because folks don't really consider it to be one. We don't have a good way to express familial ownership. All my stuff isn't owned by me, not really, it's owned by a line of succession. My wife isn't being given my stuff if I die it always was hers, she's next in line and so on.

sagarm 3y ago

If it's unfair to tax unrealized gains from owning property, then surely it's even more unfair to tax actual work?