3 ms·

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

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.

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.